On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 12:58:58 -0800 (PST), Mizter T
wrote:


On Mar 1, 2:28*pm, Bruce wrote:

On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 08:14:26 -0000, "Graham Harrison"
wrote:
All of which suggests the answer to my question of how much spare capacity
does Marylebone actually have is "not a lot".

Some Chiltern trains could run into Paddington rather than Marylebone.
A half hourly service to Birmingham would only need two platforms.

There would be a powerful case for making Paddington the second London
terminus (after Euston) for 125 mph trains to Birmingham, given
Paddington's Crossrail connections. *And of course Crossrail should
free up some terminal platform capacity at Paddington.

This would also have the advantage of giving a very straight alignment
between Old Oak Common and Northolt Junction, saving several minutes
over the slower route between Northolt Junction and Marylebone. *

125 mph running should be possible from Old Oak Common to at least
Denham Golf Club without any major changes in alignment.

Though I'd say that alignment is likely to be out of play given the
HS2 talk. That's not to say that HS2 is likely to be anything other
than talk for a long time, nor that it would be necessary under the
Tory vision for HS2 to run via Heathrow, but I can't see 'the railway'
simply forgoing the option of using this alignment for HS2 purposes
and letting it be used for other things, given how well it suits the
not-via-Heathrow plan.


There's nothing stopping a spur to a Heathrow Hub being built from the
former GW Birmingham main line.

My suggestion of a 125 mph line to Birmingham via Wycombe, Bicester
North and Banbury could well be the version of HS2 that actually gets
built, rather than just pontificated about. HS200 (km/h) perhaps?

Despite all Lord Adonis' bluster, there is no convincing economic or
social case for a 186 mph route, and there isn't ever likely to be.
However, there is (apparently) a need for additional capacity between
the West Midlands and London within a few short years from now.

My suggested 125 mph HS200 route would provide both that capacity and
a useful reduction in journey time from Chiltern's current best, at a
vastly lower capital cost and with much lower energy requirements than
HS2. And with a Heathrow spur.

The more I think about it, the more I like it. We can but dream. ;-)