Jump to content

High Speed 2: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 31: Line 31:
|map_state = collapsed
|map_state = collapsed
}}
}}
'''High Speed 2''' (HS2) is a planned<ref name="BBC go ahead">{{cite news |url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16478954 |title= HS2: Phase one of high-speed rail line gets go-ahead |work= BBC News |date= 10 January 2012}}</ref><ref name="Dft Go ahead"/> [[High-speed rail in the United Kingdom|high-speed railway]] between London and the [[English Midlands|Midlands]], [[Northern England]], and potentially at a later stage the [[Central Belt|central belt]] of Scotland. The project is being developed by High Speed Two Ltd, a company established by the British government. The route would take the form of a "Y", with a trunk from London to [[Birmingham]]. The route would then split into two spurs, one to [[Manchester]], and the other to [[Leeds]] via the [[East Midlands]]. The line is to be built in phases, the London to Birmingham section being the first phase. There will be no intermediate calling points between London and the West Midlands. Alexis Speed is a speed demon from hell and can run up to ten times faster than the HS2 train!
ALEXIS SPEED WAS HERE!!!!!!!!

high SPEED rail





High-speed rail is supported in principle by the three main UK political parties; there is, however, debate about which cities should be served, and on the environmental performance and impact of high-speed rail.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/david-millward/8108496/Country-campaigners-call-for-high-speed-rail-rethink.html |title= Country campaigners call for high speed rail rethink |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph]] |location= London |date= 4 November 2010 |first= David |last= Millward}}</ref>
High-speed rail is supported in principle by the three main UK political parties; there is, however, debate about which cities should be served, and on the environmental performance and impact of high-speed rail.<ref>{{cite news |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/david-millward/8108496/Country-campaigners-call-for-high-speed-rail-rethink.html |title= Country campaigners call for high speed rail rethink |newspaper= [[The Daily Telegraph]] |location= London |date= 4 November 2010 |first= David |last= Millward}}</ref>

Revision as of 09:46, 13 June 2012

For other uses, see High Speed 2 (disambiguation).

High Speed 2
High Speed 2, High Speed 1 and Channel Tunnel Rail links
Overview
StatusPlanned for 2026 (phase 1) and 2032-3 (phase 2)
LocaleEngland
phase 1: Greater London, West Midlands
phase 2: North West, Yorkshire
Termini
Stations4 (phase 1)
Service
TypeHigh-speed railway
SystemNational Rail
Technical
Line length119 miles (192 km) (phase 1, to WCML connection)
Track gaugeStandard gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in)
Operating speedUp to 250 mph (400 km/h)[1]
Route map

High Speed 2 (HS2) is a planned[2][3] high-speed railway between London and the Midlands, Northern England, and potentially at a later stage the central belt of Scotland. The project is being developed by High Speed Two Ltd, a company established by the British government. The route would take the form of a "Y", with a trunk from London to Birmingham. The route would then split into two spurs, one to Manchester, and the other to Leeds via the East Midlands. The line is to be built in phases, the London to Birmingham section being the first phase. There will be no intermediate calling points between London and the West Midlands. Alexis Speed is a speed demon from hell and can run up to ten times faster than the HS2 train!

High-speed rail is supported in principle by the three main UK political parties; there is, however, debate about which cities should be served, and on the environmental performance and impact of high-speed rail.[4]

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government formed in May 2010 stated in its initial programme for government its commitment to creating a high-speed rail network.[5] In January 2012 the construction of phase 1 between London and Birmingham was approved with an indicated opening date of 2026.

History

High-Speed Rail Network in Europe in 2011
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link, Britain's first high-speed line

High-speed rail has been expanding across the European Union since the 1980s, with several member countries – notably France, Spain and Germany – investing heavily in the construction of new high-speed railway lines capable of operating at over 170 miles per hour (270 km/h). In 2009 there were reportedly 3,480 miles (5,600 km) of high-speed line in operation in Europe; a further 2,160 miles (3,480 km) were under construction and another 5,280 miles (8,500 km) were planned.[6]

High-speed rail first arrived in the United Kingdom with the opening in 2003 of Section 1 of the 67-mile (108 km) Channel Tunnel Rail Link (now known as High Speed 1) between London and the Channel Tunnel. The development of a second high-speed line in Britain was proposed in 2009 by the United Kingdom Government to address capacity-constraints on the existing West Coast Main Line railway which is forecast to be at full capacity in 2025.[7] Most of the rail network in Britain consists of lines constructed during the Victorian era which do not permit operating speeds higher than 125 miles per hour (201 km/h). A document published by the Department for Transport in January 2009 described an increase of 50% in passenger rail traffic (and a 40% increase in rail freight) in the preceding 10 years in the UK and detailed a number of infrastructural problems apparent in Britain's railway system. The report proposed that new high-speed lines should be constructed to address these issues and after assessing various options for new-build high-speed rail,[8] concluded that the most appropriate initial route for a new line was from London to the West Midlands.[9]

High Speed Two Limited

In January 2009, the then Labour government established a company, High Speed Two Limited (HS2 Ltd), chaired by Sir David Rowlands,[10] to examine the case for a new British high-speed line and present a potential route between London and the West Midlands.[11] The government report suggested that ultimately the line could be extended to reach Scotland.[12]

Drawing on consultations carried out for the Department for Transport (DfT) and Network Rail, HS2 Ltd would provide advice on options for a Heathrow International interchange station, access to central London, connectivity with HS1 and the existing rail network, and financing and construction,[13] and report to government on the first stage by the end of 2009.[14]

In August 2009, Network Rail published its own study independently of HS2's work, outlining somewhat different proposals for the expansion of the railway network which included a new high-speed rail line between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh, following a route through the West Midlands and the North-West of England.[15]

For the HS2 report, a route was investigated to an accuracy of 0.5 metres (18 in).[16] In December 2009, HS2 handed its report to the government. The study investigated the possibility of links to Heathrow Airport and connections with Crossrail, the Great Western Main Line, and the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1).

On 11 March 2010, the High Speed 2 report and supporting studies were published, together with the government's command paper on high-speed rail.[17][18]

Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition government review

The Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition, on taking office in May 2010, undertook a review of HS2 plans inherited from the previous government. The Conservative Party in opposition had backed the idea of a high-speed terminus at St Pancras with a direct link to Heathrow Airport[19] and had adopted a policy to connect London, Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham with Heathrow by high-speed rail with construction starting in 2015.[20] In March 2010 Theresa Villiers had stated "The idea that some kind of Wormwood Scrubs International station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible".[21]

The new Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond, asked Lord Mawhinney, a former Conservative Transport Secretary, to conduct an urgent review of the proposed route. The coalition government wished the high-speed line to be routed via Heathrow Airport, an idea rejected by HS2 Ltd.[22]

Lord Mawhinney's conclusions contradicted Ms Villiers' view and Conservative policy in opposition, stating that HS2 should not go to Heathrow Airport until it reaches northern England. Routeing the line only via Heathrow would add seven minutes to the journey time of all services.[23]

