Old Oak Common - Queens Park tunnel

In my last post I laid out the Shared Loop option for Old Oak Common. This post expands on that option, so if you haven't read it yet, please do!

Shared Loop option

The previous blog outlines a plan for Old Oak Common that is relatively cheap and far more effective than the 3 current options TfL has presented. The plan developed in three phases, resulting in a final phase that yields much more spare land for development.

This is an updated version of phase 3, with two additional freight lines (to retain freight capacity) and a realignment of the Dudding Hill station (to avoid the tall cranes of the freight depot on the south side of the West Coast Main Line):

The service pattern with phase 3 would be something like:

• 8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn
• 6tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn

The plan specifically acknowledged that the Richmond service could access the Old Oak job market and Crossrail, but not HS2 or the Great West Main Line without a change of trains (simply accomplished at Dudding Hill.

Having visited the area, I now outline an additional scheme, the Queens Park tunnel.

Queens Park tunnel

The Queens Park tunnel is intended to be built after the completion of phase 3 of the Shared Loop option once the site is a growing business district. It involves bringing the Richmond (or Hounslow) services into Old Oak Common station via a new link.

This link would run entirely on viaduct above the initial Old Oak Common station. Once through the station, it would drop down on the north side of the Great West Main Line, next to the canal and under the current West London Line bridge. From there it would slowly descend to a new station at the Kensal Gasworks site. Beyond there, it would run in a short tunnel to surface in the builders merchants yard to the west of Queens Park station.

The Queens Park tunnel scheme fully separates the Bakerloo line and the Overground in the Queens Park area. Only the Bakerloo would serve Kensal Green, Willesden Junction, Harlesden and beyond (Crossrail might be required to takeover the Overground route beyond Harrow and Wealdstone). The Overground would run from Old Oak via Kensal Gasworks to Queens Park, then on to Camden Road (replacing the Overground service to Euston. It is likely that this would save at least 10 minutes on the journey time from Camden Road and beyond to Old Oak, and reduce conflicts on the section of the North London Line via West Hampstead.

The service pattern with the Queens Park tunnel would be something like:

• 8tph Crossrail from Paddington via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 2tph Southern from East Croydon via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Watford
• 6tph Overground from Clapham Jn via Old Oak Common, shared loop and Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn
• 8tph Overground from Richmond via Dudding Hill to Queens Park and Camden Road
• 4tph Overground from Hounslow via Dudding Hill to Willesden Jn

While the gradients in the Queens Park tunnel are definitely fine for passenger services, it is uncertain as to whether freight could use the tunnel. It would however be desirable if freight could use the tunnel, as it would provide a direct link to the South and West without going via Willesden Junction.

Summary

This blog post outlines a development beyond the Shared Loop option - the Queens Park tunnel. It must be emphasised that Shared Loop is highly successful as an option without the tunnel. However, it definitely seems worth investigating it, given the capacity and time saving benefits of an express service to Camden Road and separation of the Bakerloo and Overground.

Old Oak Common - Shared Loop option

A new cost-effective phased option for Old Oak Common. See the Central Viaduct option post for more details on the problems of the site and for a more comprehensive, but expensive, option.

This option makes use of the proposed Crossrail to West Coast Main Line (WCML) link, avoiding building a second sharp curve in the South West of the site (as proposed by TfL's option A).

Phase 1

Phase 1 builds on the planned construction of the Crossrail link from Old Oak Common (main) to the West Coast Main Line. Phase 1 of the TfL element simply adds a new viaduct link from the West London Line to the middle two platforms of Old Oak Common (main). This allows Southern services (green) from East Croydon to Milton Keynes to travel via Old Oak in addition to the Crossrail services to Tring.

(Old Oak Common main station is due to have 8 platforms, 4 for Crossrail and 4 for the fast lines. This plan aims to send 4tph of Southern services via the central 2 of the 4 Crossrail platforms. Crossrail 24tph plus Southern 4tph can be handled on 4 platforms.)

Phase 2

Phase 2 builds on phase 1 by constructing a new viaduct across railway lands in the North West of the site. This allows Overground services from Clapham Junction to reach Willesden Junction (two new platforms, north of the Bakerloo ones). This phase allows the existing line in the East to be closed and sold for development:

Phase 3

Phase 3 builds on phase 2 by diverting Overground services from Richmond via the new North Western viaduct. This would be accompanied by a new station in that area to serve the ongoing developments. This phase allows even more existing lines to be closed and sold for development:

Obviously, the final phase does not integrate Richmond services directly with HS2, but it does link it with Crossrail (the Tring services). Linking Richmond into the main Old Oak station would require two more platforms to cope with demand, which is a big ask at this initial stage.

As a final note, all the phases are compatible with extensions to link Old Oak Common to North Acton (and beyond) and to open an Overground route to Brent Cross.

Update 14th October 2014: See the updated phase 3 map here.

Rationale

Section added 28th September 2014.

This option was triggered by the release of the Crossrail to WCML link plans. When you overlay that link and the option A viaduct over Wormwood Scrubs, you have two very similar pieces of infrastructure, just at different levels. The Shared Loop makes no changes to the Crossrail plan save the ability to access the Dudding Hill line in phases 2 and 3 (in reality, some form of grade separation may be needed there).

In terms of vertical alignment, the Shared Loop option involves a simple, low gradient descent from the WLL to the GWML/Crossrail level to use the OOC platforms. This naturally means that it is at the correct level to be able to access the Crossrail WCML link which ends up on a bridge over Victoria Road. From there, the later viaduct runs over the freight depot to Willesden, which probably requires a reconstruction of the Old Oak Common Lane bridge over the WCML (or a higher than originally intended viaduct). I would also note that with increasing land values, the freight depot area could be considered for sale, making that viaduct simper to build (looking forward 10 years).

Finally, a key part of both the Central Viaduct option and this Shared Loop option is the goal of maximising the land available for development. The existing rail lines make the site difficult to access and develop, and fewer rail lines can have a big impact.

Updated plan

Section added 7th December 2014.

I've slightly tweaked the plan to provide more freight capacity, and some more detail. See below:

And some track diagrams:

Summary

This blog outlines an alternate approach to Old Oak Common - the Shared Loop option.

HS2 - West Midlands Express

HS2 phase 1 provides a new railway from London to Birmingham Curzon Street and Lichfield. In the Birmingham area, a new station is also proposed at Birmingham Interchange, north of the current Birmingham International station. This blog examines a way to make best use of the new assets.

West Midlands Express

The new Birmingham Interchange station is deeply flawed as it currently stands. It provides no interchange with any existing public transport, and will rely on a "people mover" solution to connect to the existing Birmingham International station. The practicalities of a people mover mean that passengers from the local area, notably Coventry, will be highly unlikely to use rail to access Birmingham Interchange. This will serve to increase demand on the roads in the area. Not a desirable outcome.

In addition, the new HS2 line fails to provide any real new capacity for travel between Coventry and Birmingham. The current railway is just two tracks between the two cities and carries a slow stopping service for the many intermediate stations. Providing paths for a fast non-stop service in addition to the stopping one is a challenge.

The West Midlands Express proposal is a simple change to HS2 that solves both these problems.

