On Jul 22, 6:37*am, Michael Bell wrote:
In message
* * * * * Graeme wrote:





In message
* * * * * Michael Bell wrote:
In message
* * * * * Graeme wrote:

In message
* * * * * Michael Bell wrote:

In message
ups.com
* * * * * bob wrote:

On 21 July, 19:43, "Paul Scott"
wrote:
... from Mahwinney report. *Available on DfT website.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/hi...whinneyreport/

"I recommend that serious consideration be given to making Old Oak
Common
the initial London terminal for the high speed line - and that in the
early
stages it be designated London-Old Oak Common (just as Euston would have
been designated London-Euston) - and that effective use be made of the
£16
billion Crossrail project and other rail and tube connections to provide
access to passengers` final destinations including Heathrow. "

"I have concluded and recommend that, in the early stages of a high
speed
rail network, there is no compelling case for a direct high speed rail
link
to Heathrow, and that a London-Old Oak Common interchange could
provide an
appropriate, good quality terminus and connection point to the airport.
(paragraph 46)"

I recall very similar comments being made when HS1 was at a similar
stage of planning, suggesting that the the line should terminate at
Stratford, and passengers connecting from there to central London. *If
HS2 follows a similar trajectory, perhaps we'll end up with an
expensive station built at Old Oak Common, with HS2 trains from Euston
to Birmingham whizzing through without stopping there.

Robin

If traffic on HS2 grows as much as it might do (the future is always
uncertain) then it is hard to see local transport from Euston or any
other SINGLE London terminus coping. This obviously also worries HS2..

I see no evidence of it worrying HS2, the proposal to stop short at OOC
is merely a money saving option.

HS2 don't propose stopping at OOC and I think it's silly. It can't
possibly meet the needs.

One way of coping with the problem is to spread the load by running
across London, historical accident has lined up East-West rather than
North-South.

If you weren't so geographically challenged you'd realise it is not a
historical accident.

Explain!

Look at the topography of London. *It's in a river valley that runs
west-east.

The hills north and south aren't particularly steep, they cause no
problem to trains, and crossing the river has never been a problem in
the railway age.

Michael Bell

Most Railway Lines leaving London northwards take a characteristic "S"
route to negotiate the terrain. They also tend to have tunnels. None
of the foregoing was inexpensive to construct.

The Thames bridges didn't come FoC also.