In December 2008 an article in The Economist noted the increasing political popularity of high-speed rail in Britain as a solution to transport congestion, and as an alternative to unpopular schemes such as road-tolls and runway expansion, but concluded that its future would depend on it being commercially viable.[24] In November 2010, Philip Hammond rejected this idea, stating that government support for HS2 did not require it to be financially viable:

If we used financial accounting we would never have any public spending, we would build nothing ... Financial accounting would strike a dagger through the whole case for public sector investment.[25]

Public consultation

On 20 December 2010 the government published a slightly revised line of route to be put out for public consultation,[26][27] based on a Y-shaped route from London to Birmingham with branches to Leeds and Manchester, as originally put forward by Lord Adonis as Secretary of State for Transport under the previous government,[28] with a number of alterations designed to minimise the visual, noise, and other environmental impacts of the line.[26] In a statement to Parliament, the Secretary of State confirmed that the first phase of construction would include a high-speed line from London to Birmingham as well as a connection to High Speed 1. High-speed lines north of the West Midlands would be built in later stages, and a link to Heathrow Airport would be initially provided by means of a connection at Old Oak Common, with a high-speed link to the airport to be added later. The high-speed line would connect to the existing network, allowing through trains from London to northern destinations.[29][30] The consultation documents were published on 11 February 2011 and the consultation period was set to run until July 2011.[31] In January 2012 the go-ahead was given for phase one of the line to be constructed by 2026, with additional tunnelling to meet environmental concerns.[3]

At the end of March 2012 the Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire Wildlife Trust (BBOWT) announced that it had submitted a complaint to the European Commission that the UK government, in failing to carry out a strategic environmental assessment ahead of deciding on the route of Phase I of HS2, was in breach of European Union legislation. BBOWT said that the complaint would only be considered by the EU Commission after the UK Courts had concluded consideration of various judicial reviews submitted to them.[32]

In April 2012 five requests for judicial reviews were submitted to the UK Courts. Two by HS2 Action Alliance (HS2AA) and one each by the 51m Group, Aylesbury Park Golf Club, and Heathrow Hub Ltd. In two separate judicial review applications the HS2AA claimed that the UK government failed to carry out a proper strategic environmental assessment and that it provided inadequate information to the public during the public consultation. As a consequence the HS2AA claimed that the Secretary of State's decision to approve Phase I of HS2 was made without proper justification, that it ignored the Government's own processes and assessment criteria, and relied on undisclosed material.[33] In a separate judicial review request the 51m Group challenged the UK government on several grounds. Firstly, that it failed to consult properly on the original or the revised route. Secondly, that it failed to consider the impact of HS2 on the London Underground network. Thirdly, that it did not take proper account of the environmental impact on the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and a number of important wildlife habitats, and finally that the hybrid bill approach was 'incompatible with the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive.[34][35] Aylesbury Park Golf Club's proceedings are based on the impact of the proposed route which will pass through part of the club.[36] Heathrow Hub Ltd, a company owned by ARUP, announced it has also started proceedings on the grounds that the UK Government could choose an alternative route which would provide an improved connection between HS2 and Crossrail via a transport hub built on land owned by the company.[37]

Route

See also: Geographic data related to proposed route of HS2 at OpenStreetMap.

Phase 1 – London to the West Midlands

Proposed route of the London-Birmingham section (published January 2012)

As proposed in March 2010, the line would run from London Euston, mainly in tunnel, to an interchange with Crossrail west of London Paddington, then along the New North Main Line (Acton-Northolt Line) past West Ruislip and alongside the Chiltern Main Line with a 2.5 miles (4.0 km) viaduct over the Grand Union Canal and River Colne, and then from the M25 to Amersham in a new 6 miles (9.7 km) tunnel. After emerging from the tunnel, the line would run parallel to the existing A413 road and London to Aylesbury Line, through the 29 miles (47 km) wide Chiltern Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, passing close by Great Missenden to the east, alongside Wendover immediately to the west, then on to Aylesbury. After Aylesbury, the line would run alongside the Aylesbury to Verney Junction line, joining it north of Quainton Road and then striking out to the north-west across open countryside through North Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, South Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. A number of alignments were studied, and in September 2010 HS2 Ltd set out recommendations for altering the course at certain locations.[38]

In December 2010 the Transport Secretary announced several amendments to the line of route aimed at mitigating vibration, noise or visual impact. These changes include, at Primrose Hill, north London, moving the tunnel 100 metres (330 ft) further north, and in west London reducing the width of the "Northolt Corridor". It is proposed to lower the alignment and create a 900 metres (3,000 ft) "green tunnel" in Buckinghamshire at South Heath. At nearby Amersham where two footpaths would also be otherwise severed, at Chipping Warden, Northamptonshire and Burton Green, Warwickshire, "green bridges" would be constructed. Elsewhere, the route alignment would be moved away from the settlements of Brackley, Northamptonshire, Ladbroke and Stoneleigh in Warwickshire and Lichfield in southern Staffordshire, and also from the Grade I listed buildings, Hartwell House and Edgcote House, in Northamptonshire."Changes to the HS2 proposed line of route" (Press release). HS2 Ltd. 20 December 2010.

In January 2012 Justine Greening Secretary of State for Transport announced further revisions to the Phase 1 route. The key revisions included, a new 2.7 miles (4.3 km) tunnel at Northolt avoiding the Chilterns Line and mitigating the impact in the Ruislip area. A realignment of the route and extension of the continuous tunnel, originally from the M25 to Amersham, further on to near Little Missenden. At Wendover and nearby South Heath, extension to the green tunnels to reduce impact on local communities. Additionally, an extension to the green tunnel beside Chipping Warden and Aston Le Walls, and realigning the route to avoid heritage sites around Edgcote. The revised route plan would comprise 22.5 miles (36.2 km) in a tunnel or a green tunnel, compared to 14.5 miles (23.3 km) which it was clarified was a 55% increase in tunnelling compared to that set out for the route in the original consultation. Overall, 79 miles (127 km) of the 140 miles (230 km) route will be in tunnels or cuttings while 40 miles (64 km) will be on viaducts or embankments, a reduction of 10 miles (16 km) from that in the route set out in the original consultation documents.[3][2]

Heathrow access

While in opposition, the Conservative Party had stated that, if elected to government, it would go forward with a high-speed line connecting London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, with a long-term aim of linking to Scotland, as well as other English cities."Conservative rail review: Getting the best for passengers" (PDF). Conservative Party. Long Term Strategy, section 5.1 High Speed Rail, pp.10-11."Getting the best for rail passengers" (Press release). Conservative Party. 11 February 2009.

Consultants Arup had previously suggested in Heathrow Hub Arup Submission to HS2 that a 200-acre (81 ha) site at Iver, north-east of the intersection of the M25 and M4, could house a railway station of 12 or more platforms, as well as a coach and bus station and an airport terminal. Under this proposal, the high-speed line would then follow a different route to Birmingham, running parallel to existing motorways and railways as with HS1 in Kent.Arup (15 April 2010). "A submission to Lord Mawhinney's Review" (PDF).[full citation needed] Arup's proposal was supported by the Conservatives in their 2009 policy paper, which envisaged connections to cities on the Great Western main line (Bristol and Cardiff) as well as high-speed connections both to the new high-speed line to the north and to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link and continental Europe.