The proposal is to construct two new connections to HS2. The first is from Birmingham Interchange to Coventry, allowing HS2 trains from the north and Birmingham to reach Coventry (the HS2 section around Birmingham Interchange has 4 tracks, so capacity exists for this). The second is from the existing lines east of Birmingham New Street, allowing trains from New Street to reach HS2.

The current service plan for HS2 includes the following: 3tph from Birmingham Curzon Street to London, 3tph from Curzon Street to the westerly leg of phase 2 (Manchester and Glasgow), and 3tph from Curzon Street to the easterly leg of phase 2 (Leeds and Newcastle). This gives a total of 9tph on the Curzon Street branch.

The West Midlands Express proposal would add an additional 3tph service on the Curzon Street branch. Trains would run Wolverhampton - Sandwell & Dudley - Birmingham New Street - Birmingham Interchange - Coventry - Rugby (shown in red). Extensions to Telford, Shrewsbury, Northampton and Leamington would all be possible.

Services would use either classic compatible HS2 trains, or trains similar to the Javelin trains used in Kent. Note that it is likely that trains between Birmingham and Coventry would be no faster than today using this route, as it is longer. However, it is the increased connectivity that is the justification.

The benefits of this service are clear:

1) Passengers from Wolverhampton (and the western West Midlands) to London would have a quick and easy change onto HS2 at Birmingham Interchange, avoiding the long slog between New Street and Curzon Street. They would also have much better access to the North at Interchange.

2) Passengers from Coventry to the North would have a quick and easy change onto HS2 at Birmingham Interchange. This would reduce the need for driving from the Coventry area.

3) Genuine additional capacity is provided between Coventry and Birmingham, with the new HS2 tracks becoming used for regional connections. This would allow an increase in the frequency of the stopping service.

4) The Coventry link provides a location for services from the phase 2 branches to terminate if there is no free path to reach London. This could increase the number of trains using the phase 2 sections, increasing their value.

In effect, the West Midlands Express proposal is similar to ideas already put forward for express services between Glasgow and Edinburgh, and between Liverpool and Manchester. In each case, the goal is to maximise the value obtained from the new railway infrastructure. In this proposal, it is places from Wolverhampton to Coventry to Rugby that would benefit.

Summary

The West Midlands Express proposal is a simple change to HS2, consisting of just two new junctions. Yet it provides greatly enhanced connections to the spine of the West Midlands, changing Birmingham Interchange from an embarrassing car park in a field to the hub of the national and regional network. Coventry and Wolverhampton particularly benefit from the proposal.

If you like the sound of the proposal, why not add a comment!

Old Oak Common - Central Viaduct option

Old Oak Common, where the high-speed HS2 railway meets Crossrail, provides a huge opportunity to create a fantastic transport hub. But Tfl, Network Rail and the DfT are missing the opportunity.

Introduction

The site at Old Oak Common, next to Wormwood Scrubs, is planned under by HS2 Ltd to provide a new station linking the high speed line with Crossrail and the GWML (Great Western Main Line) to Reading and beyond. All trains on HS2 and Crossrail are intended to stop, and potentially every train on the GWML as well.

Current HS2 plans include a station at Old Oak Common. There are to be 6 platforms on HS2, deep within a cut-and-cover box, and 8 platforms on the GWML. The eight would be divided into 4 for Crossrail and 4 for the main line:

On the maps, the Central line is in red, the Bakerloo in brown, HS2 in blue, London Overground in orange, Southern services from East Croydon to Watford in green, Crossrail/GWML in black (across the south side of the site) and the WCML (West Coast Main Line) in black (across the north side of the site). Freight lines are shown in black and a narrower. The base map is taken from an official guide to the regeneration and thus shows future buildings, not current buildings.

However, there are no finalised plans for integration of other railway lines in the area. These include the Central line, the Bakerloo line, the Overground line to Richmond and the Overground line to Clapham Junction. To remedy this, TfL have been working on plans to link the new Old Oak Common station to the Overground.

Unfortunately, TfL's plans are very poor.

TfL have proposed a new line along the south side of the site from North Pole Junction to Acton Wells Junction (see this map for junction names). This line would include a new station, "Old Oak South", parallel to the GWML Old Oak Common station, but separated from it by about 100m. There would also be a new "Old Oak West" station, located just north of Acton Wells junction, a good 400m or more from the HS2/Crossrail station. The line also requires a tight curve on a viaduct and some land take from Wormwood Scrubs itself:

This option (known as 8.2) is very poor, for a number of reasons:

• No direct integration with Old Oak Common station itself
• Passengers from Richmond face a 400-500m walk
• Passengers from Clapham Junction face a 100-200m walk
• No integration with the Central line
• Extended journey times
• Land is required from Wormwood Scrubs
• Minimal land is freed up for development

TfL have also put forward a cheap as chips option (known as X) which does not include the southern station and only includes the western station, forcing passengers on the Overground from Clapham to North London to endure a 10 minute longer journey and a reversal of direction. It is so bad its not even worth covering here.

A better approach

The challenge of Old Oak Common is threefold:

• Allow London Overground services to serve the main hub station
• Continue to provide rail links for freight
• Open up the site for redevelopment by minimising the railway lines

The first is the obvious one - without a good rail connection into the heart of the hub, millions of potential passengers in South West London and beyond will face a much worse experience accessing HS2 than they should. As a result, many will choose to travel to Euston rather than Old Oak Common, overloading Euston's capacity.

The second point is freight. The Old Oak Common area currently supports many links between the various lines, allowing freight to move around the country. These links need to be protected.

The final point is redevelopment. A key rationale for the site is enabling a major redevelopment of the area. Achieving redevelopment is hampered by the presence of lots of railway lines, each requiring bridges and taking up lots of land.

As such, I propose a solution which tackles the three points above, while also providing a link to the Central line:

The plan consists of the following elements:

• Two new "high-level platforms" at Old Oak Common (one island) located directly above the four Crossrail platform
• Direct access from the Overground platform island to both Crossrail platform islands
• A new line from the Overground Richmond line and the Ealing freight line to the high-level platforms
• A new line from North Acton to the high-level platforms
• A new line from the Overground Clapham line to the high-level platforms
• A new line, the "Central Viaduct", from the high-level platforms to the existing Willesden Junction high-level station
• A new link to allow freight from Clapham to reach the North London Line, also used by Southern services from Clapham to Watford
• A new line from the Central Viaduct to the Dudding Hill freight line (in the top left) with a link to the WCML (mostly built across railway land)

The result is a dramatic improvement in the viability of the rail hub.

Overground services from Clapham would run from Shepherds Bush to Old Oak Common and then on to North Acton. Beyond North Acton there a various options (not discussed in detail here) including High Wycombe, Alperton, Uxbridge and West Ealing.

Overground services from Richmond would run from Acton Central to Old Oak Common and then on to Willesden Junction. Passengers travelling from Clapham to Willesden Junction and beyond would have a simple cross-platform change at Old Oak Common.

Southern services would run via the Central Viaduct without stopping at Old Oak Common.

A new Overground service would be possible from Old Oak Common up the Dudding Hill freight line to Neasden and beyond.

