# Finally - New high-speed rail plan unveiled



## preme3000 (Nov 17, 2006)

UK New high-speed rail plan unveiled 

The proposed new rail link will be the UK's second high-speed line. Network Rail has proposed a new £34bn ($55bn) high-speed railway line linking Scotland and London by 2030. The line would serve Birmingham and Manchester, getting passengers from Glasgow to London in just two hours and 16 minutes, the rail firm said. It rejected several alternative routes, including the east of England. The proposed new High Speed 2 line still needs to be approved by the government, which is conducting its own rail network review. The new line would become the country's second high-speed rail link after the line that runs from London St Pancras to the Channel Tunnel, run by the Eurostar service and connecting to high-speed lines in continental Europe.

Network Rail's proposed new line linking Glasgow and Edinburgh with London, on which trains could travel as fast as 200mph, will also serve Manchester, Liverpool and Birmingham. It would cut travelling between London and Birmingham to 45 minutes, from a best time of one hour and 22 minutes currently.

Rail passengers would also be able to get to Liverpool in one hour and 23 minutes, from two hours and eight minutes now. Network Rail, the company that runs Britain's rail infrastructure, said the new line would require more than 1,500 miles of rail, sleepers and ballast, as well as 138 bridges over roads and current railway lines. Network Rail says the new line is required to ease the pressure on Britain's railways. It says passenger numbers have rocketed by 40% over the past decade, and that by 2024, many existing lines will be at full capacity. Transport Secretary Lord Adonis told the BBC that high-speed links were vital for the future.

"This report makes a powerful case for high-speed rail in Britain," he said.

Lord Adonis said the company set up by the government to prepare a high-speed rail plan will take "full account" of the proposals and deliver a report by the end of the year, with a decision by next year. Currently, the route proposal will be between London and the West Midlands, with options to extend the line to Scotland and the north of England.

Alternative options

The Conservatives' shadow transport secretary, Theresa Villiers, told the BBC she welcomed the announcement. "We're committed to taking high-speed rail to the north of England, and we think Labour should match that," she said.
Lord Adonis said a decision on high-speed rail will happen by the end of next year. The Conservatives currently propose to build a rail link between Leeds and London. Network Rail said it had rejected routes that would have taken the new line via Leeds and Newcastle upon Tyne, as well as a route that included Leicester and Sheffield and another option through Bristol and Cardiff.

It based its decision on a 12-month study involving 20,000 hours of work and more than 1,500 pages of analysis. The firm said that the line would account for 43.7 million journeys per year by 2030, which would result in 3.8 million fewer vehicle journeys and fewer carbon dioxide emissions.

"If, as research suggests, up to three times as many passengers will be travelling on our railways by 2020, then it is important that we move quickly in planning today for the rail network of tomorrow," said Scotland's Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson. 

rail plan









Birmingham: 45mins, down from 1h 22mins
Liverpool: 1hr 23mins, down from 2hrs 8mins
Manchester: 1hr 6mins, down from 2hrs 7mins
Edinburgh: 2hrs 9mins, down from 4hrs 23mins
Glasgow: 2hrs 16mins, down from 4hrs 10 mins
Source: Network Rail

source bbc


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

Nice. Will St. Pancras also be the terminus of this HSL or do you need to get on the subway (like in Paris)?


----------



## EverythingButABeach (Apr 28, 2008)

Total London centric insanity. But what do you expect from the British government nowdays? Explain to me how I get between Glasgow and Manchester any faster. Or Edinburgh to Liverpool, or perhaps from Birmingham to Manchester. 

Does my journey from Manchester to Glasgow now involve changing in London?
Why on earth design a system where you can't travel between the stops unless you only go to the end of the line?

I really take my hat off to the inner West London types for coming up with this. The most blatent attempt to turn Scotland, the Midlands and the North of England into feeder cities to London that I've ever seen. 

Clearly anyone with an IQ greater than 65 can see the need for the line to travel between the cities on the route rather than only go from London to everywhere else. I also feel sorry for Leeds/Newcastle as the most obvious and sensible route would be London to Birmingham to Manchester to Leeds to Newcastle to Edinburgh and then to Glasgow with stops at all points. But the 'danger' in this for the inner West Londoners who rule us is that would allow an agglomoration economy to develop in the North of England with London being out on a limb (which is the whole point of developing high speed rail - ie so people can actually get about the country!!).

So we get this tosh where for a gizzillion quid I still can't travel between where I live and where I need to get to unless I'm from London.

I expect when the penny drops that this is an anti everyone but the South East proposal (again) then there will be a groundswell of opposition to this cr*p.

But as I said that's corrupt old Britain for you, I'd imagine Brunel is currently spinning in his grave (at high speed).


----------



## preme3000 (Nov 17, 2006)

They have said that the line will be starting off in central London, so I am assuming St Pancras, Euston is the only other station that I can think of that might be used. Other larger stations such as Paddington are not central enough. 

This being the UK, the environmentalists will delay the project whist France, Germany and Spain, etc push on with their HSR development. Here is another pic of the planned route:


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

So instead of branches from where you can travel both to the north and south, they're only feeders to London, and not to other destinations? (Birmingham - Liverpool via London?)


----------



## preme3000 (Nov 17, 2006)

ChrisZwolle said:


> So instead of branches from where you can travel both to the north and south, they're only feeders to London, and not to other destinations? (Birmingham - Liverpool via London?)