According to Lord Mawhinney's report, the Heathrow station should be directly beneath Heathrow Central station (not at Iver, see Heathrow Hub) and the London terminus for HS2 should be at Old Oak Common, not Euston."High speed rail access to Heathrow: a report by Lord Mawhinney". Department for Transport. 21 July 2010.[full citation needed] The "Heathrow Hub" plan was initially supported by the Conservative Party"Shadow Secretary confirms support for Heathrow Hub Plan". ARUP. 26 February 2009. but did not form part of the final consultation plan."Government drops Heathrow Hub option for spur on High Speed 2 route". New Civil Engineer. London. 20 December 2010.

In December 2010 it was announced that a high-speed connection with Heathrow Airport would be built as part of the second phase of the project, and that until then connections would be made at Old Oak Common, where High Speed 2 would have an interchange station with the Heathrow Express and Crossrail.

Phase 2 – West Midlands to Manchester and Leeds

The corridor of the "Y" route extension to Manchester and Leeds from Birmingham currently preferred by the government.

The second phase planned is a "Y" route with separate branches to Manchester and Leeds after Birmingham.[39] The consultation on the route is planned to take place in 2014, and the line is expected to be built by 2033.[3]

The route to the West Midlands will be the first stage of a line to Scotland,[40] and passengers travelling to or from Scotland will be able to use through trains with a saving of 45 minutes from day one.[41] It was recommended by a Parliament select committee on HS2 in November 2011 that a statutory clause should be in the bill that will guarantee HS2 being constructed beyond Birmingham so that the economic benefits are spread further.[42]

Connection to other lines

High Speed 1

The government command paper stated:

... the new British high speed rail network should be connected to the wider European high speed rail network via High Speed One and the Channel Tunnel, subject to cost and value for money. This could be achieved through either or both of a dedicated rapid transport system linking Euston and St Pancras and a direct rail link to High Speed One.[43]

The engineering study conducted by Arup for HS2 Ltd costed a "classic speed" GC loading gauge direct rail link at £458m (single track) or £812m (double track). The connection would be from Old Oak Common to the High Speed 1 St Pancras portal, via tunnel and the North London Line. A double-track high-speed connection would cost £3.6bn.[44]

The High Speed 2 report recommended that, if a direct rail link is built, it should be the classic-speed, double-track option.[45]

In December 2010 it was announced that a connection will be made with High Speed 1 as part of the first phase of construction using a tunnel between Old Oak Common and Chalk Farm on the North London Line, and then using existing lines to connect north of St Pancras.[29][30] The proposed connection would be built to GC loading gauge and would not be suitable for high-speed running.[46]

West Coast Main Line in Staffordshire

As planned, HS2 will cross the West Coast Main Line just east of Lichfield Trent Valley railway station then join the Main Line about 3 kilometres to the north-west of Lichfield.[citation needed]

Journey times

The DfT's latest revised estimates of journey times for some major destinations once the line has been built as far as Leeds and Manchester, set out in the January 2012 document High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future – Decisions and Next Steps, are as follows:[47] The intermediate timings given for when only the section to Birmingham has been built are taken from an earlier document.

London to/from… current (2012 report) current (2012 timetable) …after HS2→Birmingham) …after HS2→Manchester & Leeds)
Birmingham 1:24 1:12[t 1] 0:49 no change
Manchester 2:08 1:58[t 2] 1:40 1:08
Liverpool 2:10 2:01[t 3] 1:50 1:46
Leeds 2:20 1:59[t 4] no change 1:28
Sheffield 2:09 2:05[t 5] no change 1:10
Newcastle 3:09 2:37[t 6] no change 2:18
Edinburgh 4:30 4:00[t 7] no change 3:39
Glasgow 4:30 4:08[t 8] 4:00 3:37
  1. ^ Birmingham: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:30 New Street–08:42 Euston
  2. ^ Manchester: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:00 Piccadilly–08:58 Euston
  3. ^ Liverpool: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:00 Lime Street–09:01 Euston
  4. ^ Leeds: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:00 Leeds–08:59 King's Cross
  5. ^ Sheffield: two trains per day, northbound: St Pancras–Sheffield
  6. ^ Newcastle: one train per day, in one direction only: 07:03 Newcastle Central–09:40 King's Cross
  7. ^ Edinburgh: one train per day, in one direction only: 05:40 Waverley–09:40 King's Cross
  8. ^ Glasgow: one train per day, in one direction only: 16:30 Euston–20:38 Glasgow Central

Planned stations

London to Birmingham

Euston Terminus, also showing nearby terminus of High Speed 1 at St Pancras

Central London

Under the March 2010 scheme, HS2 will start from a rebuilt London Euston. The station will be extended to the south and west with significant construction above. A total of 24 platforms will serve High Speed and classic lines to the Midlands as well as the six underground lines. The connection with Crossrail at Old Oak Common in West London is designed to mitigate the extra burden on Euston, although Euston too would see its underground station rebuilt and integrated with Euston Square.[31][48] A rapid transit link between Euston and St Pancras might be provided[49] and it is proposed to route the proposed Chelsea–Hackney line via Euston to cope with increased passenger demand.[50][51]

However, the review by former Conservative Transport Secretary Lord Mawhinney recommended that High Speed 2 should terminate at Old Oak Common, not Euston.[23] He questioned the sense of having HS2 terminate at Euston and High Speed 1 at St Pancras, with no direct through running connection between them[23] however there is such a link proposed[31] and a rapid transport link to complement the five London Underground lines running between the stations.[49]

West London

Crossrail Interchange in west London
Main article: Old Oak Common railway station

The March 2010 report proposed that all trains would stop at a west London "Crossrail interchange" near Old Oak Common between Paddington and Acton Main Line stations, with connections for Crossrail, Heathrow Express and services on the Great Western Main Line to Heathrow Airport, Reading, South West England and South Wales. The station might also have connections with London Overground and Southern services on the North London and West London Lines and also with London Underground's Central Line.[52]

Lord Mawhinney recommended that High Speed 2 should terminate at Old Oak Common because of its good connections and in order to save the cost of tunnelling to Euston.[23]

Bickenhill ("Birmingham Interchange")

The proposed 'Birmingham Interchange'

The March 2010 report proposed that a new "Birmingham Interchange" station will be built in rural Solihull, on the other side of the M42 motorway from the National Exhibition Centre, Birmingham International Airport and Birmingham International Station.[53] The interchange will be connected by a people mover to the other sites; the AirRail Link people mover already operates between Birmingham International station and the airport.

According to Birmingham Airport's chief executive Paul Kehoe, HS2 is a key element in increasing the number of flights using the airport, and patronage by inhabitants of London and the South-East, as the high-speed link will reduce travelling times to Birmingham Airport from London to under 40mins.[54]

Birmingham city centre

Proposed layout for Curzon Street Station
Main article: Curzon Street Station

New Street station, the main station serving central Birmingham, has been described as operating at full capacity and being unable to accommodate new high-speed services.[citation needed] A new terminus for High Speed 2, termed "Birmingham Curzon Street" in the government's command paper[55] and as "Birmingham Fazeley Street" in the report produced by High Speed 2 Ltd, would be built on land between Moor Street Queensway and the site of the old Curzon Street Station. It would be reached via a spur line from a triangular junction with the "main" HS2 trunk at Coleshill.[56]

As of January 2012 there are no plans for the Curzon Street/Fazeley Street terminus to receive other rail services, but the new station will be adjacent to Moor Street station and the two stations could be directly linked. A link to New Street station via a people-mover with a journey time of two minutes is possible.[57] The other city-centre station, Snow Hill, is just a couple of minutes' train journey from Moor Street station.