A good set of freight links are provided, including a new one from the Dudding Hill line to the West London Line. However the link from Reading to Euston is lost.

So why do I propose this scheme rather than other possibilities?

The key is that, as shown on the map, a large number of railway lines could be removed entirely, opening up the site for redevelopment. In particular, the eastern side is opened up to Scrubs Lane, and the western side is completely opened up between Old Oak Common Lane and Victoria Road.

All that would remain would be a single central viaduct, designed to handle all north-south traffic. And it is that unifying factor that makes the plan work most effectively.

It is likely that the central viaduct approach is more expensive than TfL's option. However, that extra cost is paid back by the value of the additional land that is made available for development. A cheaper version is also possible if required.

As a final note, if a Crossrail link to the WCML is built, that works fine with this scheme. Southern services would be diverted via the new Crossrail link. In addition, it would be possible for the London Overground Clapham route to run to Watford Junction via the same link.

Summary

I propose a plan for Old Oak Common based around a unifying central viaduct. Such a viaduct allows the replacement of all the north-south lines in the area, making redevelopment much more effective and increasing the land available. It also enables the London Overground to be integrated into the heart of the hub, where it needs to be to be effective. Finally, additional Overground links to North Acton for the Central Line and Neasden for the Jubilee line become possible.

Feel free to comment and ask questions!

A four track HS2?

The current HS2 proposal (phase 1) is for a new 2 track railway from Lichfield and Birmingham to London. What would be the impact of building the new line as 4 tracks?

A four track HS2?

HS2 is currently designed as a 2 track railway from London to the Midlands and the North. Current plans for services show 18tph (trains per hour) on the first London to east Birmingham section, a level which many rail experts consider to be difficult to achieve.

Widening the railway to 4 tracks between London and the junction east of Birmingham would clearly provide a greater number of train paths, allowing 36tph based on the current plans. However, with twice as many tracks to spread over, it would be more reasonable to plan for slightly less, say 32tph, in order to provide more resilience in the event of disruption.

There would seem to be a variety of options with real benefits that the paths could be used for.

Heathrow. Phase 2 of HS2 is supposed to include a direct link to Heathrow airport. The problem is that there is no spare capacity (in tph) to actually provide any through trains! With a 4 track HS2, there could be 4tph to east Birmingham, with those services continuing once per hour to each of Manchester, Glasgow, Leeds and Birmingham. This approach would make even more sense if the Heathrow line actually continued to somewhere on the South West or South of London.

Europe. The desire for through services to Paris and Brussels is undoubtedly there, but the 18tph limit of 2 tracks does not allow these through services in the peak without compromising services elsewhere. A 4 track HS2 would provide enough paths for at least 2ph direct from the continent.

Aylesbury. A link could be built from the HS2 line to the existing line at Aylesbury. This would solve a key problem HS2 faces in that it currently passes through the Chilterns without providing any benefits to local residents. A 4 track HS2 together with a new junction would allow a fast commuter service to Aylesbury. Potentially, this could run through to Kent on HS1 and on to Milton Keynes via the reopened route to Bletchley.

Warwick area. A link could be built to connect the HS2 line to the existing line to Leamington Spa, allowing through London services to Warwick, Coventry and Solihull. Again, this service might run through from Kent.

Towns in the North. The additional trains-per-hour capacity would also permit through services to destinations HS2 currently intends to miss out, including Stoke-on-Trent, Derby, Blackpool and North Wales.

Oxford area. A north-facing link could be built to connect the HS2 line to the existing line north of Banbury, allowing through services from Manchester and Leeds to Oxford, Swindon, Bath and Bristol. This link is one of the most important missing elements of the current plans, as current HS2 plans make journeys from Oxford and Banbury to Manchester and Leeds significantly worse as existing Oxford services serve Birmingham New Street, but the new HS2 services to Manchester and Leeds go from Curzon Street. This connection also spreads the benefit of HS2 over more of the country, making the spending fairer to the South West.

But what about the London terminals?

Clearly it is not possible to almost double the amount of trains on the line without addressing where they might go in London. However, a careful reading of the above indicates that most services could be routed to Heathrow or Kent, avoiding terminating in London. For the remaining services it may be necessary to terminate at Old Oak Common.

But what about the cost?

Well undoubtedly building HS2 with 4 tracks is more expensive than building with 2 tracks. And there is extra cost in the additional junctions. But the relative cost compared to building a second high speed line to the North (something which is talked about in railway circles) is much lower. The benefits of greater integration with the existing rail network is also a huge factor.

But what about the land used?

Building 4 tracks rather than 2 tracks will be a relatively minor change to the land take of the project. Cuttings and viaducts would be twice as wide in terms of the track itself, but the width of the slope of the cutting/embankment would need no more width. The main pain would be the tunnels, which would generate twice as much spoil.

Is it a good idea?

Ultimately, HS2 is a political decision. While I have grave doubts about the HS2 approach to new lines in general, I'm also trying to ensure that HS2 is the best it can be if it does go ahead. Making it a 4 track railway to east Birmingham would have clear benefits. So, in my opinion it is definitely a good idea and improves markedly on the current scheme.

But those benefits can only be realised if 4 tracks is built from the start. Once constructed, it is likely that Old Oak Common will be unable to be expanded (as there will be a large development built on top). As such, the argument for 4 tracks must be discussed sooner rather than later.

HS2 FUD

HS2, like many large projects, has polarized opinion amongst those that care. In this particular case the modern mediums of social media have boosted traditional media coverage to create a mess. Frequently the same claims are made, yet a fair analysis consider many of them to be little better than FUD - fear, uncertainty and doubt. And this refers to the tactics of both supporters and opponents. Lets examine some specifics.

FUD?

"A new line from London to Birmingham"

True but incomplete, and misleading as a result. The whole project of HS2 is split into two phases, phase 1 is from London to Lichfield with a branch to Birmingham, while phase 2 extends the line to Manchester and Leeds. By describing it as "to Birmingham", a certain implication appears that there is no benefit to other cities from phase 1, something that isn't true. In fact, after the first phase of HS2 is open there will be through "classic compatible" services to other West Coast Main Line destinations, including Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow, all of which will see improved journey times with phase 1.

"32 billion pounds"

True, but also false, and thus a very clever trick. The first phase (London to Lichfield/Birmingham) costs 17 billion pounds, with phase 2 at 15 billion. Those opposed to HS2 have effectively managed to attach the 32 billion price to just phase 1, which is clearly false once the true numbers are understood.

"17 billion pounds"

True, but also intended to be scary. The actual investment required is actually supplied per year, not as a single amount in a single year. If the public is asked to spend less than 2 billion pounds per year on major infrastructure, they are far more likely to say yes than when presented with much larger single figures.

"We can't afford it"

False. The amount of money being spent (between 1 and 2 billion per year) is already being spent. The money is currently going on London's Crossrail project, another scheme with a total cost of 15 to 17 billion. The investment budget is effectively fixed at the 1 to 2 billion range (at the moment) and the flow of money simply shifts from Crossrail to HS2 when Crossrail finishes in 2017/8. That said, there is a body of thought that suggests that the total cost of 17 billion could actually be reduced if the money was spent more quickly (something other countries tend to do).