The second map is more detailed, shows the junctions that will be used to travel back and forth and also note that the exact route is yet to be decided. The british governmtent do a lot of dumb things but even they wouldn't spend £34b($55billion) just for feeder lines to London. The current network will also act as feeder line to the high speed rail, the 8 new stations I think will play the part of intergrating it with the current rail system. Overall I am for the plan, even the evironmentalists can't complain this time, if they do I am leaving the UK, lol.

Here is a summary of what is planned: 

It will require more than 1,500 miles of rail, sleepers and ballast as well as 138 bridges over trunk roads and railway lines.

The service requires 53 10-carriage and 20 five-carriage trains, 34 miles of tunnels, 32 bridges over motorways and eight new stations with long platforms.

A total of 53 10-carriage and 20 five-carriage trains, 34 miles of tunnels, 32 bridges over motorways, and eight new stations with 400 metre-long platforms

By 2030, it could save 480million vehicle miles and 50million hours of time for passengers every year.

The new line could accommodate 43.7million journeys per year, almost two-and-a- half times the number on the inter-city routes out of King's Cross. 

Some 39,000 tonnes of Carbon Dioxide would be saved a year as the new line cuts vehicle journeys by 3.8million.

Air journeys would be cut by another 3.6million, reducing CO2 by almost 250,000 tonnes.

By 2030, the safety benefits would be the equivalent to 19 lives saved per year through people using the train rather than the car.

source dailymail


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

With all due respect, how many "proposals" have been unveiled?


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

urbanfan89 said:


> With all due respect, how many "proposals" have been unveiled?


Probably as many as the Midwest High Speed Rail. :bash:


----------



## andysimo123 (Jul 29, 2004)

urbanfan89 said:


> With all due respect, how many "proposals" have been unveiled?


The Virgin Group and The First Group had to proposals for the East Coat Main Line and Great Western Line knocked back afew years. There is the unofficial Greengauge21 proposal of a high speed rail network. The UK government is still working on a report about high speed two up-to Birmingham. I'd say this is the first official proposal for the west coast mainline from a creditable source.


----------



## DiggerD21 (Apr 22, 2004)

preme3000 said:


> This being the UK, the environmentalists will delay the project whist France, Germany and Spain, etc push on with their HSR development.


Germany pushing its HSR development? Where exactly? Since its introduction the german ICE-system has been watered down to a better version of IC-service. There are too many stops. And on most routes the ICE is not faster than a regular IC/EC train.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

The German HSR network is too much blend with the regular rail system... Other countries have a more "standalone" HSR system. So the 250 - 300 km/h sections are rather fragmented in Germany.


----------



## AAA94 (Aug 30, 2009)

the current high speed route is crackers it completely misses out major cities such as sheffield,Newcastle and Leeds. what we need to do is build a line out of london perhaps using euston or marylebone as terminuses out on the the chiltern mainline to Oxford and up from Oxford to birmingham a through station at birmingham instead of a terminus. maybe in the eastern redevelopment of the city with a link to the city centre. the line would then split after birmingham in the walsall area one line (the sheffield line) travelling east to Derby and Nottingham which would then travel north to Sheffield and continue to Leeds 

and the other line (the main line)

travelling north as far as stoke-on-trent where the line would split one would be the Liverpool Branch and the other the main line. 

the liverpool branch would continue northwest to chester, and then over or under the mersey estuary then stopping at liverpool John Lennon airport then continuing to the centre of the city, another through station at liverpool, and then services would continue north to Preston and terminate there. 

the main line should then continue to Manchester where the line would swerve eastwards through the pennines with intermediate stops at perhaps Ashton Under lyne or Huddersfield then to leeds and rejoining with the sheffield branch, the mainline would then continue north to harrogate, darlington,durham and Newcastle with stops at all three cities the travelling north to Livingston (scotland) 

where the line would split into the Edinburgh branch and the Glasgow Branch with trains running between Glasgow and Edinburgh via Livingston Jct

the mainline would be a backwards 'S' shape with two branches coming from it, the Sheffield and Liverpool Branches.


----------



## OperateOnMe (Jan 27, 2007)

I seriously doubt Preston or Warrington being served by HS2, and what about Leeds as a spur from HS2 or possibly an east-coast HS3.

Main plan for the next fifteen years appears to be building and getting London - Birmingham HS2 up and running. Birmingham and London will both have at least two stations, which in essence makes BHX Heathow's third runway!

So is Birmingham becoming another London suburb, or is parts of London being incorporated into Greater Birmingham.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

That would be cool... there are French regularly commuting from Strasbourg, Lyon and, sure, Lille to Paris.


----------



## Justme (Sep 11, 2002)

OperateOnMe said:


> So is Birmingham becoming another London suburb, or is parts of London being incorporated into Greater Birmingham.


True, the time to get to London would be short enough for commuting. However, the costs would not allow enough people to do so for it to become known as part of London's commuter belt, or Metropolitan Area. Metropolitan Area's may seem bizarre to some people but they generally are calculated and defined based on a commuter percentage threshold. basically, it requires a certain percentage of people to make the commute (in both directions) before it can be considered as part of the metro.

We have similar cities close by to Frankfurt by high speed rail but certainly not considered part of the commuter area or MA.

Consider Mannheim to Frankfurt. Mannheim has it's own metropolitan area of 2.4million, but is not part of Frankfurt's Rhein Main MA of 5million. Mannheim is about 73km away (crow) and the fasted train is about 36minutes. 

Darmstadt is also 36minutes (and 26km) from Frankfurt, but by S-bahn which is a commuter train. Despite both cities taking the same time to reach Frankfurt, it is so much cheaper for the Darmstadt link since it is only a cheap commuter train and not a HSR train.


----------