The plans for HS2 will have an impact on existing land use in the city. Development plans for the Eastside district and a new campus for Birmingham City University are being progressed, though incompatible with HS2, because the government did not inform them of the proposed route.[58][59]

In addition, the Government proposes that there will be a marshalling yard in Washwood Heath, where 30 homes will be demolished to enable the development.[60]

Beyond Birmingham (Phase 2)

Further stations are proposed for the second phase of HS2, on unidentified sites as of January 2012.[61]

Leeds branch

A new station in the East Midlands is proposed and might take the form of a parkway station,[note 1] and not be sited in the cities of Nottingham, Leicester or Derby, which the parkway station would serve.[citation needed][62] Business leaders[who?] in the area supported high-speed rail coming to the East Midlands but were concerned that a parkway station instead of centrally located city stations would result in no overall net benefit in journey times.[62] An existing parkway station was recently constructed on the Midland Main Line — the East Midlands Parkway railway station — between Derby and Nottingham.

The HS2 line would continue north from East Midlands to a station at Meadowhall in South Yorkshire (serving the city of Sheffield and surrounding large towns) before terminating in West Yorkshire in Central Leeds.

Manchester branch

Plans emerged in 2011 for a station at Manchester Airport, which is the busiest airport outside the London region.[63] The route would then terminate at an as of yet undecided location in central Manchester. Possible options include building a new purpose-built high speed station or lengthening platforms at Manchester Piccadilly station to 400 metres (1,300 ft) to accommodate the new high-speed trains.[63] HS2 trains will transfer onto existing lines to Liverpool.

Development

Infrastructure

Euston station is planned to be the London terminus of HS2

High Speed 2 Ltd's report uses the specifications of a high-speed line built to a European structure gauge (as was High Speed 1) and conforming to European Union technical standards for interoperability for high-speed rail[64] (EU Directive 96/48/EC). HS2 Ltd's report assumed a GC structure gauge for passenger capacity estimations,[65] with a maximum design speed of 250 miles per hour (400 km/h).[1] Initially, trains would run at a maximum 225 miles per hour (362 km/h)*.[66]

Freight trains could use the line only within a limited night-time window, due to their relatively low speed. The new line would also release capacity for freight on the existing West Coast Main Line and Midland Main Line.[67]

Signalling would be based on the European Rail Traffic Management System using in-cab signalling, to resolve the visibility issues associated with line-side signals at speeds over 125 miles per hour (201 km/h)

Platform height will be 2.5 feet (0.76 m).[68]

Rolling stock

A 2008 Alstom AGV, an example of a European-gauge high-speed rail vehicle (not specified for HS2)
British Rail Class 373, an existing example of a high-speed train compatible with British and Continental gauges (not specified for HS2)

The rolling stock for HS2 has not yet been specified in any detail. The 2010 DFT government command paper outlined some requirements for the train design among its recommendations for design standards for the HS2 network. A photograph of a French Automotrice à grande vitesse (AGV) was used to illustrate an example of the latest high-speed rail technology. The paper addressed the particular problem of designing trains to continental European standards, which use taller and wider rolling stock, requiring a larger loading gauge (the clearance between the rail vehicles and bridges, tunnels and other structures) than the rail network in Great Britain.

The report proposed the development of two new types of train to make best use of the European-standard line:[66]

  • Wider and taller trains built to a European loading gauge, which would be confined to the high-speed network (including High Speed 1, High Speed 2) and other lines cleared to their loading gauge.
  • 'Classic compatible' trains, capable of high speed but built to a British loading gauge to permit them to leave the high-speed line to join conventional routes such as the West Coast Main Line, Midland Main Line and East Coast Main Line.[note 2] Such trains would allow onward running of HS2 services to the north of England and Scotland. HS2 Ltd have stated that, because of their non-standard nature, these classic-compatible trains were expected to be more expensive.[69]

Both types of train would have a maximum speed of at least 220 miles per hour (350 km/h) and length of at least 200 metres (660 ft). Two units could be joined together for a 400 metres (1,300 ft) train, but only platforms specially built or rebuilt for the high-speed line would be able to accommodate such long trains.[66]

The DFT report also considered the possibility of 'gauge clearance' work on non-high-speed lines as an alternative to 'classic compatible' trains. This work would involve extensive reconstruction of stations, tunnels and bridges and widening of clearances to allow European-gauge trains to run beyond the high-speed network. The report concluded that although initial outlay on commissioning new rolling stock would be high, it would cost less than the additional, widespread disruption of rebuilding large tracts of Britain's rail infrastructure.[66]

Maintenance depot

In April 2010 ARUP was asked to develop proposals for the location, engineering specification and site layout of the Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD). The general location of the IMD was identified as ideally adjacent to, or within 10k of the intersection of the preferred HS2 route and the East West Rail (EWR) route near Steeple Claydon/Calvert in Buckinghamshire. The feasibility of using the MoD site at Bicester as the IMD was also considered. Six such potential sites were shortlisted and rated against the specification. The preferred site, called 'Thame Road' (at Claydon Junction) and a fall-back site, 'Great Pond' were announced in December 2010.[70] The nearby Calvert Waste Plant has also been identified for heat and power generation.[70]

Cost

The first 120-mile (190 km) section from London to Birmingham will cost between £15.8 and £17.4 billion,[71] while the cost for the entire Y-shaped 335-mile (540 km) network is £30 billion.[71]

Upgrading existing lines from London to Birmingham instead of building the new HS2 will cost more (£20bn) and would provide only two-thirds the extra capacity of HS2, according to Lord Adonis.[72]

Timeline to opening

High Speed 2 Ltd suggested[73] that, following ministerial approval, public consultation, parliamentary approval through a hybrid bill, and detailed design, construction of the London-Birmingham section could begin in mid-2018. This is estimated to require six-and-a-half years, with a further year to finish testing.[74] Reconstruction of Euston station and preparation of related infrastructure is expected to require the full length of the construction period to complete. Other major construction elements include the Old Oak Common and Birmingham stations (over four years), and the tunnelling work (Old Oak to Euston tunnel, tunnels at Little Missenden, Ufton Wood, Chalfont and Amersham), all estimated to require over four years for construction.[75] Opening would be at the end of 2025.[74]

The command paper suggested that opening to Birmingham should be possible by the end of 2026.[76] The timetable included the additional work of preparing the routes to Leeds and Manchester, for approval by Parliament in the hybrid bill. The initial Y-shaped network was to be presented in one bill in an attempt to simplify planning and minimise the parliamentary time required for the bill.[77]