"The costs will over-run"

Possible, but unlikely. Predicting future costs of major infrastructure investment is always going to be tricky. To compensate, the Government insists on an "optimism bias" amount to handle under-estimates. What this means is that the cost quoted (17 billion) already includes a 60% buffer for cost overruns. The impact of the optimism bias can be seen here, where the Crossrail Paddington station contract reportedly came in 40% under-budget.

"The countryside/villages will be destroyed"

Simple scaremongering use of words. HS2 is best compared with a new motorway, the M40 being the classic example in this case. Anyone who has travelled that route cannot fail to have noticed the huge great scar in the landscape at Aston Rowant. It is wide, and the noise from the motorway affects a large area. HS2 is a dual track railway line which will take up far less land than a new motorway, and will use a long length of tunnel in the Chilterns. "Destroyed" is a scary, emotive term which drives fear rather than debate.

Rather strangely, the word "destroyed" does apply to part of the route, the expansion of Euston station in London, where a large number of homes and businesses will be demolished. However, the campaign there simply hasn't been widely heard, perhaps (dare one say) because those in the Chilterns have more money and better contacts.

"There is no alternative"

False in my view. This one is from the pro-HS2 camp. When used to discuss small improvements to the existing West Coast Main Line it is effectively true. The most recent Network Rail report (discussed from 7th January 2012) effectively dismisses every attempt to increase capacity without major new line construction on the grounds of insufficient capacity. However, the report did not evaluate the concept of focussed new line construction targeted at the worst hot-spots, built as a sequence of separate investments (described here). Thus, I claim that there is at least one alternative yet to be evaluated.

"HS2 will create 1 million jobs"

Utterly false. This is the worst of the pro-HS2 claims. It came from a Volterra report that made many assumptions and suggested that HS2, together with a boatload of other investment might support, not create, that many jobs. As a claim it was best demolished here.

Summary

The first casualty of way is the truth, and HS2 has continued to keep that claim true. Calm rationale analysis is hard to do (and impossible on Twitter), but it is essential given the scale of what is proposed and the impacts it will have to locals and nationally.

HS2 scores out of ten

Speculation is rife that the first phase of the HS2 rail link from London to the North will be approved next week. Regular readers of this blog will know that I have severe doubts about the scheme as planned, but I thought it might be good to summarize my views with scores out of ten:

Scores

Proposing a new line rather than upgrading the existing one - 8/10

A large part of the campaign against HS2 has been focussed on alternatives that seek to improve the existing lines. I have always considered this to be a mistake by the campaigners, essentially caused by lack of knowledge of recent rail history. The last West Coast Main Line (WCML) upgrade was a £10bn fiasco. It caused huge disruption to travellers, went hugely over-budget, and achieved a fraction of its original goals. Major upgrades of the existing line to handle the capacity growth is simply an unwise course of action.

That said, some upgrades of the existing WCML line are needed to handle passenger growth in the time between now and the opening of HS2. The Government has failed to indicate that this will happen, or that they will fund the enhanced local services that will be possible with the new line open. Because of the lack of joined up thinking, I only give a score of 8 out of 10.

The core route choice (Old Oak Common - south Aylesbury - M42 east of Birmingham) - 5/10

If you start with a location somewhere near Heathrow (Old Oak Common) and have to head close to Birmingham, then the route chosen is what I'd call fair. Given those constraints, there were only a few route options and the one chosen really isn't that bad (unless you're directly affected). For reference, I don't consider the possible M40 route to be markedly better - just different.

The real problem I have is that I disagree with the constraints of "near Heathrow" and "east of Birmingham". I explored this further in my HC-Midland route proposal. That focussed on enhancing local and regional journeys, not just national ones - a strategy that should have been evaluated in detail.

Old Oak Common - 7/10

Old Oak Common is one of the two London stations and is designed to integrate with Crossrail. So far there has only been limited discussion as to how Old Oak can be integrated into the local rail network in London. This integration is vital, as most travel to HS2 in London will be by public transport. The HS2 proposal should have provided much more detail and plans on how that integration (with the London Overground, Central line and Bakerloo line) will work. There is potential here, but it could easily be ruined without additional money being spent on connecting the station to nearby lines.

Euston - 6/10

HS2 requires a huge amount of space in its London Terminus, something that will require a complete rebuild of Euston and the demolition of a large area next to the station. This isn't terrible (unless you're directly affected), but is far from ideal. Furthermore, Euston will probably require the expensive Crossrail 2 scheme to assist with distributing passengers.

My view is that a far better terminus would be Waterloo. It already has 5 empty platforms of the correct size (the ex-Eurostar platforms), and gaining the additional room is possible by tunnelling local London services (which has additional benefits to Londoners and is cheaper than the comparable Crossrail 2 scheme for Euston). But the key benefit of Waterloo is that it enhances access to the North of the country from the south of London and the southern home counties, something that would provide journey time reductions of over an hour in total (evaluated door-to-door, rather than HS2's flawed point-to-point). So, choosing Euston misses a huge opportunity to really change national accessibility.

Birmingham Interchange - 1/10

Birmingham Interchange is an offensively named station that simply isn't an interchange. It is a car park in a green-belt field with a local people-mover to the airport. There is absolutely no planned integration with the local rail network and all access will be by car, in an area where traffic problems are already very serious. It has no redeeming features.

This is the single worst part of the proposed scheme, as I wrote in a full blog post.

Birmingham Curzon Street - 2/10

The site for Birmingham's new central station is Curzon Street (Fazely Street). This location is close to Moor Street station at one end and alongside the existing access to New Street station. The site is ideally located for Birmingham City Centre and if that was the purpose of HS2 all would be fine. However, HS2 is supposed to serve the West Midlands, not the city centre.

The key problem is one of integration with the local rail network. How is a person living along the Cross-City line from Redditch to Sutton Coldfield meant to access Curzon Street? Well all we have are vague hand-waving statements of it only being a "short walk". This is pathetic stuff, as it ignores what that means in practice: "Take train from Redditch to New Steet. Exit the station. Walk through the city centre (late at night?). Enter Curzon Street station. Finally board train for London. All with a heavy suitcase."

We already know that this doesn't work in practice, at Stratford. Eurostar determined that there was no demand from Stratford International despite Stratford being a huge railway junction providing access to a huge population of East London, Essex and beyond. The reason is the "short walk" of 6 minutes between the two stations - Stratford Regional (where all the local trains are) and Stratford International (where the Eurostars would have been). Failing to learn from the mistake at Stratford would be a huge error for the West Midlands.

But the answer isn't New Street station. That really is full. Instead, I wrote up details of how a new Birmingham Central station could solve the problem, plugging HS2 into the local rail network in the same way that Euston plugs into the London Underground.

Summary

The current HS2 scheme has some "OK" aspects and a few really dire ones. I am in agreement with the principal of a new line, although not with the 250mph speed. The chosen core route is alright, but one providing enhanced local and regional access (the M1 HC-Midland route) would have been much better. But my real ire is for the two Birmingham stations, which are extremely poor.

My hope is that the HS2 scheme now moves more into detailed planning where some minor variations can be worked on at the stations. Specifically, I hope that Birmingham planners finally realise the ensuing disaster and start to argue for integration with the local rail network.