Perspectives

See also: High-speed rail in the United Kingdom

Government rationale

A 2008 paper, 'Delivering a Sustainable Transport System' [78] identified fourteen strategic national transport corridors in England, and described the London – West Midlands – North West England route as the "single most important and heavily used" and also as the one which presented "both the greatest challenges in terms of future capacity and the greatest opportunities to promote a shift of passenger and freight traffic from road to rail".[79] They noted that railway passenger numbers had been growing significantly in recent years[80] and that the Rugby – Euston section was already operating at up to 80% of capacity in the 2009 morning peak,[dubious – discuss][81] also that the DfT expected the WCML to have insufficient capacity south of Rugby sometime around 2025.[82] This is despite the major WCML upgrade which was completed in 2008 and allowed longer trains to use the route with cab signalling.[83]

According to the Department of Transport, the primary purpose of HS2 is to provide additional capacity on the rail network from London to the Midlands and North.[84] They say that the new line "would improve rail services from London to cities in the North of England and Scotland,[85] and that the chosen route to the west of London will improve passenger transport links to Heathrow Airport".[86] Additionally, if the new line were connected to the Great Western Main Line (GWML) and Crossrail it would provide links with East and West London, and the Thames Valley.[87]

In launching the project, the DfT announced that the new High Speed 2 line between London and the West Midlands would follow a different alignment from that of the existing WCML, rejecting the option of further upgrading or building new tracks alongside the existing WCML as being too costly and disruptive, and because the existing Victorian-era WCML alignment was not suitable for very high speeds.[88]

The Government expects that over the next 30 years, HS2 will cost £32 billion to build, provide £43.7 billion of economic benefits and generate £27 billion in fares.[89]

Support

Organisations that support the HS2 project include:

Opposition

High Speed 2 is opposed by:

  • StopHS2, representing local action groups along the route.[111][112]
  • The HS2 Action Alliance,[113] an umbrella group for opposition groups[114] including ad hoc entities, residents' associations, and parish councils.[115] The Alliance's primary aim is to prevent HS2 from happening; secondary aims include evaluating and minimising the impacts of HS2 on individuals, communities and the environment, and communication of facts about HS2, and its compensation scheme.[113] Even after the latest changes made to the scheme to mitigate concerns, it continues to be opposed by some MPs and personalities on the line of route.[116] A member[who?] of the 'HS2 Action Alliance' has criticised the Department of Transport's demand forecasts as being too high, as well as having other shortcomings in the assessment methodology.[117][118]
  • The Green Party voted to oppose the proposed HS2 plans at its Spring 2011 conference, on environmental and economic grounds;[119] Alan Francis, the party transport speaker, had previously outlined its support for high-speed rail in principle in terms of benefits to capacity, reduced journey times and reduced carbon emissions, but recommended a line restricted to 190 miles per hour (310 km/h) to 200 miles per hour (320 km/h) which would enable it to use existing transport corridors to a greater extent and increase efficiency.[120]
  • The New Economics Foundation (A think tank promoting environmentalism, localism and anti-capitalism) published a formal response to the public consultation on 5 August 2011[121] which concluded that the case for a high-speed rail link was incomplete and that the benefits of the scheme had been "over-emphasised" by its promoters.[122]

Other

Organisations with noncommittal, ambiguous or dissatisfied positions include:

  • The Right Lines Charter, launched in 2011, is an umbrella group for several environmental and other organisations that support the principle of a high-speed rail network but believe that the current HS2 scheme is unsound. Members include the Campaign for Better Transport, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and Railfuture.[125]
  • Arup, which did the engineering work to identify routes for HS2 Ltd., has opposed the chosen route for HS2 (route 3) calling it "deeply flawed"[126] It says the route should link to Heathrow and then follow the M40 motorway and Chiltern railway line, improving the business case, lowering construction costs and creating less impact on the countryside.[127]
  • Railfuture, a railway campaigning organisation which supports high-speed rail in principle, stated in its submission to the Transport Select Committee Inquiry that it sees no benefit in trains running at up to 250 miles per hour (400 km/h) and therefore is not in favour of the current proposal and route, and suggests that alternatives be investigated.[128]
  • The Campaign to Protect Rural England[129] believes that lower speeds would increase journey times only slightly, while allowing the line to run along existing motorway and railway corridors, reducing intrusion.[129]
  • The Wildlife Trusts have criticised the proposals, stating that the former Government's policy on High Speed Rail (March 2010) underestimated the effect on wildlife habitats (with 4 SSSIs and over 50 of other types of nature site affected), as well as noting that the proposals had not comprehensively shown any significant effect on transport carbon emissions and questioning the economic benefits of a line. The trusts called for additional research to be done on the effects of a high-speed line.[130]
  • The Coventry and Warwickshire Chamber of Commerce opined that HS2 offered no benefit to its area.[132]
  • In November 2011 the Commons Transport Committee reported that the scheme had 'A good case' and offered 'a new era of inter-urban travel in Britain'.[136] They however also said that there should be a firm commitment made now to extend the line to Manchester and Leeds and that other investment in rail should not suffer, and noted a poor level of public debate which had failed to address the facts and had resorted to name-calling and accusations of nimbyism.[137] While questioning some data it found a good economic case for the project bringing more benefits than a conventional rail line, that the noise impact would be less than feared and that while it would not reduce carbon dioxide emissions they would be smaller than under further motorway or air traffic expansion and that the business case for diverting via Heathrow had not been made. The report's findings were welcomed by the Association of Train Operating Companies, the Campaign for Better Transport, the Countryside Alliance and the Campaign to Protect Rural England. Action Groups Against High Speed Two (AGHAST) condemned the authors as a 'partisan committee' though they welcomed some of the findings saying it poked holes in the Government's arguments.

Environmental and community impact

The HS2 route will cut through areas such as this landscape at Wendover Dean in the Chiltern Hills[138]

Visual impact

The visual impact of HS2 has received particular attention in the Chilterns which is designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.[139] The Government announced in January 2011 that £2m would be spent planting trees along sections of the route to mitigate the visual impact of HS2.[140]

Property demolition and land take

HS2's first phase would result in the demolition of more than 400 houses; 250 around Euston station, 20–30 between Old Oak Common and West Ruislip, a number of demolitions at Ealing, around 50 in Birmingham, and the remainder in pockets along the route.[141] This includes nine Grade II listed buildings and possibly a Grade II* listed farmhouse at Hampton in Arden.[citation needed]

In Birmingham, the new Curzon Gate student residence would have to be demolished[142] and Birmingham City University wanted a £30 million refund after the plans were revealed.[58]

Loss of wildlife habitat, and recreation space

David Lidington, MP for Aylesbury, raised concerns that the route could damage the 29 miles (47 km)-wide Chiltern Hills area of outstanding natural beauty, the Colne Valley regional park on the outskirts of London, and other areas of green belt.[143]

HS2's preferred route would pass through the Chilterns in Buckinghamshire via the Misbourne Valley. Initially through a tunnel beneath Chalfont St Giles[144] emerging just after Amersham, then past Wendover and Stoke Mandeville.[145] Its proposals also include another re-alignment of more than 0.62 miles (1.00 km) of the River Tame, and construction of a 0.39 miles (0.63 km) long viaduct and a cutting[146] through ancient woodland at a nature reserve at Park Hall on the edge of Birmingham.[147]

Carbon emissions

In 2007, the Department for Transport commissioned a report, Estimated Carbon Impact of a New North South Line, from Booz Allen Hamilton to investigate the likely overall carbon impacts associated with the construction and operation of a new rail line to either Manchester or Scotland including any expected modal transport shifts, and the comparison with the case in which no new high-speed lines were built.[148] The report concluded that there were no carbon benefits in building a new line from London to Manchester. The additional carbon from a new rail route would be larger than the case in which no new line was built.[149]

The High Speed Rail Command paper published in March 2010 stated that the project was likely to be roughly carbon neutral - even including the additional journeys on the line.[150]

The Eddington Report cautioned against the common argument of modal shift from aviation to haigh-speed rail as a carbon-emissions benefit, since only 1.2% of UK carbon emissions are due to domestic commercial aviation, and since rail transportation energy efficiency is reduced as speed increases.[151]

The Government White Paper Delivering a Sustainable Railway states trains that travel at a speed of 220 miles per hour (350 km/h) which currently use 90% more energy than at 125 miles per hour (201 km/h);[citation needed] which results in carbon emissions for a London to Edinburgh journey of 14 kilograms (31 lb) per passenger for high speed rail compared to 7 kilograms (15 lb) per passenger for conventional rail. Air travel uses 26 kilograms (57 lb) per passenger for the same journey. The paper questioned the value for money of high speed rail as a method of reducing carbon emissions, but noted that with a switch to carbon free or neutral energy production the case becomes much more favourable.[152]

Noise

HS2 Ltd stated that 21,300 dwellings could experience a noticeable increase in rail noise and 200 non-residential receptors (community; education; healthcare; and recreational/social facilities) within 300 metres (980 ft) of the preferred route have the potential to experience significant noise impacts.[141] The Government has announced that trees planted to create a visual barrier will also reduce noise pollution along the route.[140]

Geology and water supply

Research presented by Dr Haydon Bailey, geological adviser to the Chiltern Society, showed that HS2 tunnelling could cause long term damage to the chalk aquifer system responsible for water supply for the North Western Home Counties and North London.[153]

Compensation

The only compensation scheme for which details are available is the government's discretionary Exceptional Hardship Scheme (EHS), on which consultation closed on 17 June 2010. It is intended to compensate homeowners who have difficulty selling their home because of the HS2 route announcement, to protecting those whose property value may be seriously affected by the 'preferred route option' and who urgently need to sell.

The EHS was intended to run from about August 2010, until the route is chosen (originally estimated around the end of 2011). Homeowners may apply to the Secretary of State to buy their home, at its full market value (assuming no HS2), if all of the following criteria are met:

  1. Residential owner-occupier.
  2. Pressing need to sell. This means a change in employment location; extreme financial pressure; to accommodate enlarged family; move into sheltered accommodation; or medical condition of a family member.
  3. On or in 'close vicinity' of the 'preferred route' (that is mainly those who will later on be covered by statutory blight provisions).
  4. Have tried to sell – been on the market for at least three months with no offers within 15% of full market value (as if no HS2).
  5. Can demonstrate inability to sell is due to HS2.
  6. No prior knowledge of HS2 before acquiring the property.

Decisions on individual applications will by made by a panel of experts.[154]

The results of the consultations are not yet known. But Alison Munro, Chief Executive of HS2 Ltd, has stated that they are also looking at other options, including property bonds.[155] The statutory blight regime would apply to any route confirmed for a new high-speed line following the public consultations, now due to commence in 2011.[156]

HS2 Action Alliance's alternative compensation solution for property blight was presented to DfT/HS2 Ltd and then Secretary of State for Transport Philip Hammond, in response to the consultation on the EHS. The Alliance also presented DfT and HS2 Ltd with a pilot study on property blight.[157]