Thames Hub and HS2

So much of the HS2 debate is loud, shouty and not very revealing, with fixed positions and closed minds. As such it is no surprise that the combatants missed the huge Thames Hub proposal and how it affects HS2.

Thames Hub is a proposal from Fosters, Halcrow and Volterra to utterly transform infrastructure in the UK. Unlike some previous plans, it is highly persuasive because of the sheer number of infrastructure problems it tackles.

The headline grabbing element is the new hub airport for the UK. This would be a 4 runway and 24 hour a day airport located in the Thames estuary on the end of the Isle of Grain. The site is chosen as it is close to the capital, yet still allows most flights to land over water. There are few if any other locations in the UK which can match this. (To serve the UK's population best, expanding Luton airport might make the most sense, but that would involve far greater aircraft noise disruption to far more people)

A new airport is nothing without access however. To achieve this, the proposal includes a high speed rail connection from HS1 in Kent, via the airport and around the M25, linking up with all the existing main lines, including potentailly HS2 (more on this later). Rather than driving to the airport, users would be encouraged to park and ride. (As a new line, it could potentially run 24 hours a day)

Not content with a new high speed line, the proposal links in freight traffic. There are huge container ports in the Thames estuary and not enough capacity on the railways to transport them. As such, there are far more lorries on the road than there need to be. The proposal suggests that the new railway line around the M25 would be 4 track, with significant freight capacity.

As part of the railway line, a conduit would be built to transport broadband and electricity. This removes miles of pylons from the countryside, surely a clear benefit.

And in the Thames itself would be a new Thames barrier, designed to safeguard more of London than the current one does. By protecting the land, it frees up huge tracts of East London for development (now they are safe from flooding). At a stroke this provides much of the housing land necessary to cope with the potential extra 10 million people the UK is projected to grow by. (Thus environmental concerns on the Isle of Grain must be balanced against the environmental impact of alternate sites for new housing on the edge of many UK towns and villages on green field sites.)

The potential closure (or major downgrading) of Heathrow would also relase more land for development. Other cities have moved their primary airport in the past, including Paris (1974), Munich (1992), Denver (1995), Oslo (1998), Hong Kong (1998), Kuala Lumpur (1998), Athens (2001), Bangkok (2006).

The sheer scope of the plan is breathtaking and would be utterly transformative for the UK.

The land for the airport itself is somewhere I've actually been too, a number of years ago. It is land of no great landscape quality and entirely suitable for change. Two villages would be destroyed, but with suitable generous compensation I believe that to be acceptable. There is a concern over birds, especially with aircraft, however this is something that can be overcome if the will is there.

As I always say, its important to look at the alternatives.

Heathrow is full and overflowing with just 2 runways (and no longer any possibility of a third), when Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Madrid all have at least 4 runways at their airports. It has always been in the wrong location for London as it requires planes to land over the heads of 7 million people. Heathrow simply cannot expand.

Gatwick, Stansted and Luton each have just one runway. Each one could be expanded, however doing so would face larger opposition than the estuary as planes would fly over more people. And its important to consider that one of the three would need three new runways adding to reach the four necessary for a UK hub.

Another approach is "Heathwick". This would link Heathrow and Gatwick with a fast rail line is essentially linking the worlds busiest single runway airport (Gatwick) to what is probably the worlds busiest two runway airport (Heathrow). Clearly that solves nothing.

The "spread" approach entails linking perhaps four or five airports (probably including Birmingham via HS2) to create some form of virtual hub. This appears to me to be the classic 'make do and mend' fudge approach. Bear in mind that Birmingham only has one runway.

Finally, there are, and have been, other plans for the estuary, including a site close by at Cliffe and a floating island further out. The principal difference to Thames Hub with these is the detail in the supporting proposals, including all the other infrastructure effects.

Looking at the alternatives, I think Thames Hub must be considered a viable option, and perhaps the best, since creating a four runway airport at Luton or Stansted seems unlikely.

But the big impact here is on HS2.

As I covered in my last blog, the HS2 route has been hugely influenced by a need to go "somewhere near Heathrow".

But the Thames Hub plans talk about closing Heathrow, or downgrading it to budget airline status!

It is patently nonsense to let "somewhere near Heathrow" dictate the route of HS2 when it is uncertain that Heathrow will survive in its current form.

It is utterly essential for Government and politicians to decide on airport policy before deciding on the HS2 route.

After all, if the "somewhere near Heathrow" constraint is removed, then the M1 route of HC-Midland suddenly looks far more sensible.

(Images credit to ThamesHub/Fosters/Halcrow/Volterra)

The Heathrow tail wagging the HS2 dog

Update 2011-11-02: This blog was written just before Labour suggested routing via Heathrow and Lord Foster release the Thames Hub proposal. Read on to understand why it is essential that the UK decides on Heathrow vs Thames Hub *before* deciding on HS2 (if Heathrow declines or is closed, the sensible HS2 route would be very different)

For HS2, a number of groups have come together in the Right Lines Charter to encourage Government to think a little more deeply. The first principle of the charter is that High Speed Rail should only be introduced within the scope of a national framework. This is especially important when considering access to Heathrow.

As I've noted before, Heathrow is a major factor in the current HS2 route proposal. The original terms of reference framed the route planning with a "via somewhere near Heathrow" approach, partly to replace domestic air routes by High Speed Rail. Those opposed to Heathrow's third runway were in agreement as removing domestic air "obviously" helps Heathrow.

Thus, HS2 route evaluation was constrained to include only those routes running to or near Heathrow. (Old Oak Common was the choice made).

This constraint had some big effects:

Firtsly, the Heathrow constraint forced the route to Birmingham and the North from London to start in West London, rather than in Central London. A simple look at the map shows how the proposed line from Euston spends a long time heading west and south(!) to reach Old Oak Common, before it starts any travel to the north. Clearly this is only justified if Heathrow is a big enough target.

Secondly, the Heathrow constraint lengthened the route from the shortest possible (by adding the dog-leg via Heathrow). As such, it became necessary to make the trains go faster to meet the journey time reductions that Britain's broken transport economics require. Hence the 400kph design speed, which in turn lead to the straight line route through the Chliterns.

Thus, the net effect of the terms of reference and focus on Heathrow was to compromise sensible evaluation of other options. For example, the M1 route was rejected partly because the evaluation still required the line to go via Old Oak Common, which is clearly a crazy direction if you want to go from Euston to the M1 (just look at a map!!!)

To be clear, the HS2 route is a result of the constraints applied - of "somewhere near Heathrow" and "serving Birmingham in phase 1" The constraints became locations - Old Oak Common and Birmingham Interchange - and between these two constraints, the HS2 route chosen is one of very few options available. It is the broken constraints I object to, not the Chiltern routing per se. (ie. if I agreed with the constraints, and thus the constraining locations at each end, I would have relatively few qualms about the chosen route.)

But is Heathrow important enough to justify all this?

Well, I started this article with a link to the Right Lines Charter and its desire for a national framework for the investment. An absolutely key part of that framework is a national policy for airports.

Put bluntly, the UK and London airport situation is a national disgrace, with Heathrow merely one element. Its the classic example of how the UK fails to properly provide national long term plans that make sense and aren't overtly political.