See also

References, sources and notes

References

  1. ^ a b DfT (2010a), page 127
  2. ^ a b "HS2: Phase one of high-speed rail line gets go-ahead". BBC News. 10 January 2012.
  3. ^ a b c d "Go-ahead given to new railway". Department for Transport. January 2012.
  4. ^ Millward, David (4 November 2010). "Country campaigners call for high speed rail rethink". The Daily Telegraph. London.
  5. ^ "The Coalition: our programme for government" (PDF). HM Government. May 2010. p. 31.
  6. ^ DfT (2009a) page 4 paragraph 5
  7. ^ Topham, Gwyn (11 April 2012). "HS2 revises down economic benefits of £33bn railway". The Guardian. London.
  8. ^ Atkins (2009)
  9. ^ DfT (2009a) page 11 paragraph 29
  10. ^ DfT (2009a), page 5 paragraph 8.
  11. ^ DfT (2009a), page 5 paragraph 9.
  12. ^ DfT (2009a), page 17 paragraph 40.
  13. ^ DfT (2009a), page 24 paragraph 63
  14. ^ DfT (2009a), page 24 paragraph 65.
  15. ^ "The case for new lines" (PDF). Meeting the capacity challenge. Network Rail.
  16. ^ "High-speed rail plans to be submitted to government". BBC News. 27 December 2009. Retrieved 28 December 2009.
  17. ^ "High-speed rail plans announced by government". BBC News. 11 March 2010. Retrieved 11 March 2010.
  18. ^ "High Speed Rail". Department for Transport. Retrieved 12 March 2010.
  19. ^ "Tories would scrap Heathrow plan". BBC News. 29 September 2008.
  20. ^ "Where we stand: Transport". Conservative Party. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
  21. ^ "Tories say high-speed rail plans for Birmingham are flawed". Birmingham Post. 11 March 2010.
  22. ^ "Ministers order re-think of high-speed rail route". TransportXtra.com. London. 28 May 2010.
  23. ^ a b c d Harris, Nigel (28 July 2010). "'No business case' to divert HS2 via Heathrow, says Mawhinney'". Rail. No. 649. Peterborough. pp. 6–7.
  24. ^ "A surprising conversion". The Economist. London. 30 December 2008.
  25. ^ "Transport secretary unveils HS2 compensation plan". Railnews. Stevenage. 29 November 2010.
  26. ^ a b "London-to-Birmingham high speed train route announced". BBC News. 20 December 2010.
  27. ^ "'Redrawn' high speed rail plan unveiled". Channel 4 News. 20 December 2010.
  28. ^ "High Speed Rail - Oral Answers to Questions — Education - House of Commons debates". 20 December 2010. question to the Minister by Maria Eagle, shadow secretary for Transport, 1st para.
  29. ^ a b "High Speed Rail: Oral statement by: The Rt Hon Philip Hammond MP". Department for Transport. 20 December 2010.
  30. ^ a b "New High Speed Rail Proposals Unveiled" (Press release). Department for Transport. 20 December 2010.
  31. ^ a b c High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future Consultation, Department for Transport February 2011
  32. ^ "Trust makes appeal to Europe over HS2 route". Bicester Advertiser. 30 March 2012.
  33. ^ "Legal fight over high-speed rail". BBC News. 3 April 2012.
  34. ^ Millward, David (2 April 2012). "Councils launch bid to block high speed rail". The Daily Telegraph. London.
  35. ^ "Challenging HS2". 51M Group. 5 April 2012.
  36. ^ "HS2: Government wants to face all its critics at once as delay threat mounts". Knight Frank. 3 May 2012.
  37. ^ "Another challenge to HS2 launched". Out-Law.com. 12 April 2012.
  38. ^ High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond, Supplementary Report, September 2010: Refining the Alignment of HS2's Recommended Route. Department for Transport HS2 website archive. Retrieved 21 March 2012.
  39. ^ "Proposed high speed rail network North of Birmingham confirmed" (Press release). Department for Transport. 4 October 2010. Retrieved 7 October 2010.
  40. ^ DfT (2009a), page 16 paragraph 37
  41. ^ Savage, Michael (2 February 2010). "Adonis in all-party talks on high-speed rail link". The Independent. London. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  42. ^ "Conclusions and recommendations - conclusions and the way ahead". publications.parliament.uk. 1 November 2011. Retrieved 6 January 2012.
  43. ^ DfT (2010a), page 9
  44. ^ Arup. "Route Engineering Study Final Report: A Report for HS2, chapter 9" (PDF). Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  45. ^ "High Speed Rail: London to the West Midlands and Beyond. A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited. Chapter 3, p. 134" (PDF). Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  46. ^ Arup (20 December 2010). "Review of HS1 to HS2 Connection Final Report" (PDF). Department for Transport. Section 2.1 "Structural modifications" , p.4.
  47. ^ "High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future – Decisions and Next Steps" (PDF). Department for Transport. 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  48. ^ Subject: Proposal for Examining the Potential Effect of High Speed 2 on London’s Transport Network, Greater London Authority 17 May 2011
  49. ^ a b High Speed 2 automated people mover (APM) Euston Station to St Pancras International further investigation final report Department for Transport Archives
  50. ^ Transport Select Committee, 28 June 2011, House of Commons
  51. ^ HS2 fuels Crossrail 2 business case
  52. ^ DfT (2010a), page 107
  53. ^ DfT(2010a), page 118.
  54. ^ Nielsen, Beverley (29 October 2010). "Up, Up and Away - Birmingham Airport spreads its wings as powerful driver of growth and jobs". Birmingham Post Business Blog.
  55. ^ DfT(2010a), page 112
  56. ^ "3". High Speed Rail: London to the West Midlands and Beyond. A Report to Government by High Speed Two Limited (PDF). p. 117. Retrieved 12 March 2010.
  57. ^ Department for Transport (2010). High Speed Rail - Command Paper (PDF). The Stationery Office. ISBN 978-0-10-178272-2. Retrieved 13 March 2010. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |publisherlink= ignored (help)
  58. ^ a b Walker, Jonathan (16 March 2010). "Birmingham City University wants £30m refund after high speed rail hits campus plan". Birmingham Post. Retrieved 17 March 2010.
  59. ^ Department for Transport (2010a), page 115
  60. ^ High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Consultation Summary, February 2011 page 22
  61. ^ DfT Line of Route
  62. ^ a b "New 'parkway' station could be built in East Midlands". Nottingham Evening Post. 3 December 2009. Retrieved 4 January 2010.
  63. ^ a b "Manchester Airport may be high-speed rail network hub". Manchester Evening News. 13 March 2011. Retrieved 11 March 2012.
  64. ^ DfT(2010a), page 127, section 8.4
  65. ^ HS2(2010a), Chapter 2, section 2.3.11, pp.40-41
  66. ^ a b c d DfT(2010a), page 129
  67. ^ DfT(2010a), page 130
  68. ^ "About High Speed Rail". High Speed 2 Ltd. Table 3. Retrieved 9 February 2011.
  69. ^ HS2(2010a), para 4.1.23
  70. ^ a b Infrastructure Maintenance Depot Released December 2010
  71. ^ a b "High-speed rail plans announced". BBC News. 11 March 2010.
  72. ^ http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/5bca50e0-4397-11e0-b117-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1ddsTAl6X
  73. ^ HS2(2010a), Chapter 5.2
  74. ^ a b HS2(2010a), p213
  75. ^ HS2(2010a), p212, Chapter 6 section 5.2.29
  76. ^ DfT(2010a), page 140
  77. ^ DfT(2010a), page 138-9
  78. ^ "Delivering a Sustainable Transport System (DaSTS)".
  79. ^ DfT (2009a), page 12 paragraph 31.
  80. ^ "Train mileage for passenger operators (millions)". Office of Rail Regulation. 1 November 2011.
  81. ^ DfT (2009a) Figure 5: Loading levels in the 3-hour morning peak period, 2008/09, p.14.
  82. ^ DfT (2009a), page 5 paragraph 6
  83. ^ DfT (2009a), page 12 paragraph 34
  84. ^ "HS2 isn't about reducing CO2 or the North-South divide, says DfT". TransportXtra. London. 20 January 2012.
  85. ^ DfT (2009a), page 4 paragraph 5
  86. ^ DfT (2009a), page 17 paragraph 41
  87. ^ DfT (2009a), page 18 paragraph 43
  88. ^ DfT (2009a), page 16 paragraph 36
  89. ^ http://news.uk.msn.com/features/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=157028201
  90. ^ "Transport". Conservative party.
  91. ^ "Labour's new HS2 fails to impress supporters or critics". RailNews. Stevenage. 1 November 2011.
  92. ^ Holehouse, Matthew (20 September 2011). "Liberal Democrats Party Conference 2011: September 19 as it happened". The Daily Telegraph. London.
  93. ^ "About Greengauge 21". Greengauge 21 website. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
  94. ^ "About". Campaign for HSR.
  95. ^ Campaign for HSR. Retrieved 14 April 2012.
  96. ^ Go-HS2
  97. ^ Passenger Transport Executive Group response to HS2 consultation July 2011. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