Most MPs, and perhaps many people in the UK, still see Heathrow as something important. A vital hub airport in the world's network.

But the truth is that Heathrow is no longer in the first tier of world hub airports.

A two runway airport simply doesn't cut it anymore as a hub. Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt now clearly lead Heathrow in Europe (with four or more runways), with British Airways now looking at Madrid (four runways) as the solution to the lack of space at Heathrow. This matters in that there are far fewer direct flights to destinations in China, India and other upcoming destinations - from London you have to change at another hub. Over time, this acts as a major disincentive for multi-national inward investment based growth in the UK.

So, the solution is to remove all domestic flights from Heathrow, leaving more space for international flights?

Well no. Only around 10% of all take offs and landings at Heathrow are domestic, and some of those are flights across the water to Belfast. So, while HS2 could remove some domestic flights from Heathrow, it certainly wouldn't remove enough to convert it into a viable first tier hub.

Thus, a key national question for politicians is whether they want the UK to have a globally significant first tier hub airport. Heathrow isn't one (and a third runway probably wouldn't have been enough, as four runways is the current "standard" for a hub).

There are various possible solutions to the hub issue, including an island to the east of London, greatly expanding either Stanstead or Gatwick to 3 or 4 runways, or expanding both Stanstead and Gatwick to 2 runways each - sending each airline alliance to a different airport. Another solution is to say that the UK doesn't need a first tier hub. (HS2 implies use of Birmingham to relieve Heathrow, which is fine if everyone travels to airports by train, but we should recognise that simply isn't the case, thus Birmingham Airport is a bit of a red herring here.)

The key point I'm making is that Heathrow is a bit of a dead duck. Its not going to grow any more. In fact its going to reduce in importance over the next 50 years, not increase.

So, the truth is that Heathrow simply doesn't matter enough to the UK over the 50 year investment lifetime of HS2 to force the entire High Speed route strategy to serve it. The vast majority of passengers from the northern cities want to go to London (or somewhere around London) not Heathrow. Airport traffic as a proportion of the total is actually very small (HS2 Ltd estimate less than 2000 passengers per day).

And its this uncomfortable truth that the Right Lines Charter's "national framework" drives at. Without an airports policy that underlines the lack of importance of Heathrow, its difficult for politicians and civil servants to realise that the HS2 focus on Heathrow is plane stupid!

(As it happens, Old Oak Common serves a second purpose - linking to Crossrail, but that has generally been seen as a secondary item compared to serving Heathrow. In reality from a transport perspective, the Crossrail distribution effect is far more important than Heathrow, but getting that message across to non-rail audiences seems to be hard. However, if you remove Heathrow, it also turns out that the distribution effect could be fulfilled in other ways, such as linking to Thameslink if routing via Luton/West Hampstead.)

Summary

Accepting that Heathrow is on the decline is sometimes hard, especially when it seems like a permanent fixture in UK geography. But it is simple logic to see that Heathrow will over the next 50 years come to matter to UK air travel less and less.

But if UK air policy decides to shift to an estuary airport, or a hub at Stanstead/Gatwick, then it completely changes the rationale for a High Speed Rail route directly to "somewhere near Heathrow". Heathrow is no longer important enough to the UK to justify that.

And as I've described before with HC-Midland, removing that broken constraint can result in a much more sensible routing for the new lines the UK rail network desperately needs.

Birmingham Interchange is not an interchange

In my ongoing evaluation of HS2, its time to write about Birmingham Interchange.

Birmingham Interchange, is the HS2 station located on the edge of Birmingham. The site is next to the M42 1 mile east of Birmingham International station on the existing main line (the airport station). The intention is to add a cheap "people mover" to transfer passengers to the NEC, airport or existing station. There is also vague talk of a tram line (which doesn't materially affect the following conclusions).

The executive summary is that the plan for Birmingham Interchange is dire. Read on for the detail.

The key issue is that the station is completely disconnected from any form of public transport, meaning that the vast majority of passengers will be expected to arrive by car, for which 7000 parking spaces are planned. But the M42 in that location is one of the busiest stretches of Motorway in the entire country and well beyond its design capacity. This combination is a recipe for disaster. HS2 Ltd comment as follows (pdf, chapter 8):

Our estimate is that in 2033, the interchange station would attract a net addition of 1500-2000 cars trips to the area during the morning peak hour.

The chapter is worth reading to understand the analysis done. It makes no reference whatsoever to access by public transport. Only access by car is considered.

The station is intended to be used by passengers living in various parts of the West Midlands conurbation and in Coventry (nobody lives close enough to walk to the station). Its only fair to look at what these passengers do today, and what they will do in the future.

Many in the West Midlands conurbation currently use local rail services to access London trains at Wolverhampton, Birmingham New Street, Birmingham International or Coventry. With HS2 there will be no direct access to the new line by local rail at any of these locations.

Residents in the west of the conurbation around Wolverhampton can currently travel to Wolverhampton station for their long distance service. HS2 does not serve Wolverhampton, so those passengers will either use the existing service (assuming it continues) or drive to Birmingham Interchange. (The official document assumes Wolverhampton will use the city centre station, but they can't as New Street and Fazely Street aren't integrated)

Residents in the centre of the conurbation can currently use local rail and buses to access New Street for their long distance service. Since the HS2 station in Birmingham is disconnected from the local rail network, there will be far fewer uses of the local network to access the long distance services. Thus again, passengers using HS2 are most likely to use a car to access Interchange. (The official document assumes these travellers will use the city centre station)

Residents of Coventry currently have an excellent three trains per hour service to London. This will be scaled back after HS2. Passengers in Coventry will be encouraged to travel to the Birmingham Interchange station instead. Which again means a car. Certainly no sane person would take a local train to Birmingham International, then a "people mover", then an HS2 train. (The official document assumes these travellers will use cars to access Interchange station)

Taken together, HS2's Birmingham stations are a recipe for a massive increase in car journeys.

However, there is a catch. 1 in 3 households in the West Midlands don't own a car. So, by forcing car access, HS2 manages to reduce the overall mobility of the population!

Moreover, what has long been understood by those in the rail industry is that once people start their journey by car they are more likely to just keep on going by car. If you're driving from Wolverhampton to eastern Birmingham, why not just keep on going and drive all the way to London, or if you're in Coventry why not carry on driving to Manchester or Leeds?

It turns out that the rail network is absolutely dependent on good interchanges and junctions, where local journeys can be fed into national ones. HS2 ignores over 100 years of experience of what makes railways work by not buliding proper interchanges.

Interestingly, the London stations on HS2 are planned to be integrated with the local networks, at Euston and Old Oak Common (although the Old Oak plan is far from certain at this point). It is clear to me that Birmingham has drawn the short straw here. The effect of HS2 is to boost car journeys within the West Midlands area and reduce demand on the local rail network.

Given the lack of integration, especially relative to London, it is patent nonsense that Centro, the publicly funded body for public transport in the West Midlands, is supporting the current HS2 scheme.

Summary

Overall I think HS2 is a bad project and there is a better and more cost-effective approach - HC-Midland. However, my position is far more nuanced than that of the "anti" brigade. For starters, while the route through the Chilterns isn't my preferred choice and is far from ideal, I don't think that aspect of the scheme would be disasterous if it were to go ahead.

However, I am utterly clear that both HS2 Birmingham stations are unfit for purpose on basic transport grounds.

It is simply unacceptable and irresponsible in today's world to build a station whose only sensible access is by car and then have the cheek to call it "interchange". That mistake is compounded by the lack of integration in the City Centre.

In summary, there has been a lot of arguing about rail capacity, the business case and the importance of the environment. In my opinion, not enough focus has been placed on whether the line's stations meet basic transport criteria. Sadly, HS2's Birmingham stations fail spectacularly on those basic transport criteria.

Improving HS2 - Birmingham central

While my previous blogs have discussed alternatives to HS2 that I believe are better, I also want to write about options to make the current proposal more palatable. This blog focuses on Birmingham central.

One of my main criticisms of HS2 is that it doesn't meet the government's remit of a line from London to the West Midlands. The central Birmingham station of Fazeley Street only serves Birmingham city centre. It is completely disconnected from all other local railway lines, 5 minutes walk from Moor Street and 10 minutes walk from New Street. As such, there is no ability to travel on by train to the rest of the West Midlands, hence my claim that the remit has not been met.

The main issue in Birmingham is that New Street station is beyond capacity already. There is currently a large investment going into the station, but appallingly that investment will provide no new track-level facilities. As a result, Birmingham is going to face issues whether HS2 arrives or not.

HS2 Ltd's choice of Fazely Street just to the East of the city centre on a brownfield site is not by itself a bad choice. However, HS2 Ltd has had a failure of imagination by proposing it on its own. It is also a huge failure by being designed as a terminus with no possibility of future conversion to a through station.


View Larger Map

The Fazely Street site is the empty land on the right. Moor Street is centre right, New Street centre left and Snow Hill top left.

The distance to Moor Street is actually fairly small, so the first thing that must be done is to create a single station concourse that unites Moor Street and Fazely Street. This should also be under a single station name, say Birmingham Central. However, most trains in Birmingham serve New Street, and that is significantly further away. This is where imagination is needed...

Step 1 - lower the HS2 platforms into the ground. As the ground is undeveloped, digging a big hole and putting the station in it isn't nearly as expensive as building a tunnelled underground station. By being below ground level, it provides the ability for future generations to convert the station into a through station by building tunnels onwards under the city centre, perhaps to serve Wolverhampton or the main line to the Bristol. A terminus station is incredibly short sighted and will never permit future generations that option.

Step 2 - build a new station at ground level on the current lines into New Street. Now that the HS2 platforms are below ground, there is plenty of room for a ground level station on the current lines from New Street to Coventry and Tamworth. This station will need lots of platforms to be effective, due to step 4.

Step 3 - integrate Moor Street, the HS2 platforms from step 1 and the classic platforms from step 2 into a single station with a single concourse. The concourse would run South West to North East effectively along Park Street. All platforms would be served by escalators from this single concourse level built to the highest modern standards. This unified station would be known as Birmingham Central.

Step 4 - all services that currently serve New Street would serve Central. Some long distance services would only serve Central and would no longer serve New Street. This last point is critical, as it will provide the space in New Street (which cannot be expanded) for future growth in local services.

In summary, this is an imaginative proposal to create a new Birmingham Central station integrating Moor Street, new platforms on the New Street lines and new sub-surface HS2 platforms. Express services would only serve Central, while local services would serve New Street as well. This fully integrates HS2 with the local network and makes a huge difference to the viability of HS2 as a West Midlands service rather than a Birmingham city centre one.

Overall, I oppose HS2 because I think there are better alternatives. However, if HS2 does go ahead, this is one change that I believe to be absolutely essential.

Update: This proposal is similar to this Arup proposal "Grand Central", suggesting it is feasible and practical.

HC-Midland

In my last post I outlined the basis for my HS2 response, a key part of which is the availability of a better option - HC Midland, where HC is High Capacity, not High Speed. This blog provides a bit more detail.

A key problem with HS2 is that the ultra high speed of 400kph limits the capacity to 12 tph (trains-per-hour). HS2 Ltd believe that this number if 14 tph or 18tph, but even if the technical ability is found to run more trains than anywhere else in the world at this speed, it doesn't leave any room for recovery when things go wrong. As a nation, we should build new infrastructure on this scale with some room to grow.

Some have pointed out that 24 to 30 tph is possible in the central London sections of Crossrail and Thameslink, and wonder why not the same on HS2? Well, it is about safety - as speed rises, it takes longer to stop and so a greater gap between trains is needed. These greater safety margins also therefore result in fewer trains-per-hour. The faster the trains are, the fewer can be run each hour.

Since the great problem is capacity on the railways, ultra high speed makes no sense. Thus, HC-Midland would be targeted at a top speed of 155mph or 250 kph. This lower speed then means that trains can stop more quickly, and be closer together, probably increasing the maximum trains-per-hour to 18 without major technical issues.

The real question though is why go via the M1? A key reason is because it is an established transport corridor rather than a mostly green field route, and we should prefer existing transport corridors where possible. It is important to note that it will not always be possible to route beside a motorway, but frequently it is.

More important in this case is that the routing between the Midland and West Coats main lines allows far more connections to be made for more local/regional travel. This converts the investment from being one where there are no real benefits along the route, to one where value can be seen and understood. The key components to this are the new regional links that are created, not just national ones.

At the heart of HC-Midland is individual sections that can be invested in separately. While the whole proposal is shown together on the map, it would not be built in one go, but instead created as money became available. Each section also has a smaller price tag.

To aid understanding, this blog has a map referred to from now on. It is important to realise that this map is at the highest possible level with no detail implied, and is only intended for the purpose of this blog.

The key section is Northampton to north of Luton, section E on the map, which follows the M1 closely with tunnels for Northampton south and Newport Pagnell. This one section provides a vital new transport link for the area as well as longer distance services, allowing commuting or business travel between Northampton and Luton, or between Luton and Coventry, far easier access to Birmingham from Luton and St.Albans, plus new connections to Birmingham, Luton and Gatwick Airports. A station at Newport Pagnell would probably also be justified.

These new journey options are based on my assessment that there will be a little more space on the Midland main line than on the West Coast main line over the next few years. Thus the goal of this one new section is to move Northampton to London commuters to travel via Luton with comparable or better journey times, potentially into Thameslink. A Newport Pagnell station would also extract traffic from Milton Keynes. Both reduce pressure on the West Coast main line.

The second key section is Northampton to Leicester, section H on the map (with three broad possible route alignments, including one that simply reopens the old line to Market Harborough). This section provides new local connections between Northampton and Leicester, but also far easier access from Milton Keynes and Watford to Nottingham, Derby and further north. For example, one recommended route on the current network from Milton Keynes to Sheffield is via Stockport in the south of Manchester!.

Of course, while the regional links are useful, the full purpose of this section is to work with the section to Luton. Together they provide Midland main line trains with an alternate route from Leicester and the East Midlands to London, via Northampton. With new construction and design, there should be a small but not insignificant time saving for these services, but the main gain is in capacity relief of the core section of the Midland main line through Kettering. This allows for more passenger and significantly more freight services. (The Bedford-Bletchley-Oxford route connects up nicely with a relieved Midland main line for freight access nationally.)