  98. ^ "NPF2 Action Programme – Action 3: Develop High Speed Rail Link to London". The Scottish Government. Retrieved 29 November 2010.
  99. ^ Bounds, Andrew; Tighe, Chris; Murray Brown, John (10 January 2012). "Business chiefs welcome green light for HS2". Financial Times. London. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
  100. ^ Courtney, Adam (10 January 2012). "Old Oak in Shepherd's Bush set for tranformation after rail plan go-ahead". Fulham & Hammersmith Chronicle. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
  101. ^ 51m membership Retrieved 03-06-2011
  102. ^ Poole, Lawrence (8 December 2010). "We don't want it here, we don't want high speed rail anywhere". Buckinghamshire Examiner. Uxbridge.
  103. ^ "Council to 'robustly resist' high speed rail". Uxbridge Gazette. 6 December 2010.
  104. ^ "County council opposes HS2" (Press release). Warwickshire County Council. 15 December 2010.
  105. ^ "Leicestershire is in - another local authority confirms it's challenging HS2" 51m website. Retrieved 3 June 2011.
  106. ^ Three Rivers DC and Oxfordshire CC join 51m. Retrieved 29 August 2011 [dead link‍]
  107. ^ Bates, Matthew (15 December 2010). "City council unites in opposition to HS2". Coventry Observer.
  108. ^ Camden Borough Council HS2 . Retrieved 28 July 2011.
  109. ^ "Northamptonshire Arc". Northamptonshire County Council. High Speed Two (HS2). the County Council objects strongly to the current published routes and insists that HS2 should only go ahead if a route can be found through consultation which minimises the potential adverse effect on local amenity, landscape and the environment
  110. ^ "High Speed 2:Staffordshire County Council set to oppose plans" (PDF) (Press release). Staffordshire County Council. 18 November 2010.
  111. ^ "StopHS2". We oppose the HS2 High Speed Rail link, because the business case is based on unrealistic assumptions, the environmental impact has not been assessed, it is not green, the strategic benefits are questionable, and the money could be better spent on other things.
  112. ^ <Millward,David (12 January 2012). "Tory MPs face high speed rail backlash". The Daily Telegraph. London. Another campaigner, Penny Gaines, chairman of stop HS2. accused Mrs Gillan of "bottling out" by appearing to welcome the concessions announced by Justine Greening, the Transport Secretary.
  113. ^ a b "About us". Amersham: HS2 Action Alliance. 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
  114. ^ Woodman, Peter (19 December 2010). "High-speed rail route to be announced". The Independent. London.
  115. ^ "HS2 action groups (and other HS2 active organisations)". HS2 Action Alliance. 2010. Retrieved 18 May 2010.
  116. ^ Groves, Jason (10 January 2012). "Middle England in revolt: Tory shires furious as high-speed rail link gets go-ahead". Daily Mail. London. Retrieved 11 January 2012.
  117. ^ "Transport and the economy, Memorandum from Wharf Weston (TE 30)". UK Parliament. November 2010.
  118. ^ "Memorandum from Bluespace Thinking Ltd (TE 07)" (PDF). UK Parliament. September 2010. 7. Problems with the current forecasting and analysis methodology.
  119. ^ "Greens oppose HS2: "it wouldn't do what it says on the tin"". The Green Party. 26 February 2011. Retrieved 26 February 2011.
  120. ^ "Updated Green Party proposals on HS2 route". Green Party. 22 March 2010.
  121. ^ "Response to the HS2 Consultation". New Economics Foundation. 5 August 2011.
  122. ^ "Response to the HS2 Consultation" (PDF). New Economics Foundation. August 2011. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
  123. ^ Cole, Rob (4 February 2011). "High Speed Rail Link A 'White Elephant'". Sky News Online.
  124. ^ Stokes, Chris (4 February 2011). "Research Note 82: High Speed Rail" (PDF). Taxpayers' Alliance.
  125. ^ "About the Charter". Right Lines Charter. 2011.
  126. ^ McGee, Simon; Henry, Robin (30 January 2011). "Secret rival to high-speed rail link - Government engineers have warned that the current route is flawed". The Sunday Times. London. p. 15. Details of a "secret" alternative route for the £34 billion London to Birmingham highspeed railway line have emerged for the first time, showing the government's own engineers bitterly oppose the current plan. (....) An alternative route, which was considered and rejected behind closed doors, takes the line further west, past Heathrow, and then northwest alongside the M40 and the existing Chiltern railway line, weaving around Princes Risborough, Bicester and Banbury.
  127. ^ "Secret rival to high speed rail route". County Homesearch Thames and Chilterns. 1 February 2011.
  128. ^ Written evidence from Railfuture to the Transport Select Committee - May 2011. Retrieved 7 July 2011.
  129. ^ a b "Is High Speed 2 on the Wrong Track?" (Press release). Campaign to Protect Rural England. 4 November 2010.
  130. ^ "The Wildlife Trust's position statement on High Speed Rail 2 (HS2)" (PDF). Warwickshire Wildlife Trust. October 2010.
  131. ^ "Business call for high speed rail cash to be spent on roads". Birmingham Post. 3 December 2010.
  132. ^ "HS2 route will only benefit Birmingham, says Coventry business boss". Coventry Evening Telegraph. 24 November 2010.
  133. ^ Howie, Michael (7 November 2010). "National Trust anger over High Speed 2 railway". Sunday Telegraph. London.
  134. ^ "High Speed Rail: Friends of the Earth's views" (PDF). Friends of the Earth. October 2010.
  135. ^ "Briefing on White Paper on High Speed Rail, White Paper Response". Campaign for Better Transport.
  136. ^ "HS2: Good case for high-speed rail link, say MPs". BBC News. 8 November 2011.
  137. ^ "Transport Committee - Tenth Report: High Speed Rail". UK Parliament. 1 November 2011.
  138. ^ "Historic environment Map 6: The Lee - Kingsash" (PDF). High Speed 2 - Impact on the Chilterns. Chilterns AONB. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
  139. ^ Walker, Peter (11 March 2010). "Beauty of Chilterns may be put at risk by fast rail link, say critics". The Guardian. London.
  140. ^ a b Milmo, Dan (7 January 2011). "High-speed rail route to get 2m trees for shelter". The Guardian. London.
  141. ^ a b "Appraisal of Sustainability: A Report for HS2 Non Technical Summary" (PDF). Department for Transport. December 2009.
  142. ^ High Speed 2(2010), page 118
  143. ^ http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm091208/halltext/91208h0006.htm. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. 8 December 2009. col. 31WH—continued. Retrieved 4 January 2010. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  144. ^ "Historic Environment Map 1:Chalfont St Giles" (PDF). High Speed 2 - Impact on the Chilterns. Chilterns AONB. Retrieved 10 January 2012.
  145. ^ "High Speed 2". Chilterns Conservation Board.
  146. ^ "West Midlands Map 4" (PDF). High Speed 2. Department for Transport. Retrieved 15 April 2010.
  147. ^ "Park Hall". Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country. Retrieved 18 March 2010.
  148. ^ Booz Allen Hamilton (2007)
  149. ^ Booz Allen Hamilton (2007), section 1.20 , p.6
  150. ^ DfT(2010a), Section 2.57, page 53
  151. ^ "The Eddington Transport Study, The case for action: Sir Rod Eddington's advice to Government" (PDF). Figure 15: The case for new very High Speed Lines (HSLs) p.49 (also p.33).
  152. ^ "Delivering a Sustainable Railway" (PDF). Department for Transport. July 2007. Section 6.14 – 6.17, pp.62-3.
  153. ^ "Concerns arising from the Geology and Hydrology of the ground underlying the High Speed (HS2) routes through the Chilterns". The Chiltern Society.
  154. ^ "HS2 Exceptional Hardship Scheme consultation document" (PDF). Department for Transport.
  155. ^ "Alison Munro spoke at a public meeting hosted by Civic Voice in Aylesbury on 24 June". Civic Voice.
  156. ^ Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport (28 June 2010). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmhansrd/cm100628/text/100628w0003.htm. Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). United Kingdom: House of Commons. col. 364W. {{cite book}}: |chapter-url= missing title (help)
  157. ^ "Alternative Compensation Solution and final response to EHS". HS2 Action Alliance.

Sources

Notes

  1. ^ In British usage, a parkway station is one with car parking, remote from the location it is intended to serve
  2. ^ The British Rail Class 373 trains used by Eurostar are an existing example of a high-speed train that is compatible with French/Belgian high-speed lines as well as with the loading gauge of the East- and West Coast Main Lines.
Wikimedia Commons has media related to High Speed 2.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=High_Speed_2&oldid=497371056"