These two sections are probably justified in their own right, even if HS2 goes ahead - the regional and national connections made are valuable enough.

However, the problem still remains of increased London capacity. The HC-Midland proposal uses spare railway land between West Hampstead and Mill Hill Broadway (section C) and a mostly M1 route with tunnels at Mill Hill, Brickett Wood and Luton (section D) to provide the essential capacity into London. A short tunnel from West Hampstead (section A) would allow access to Euston.

For Birmingham, sections F and G provide enhancements to the existing line from Northampton with some new sections (various route options). Notably, the work to provide 4 tracks between Rugby and Birmingham is needed anyway, irrespective of HS2.

It is easy to look at the map and think this is simply a straightforward alternative to HS2 on a different route. But that would be a huge mistake. Firstly, the lower top speed of 250 kph is more appropriate for the UK, putting the focus on high capacity instead. Secondly, the core routing between the Midland and West Coast main lines can follow the M1 to minimise damage from development and noise. Finally, the real gain is in the huge number of new regional links created, rather than just national ones.

If you believe this is a good approach for investing in UK rail, why not leave a comment!

HS2 consultation response

HS2 is the Government's proposal to invest £32 billion pounds to construct a new national High Speed rail line. The first phase, which the consultation is based on, is for £17 billion.

As a supporter of UK rail investment, it would be natural to assume that I would be in favour of this scheme. My initial reaction on hearing of the proposal was extremely positive. However, as the months passed and I investigated more, I came to the conclusion that the proposed scheme is deeply flawed on transport grounds. This is something I find deeply regrettable as it threatens other vital rail investment.

At this point I am required to state that I do not live along the proposed route (I live in South West London). However, I also have no great affection for the Chilterns. Were a Chiltern route the best option for the UK I would support it. However, as a general principle I believe that new transport corridors should only be created when routing via existing corridors proves to be impossible. And in this case a better proposal does exist using the M1 corridor..

In my HS2 response I cover in considerable detail the flawed methodology that led to the current route choice and provide a more sensible and viable alternative - HC-Midland - that can be delivered in much smaller phases as the need arises.

The four largest flaws with the HS2 methodology are:

1) An obsession with the lowest possible point-to-point journey times. In reading the various HS2 documents, it is clear that the methodology places an extremely high value on every minute saved. However, the approach does not consider the total door-to-door journey times of actual users. A point-to-point approach makes sense when considering a daily commute from a local station to a city centre. In this scenario, saving 10 minutes on the daily commute each way results in a considerably improved work-life balance. However, a longer inter-city journey should not be taken every day, and is frequently undertaken with luggage. Saving 20 minutes between London city centre and Birmingham city centre is irrelevant if it takes over an hour to get to the city centre station with poor station connections to the local public transport network. Given a choice, I therefore favour city-based rail investment over inter-city rail investment, except where they conflict (ie. where investment favours both inter-city and city-based).

2) An obsession with ultra high speed. The 400kph design speed is higher than other comparable railways are using and unnecessary for UK geography. Most high speed lines are run at 300kph. Speeds above that are only used where the two target cities are significantly far apart that the higher speed makes a real difference. France and Spain have an urban geography of large cities far apart with very low population density between. The UK however has large cities close together with significant mid-size cities and other dense population areas in-between. Unfortunately, HS2 is a scheme based on the French/Spanish model rather than the more similar German/Swiss model. The 400kph design speed also reduces line capacity, resulting in the crazy situation of a proposed new line intended to relieve capacity that will be at full capacity in trains-per-hour on day one of the new service.

3) An obsession with Heathrow. Government in the UK has not yet recognised that Heathrow is no longer in the top tier of world hub airports, nor developed a policy to either accept this or correct it. Part of this is a confused belief that huge numbers of passengers want or need to travel to Heathrow. This isn't the case (each plane carries relatively few people), and traffic over a high speed rail network to Heathrow would always be very limited in nature. Unfortunately, the HS2 route design used a constraint of travelling near Heathrow, which severely limited the available route choices.

4) An obsession with Birmingham. The HS2 proposal is supposed to be considering a proposal for a new line to Manchester and Leeds with an initial section to serve the West Midlands. unfortunately, this remit got corrupted to become a laser like focus on Birmingham city centre to the detriment of cities further north, especially in the East Midlands and Yorkshire. For example, the most cost effective way to reach Sheffield and Leeds is a major upgrade of the Midland Main Line from Leicester north, which can be achieved at a much lower cost than a dedicated line from Birmingham to Leeds. However, such an option requires the first phase to focus on reaching Leicester (a route which would also be suitable for the North West). However, because such a route, which is best for the North in general is worse for Birmingham, it was discounted due to the phase one limit of Birmingham. The consultation document contains a route selection diagram (B2) which emphasises this flaw by omitting Leicester, Nottingham and Derby entirely when considering phase 1 routes.

These four flaws, and four more covered in the response caused the selection of the HS2 Chiltern route and a heavy Birmingham city centre focus. This includes the Fazely Street station which is not linked to the local rail network at all, meaning that HS2 failed to meet its remit of a line to the "West Midlands", since only Birmingham city centre is served.

Having come to this conclusion I then became concerned that rejection of the HS2 scheme would threaten future investment in UK rail entirely. My interpretation of the available data is that some new line capacity will probably be needed on the London to the North corridor. The focus, for the benefit of the UK, should be on providing that new line capacity at the minimum cost and with the maximum benefit using far more phasing, ensuring that each stage is no more than £6bn and preferably much less. This led me to develop the HC-Midland proposal. However, such an investment must be balanced against the need for further investment on other over-capacity lines and stations, such as East Croydon, the Windsor line level crossings and the West Anglia Main Line. Dedicating all investment funding to one project is not acceptable, nor is it sensible for the UK economy.

HC-Midland, where HC stands for "High Capacity", not "High Speed", is a plan to provide a new route in stages as demand grows following the M1 corridor. The M1 route stands out head and shoulders above other choices on a sustainability view and its ability to be phased. Since capacity is the primary pressing issue, not journey times, running at a lower 250kph is far more appropriate. The route is designed, in the best German and Swiss traditions to provide incremental enhancements over time rather than a big bang. It is specifically intended to leave more money available for investment into the other city-based schemes, which have much clearer investment cases and benefit many more people's daily lives.

If you're reading this, there is a fair chance that you oppose the HS2 Chiltern route. My goal is to encourage readers to agree with me that the UK does need to invest in Rail, but with appropriate smaller projects, mostly less than £1 bn, that have a faster rate of return. In other words I want to draw opponents of HS2 away from solely opposition activities and towards a more positive alternative for UK rail investment.

I plan to cover the HC-Midland proposal in more detail in another blog entry soon. For more details now, see the HS2 response, but bear in mind that HC-Midland is intended to be built as part of a broader framework of investment focussed primarily on city-based schemes which would include some elements of the scheme known as "Rail package 2". Update: the HC-Midland proposal blog is now published.

I intend to support open commenting on this blog, however I ask commenters to stay on topic and to remain respectful at all times.