.... 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)"

etc etc.

Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?

Paul S

On Jul 21, 10:43*am, "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)"

etc etc.

Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?

Thus far, I have not read the report. My initial reaction to you post
is that not going to Heathrow is good. OTOH, IMHO, HS2 should proceed
to Euston. A link to HS1 (Services calling at Stratford as their
London Station) would also be worthwhile.

One would not expect to see this in one’s lifetime, :-)

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:43:39 +0100, "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)"

etc etc.

Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?


Mawhinney's conclusions are based on what? This is just another
rushed report that takes a superficial look at a problem and draws
simplistic conclusions based on scant data.

What is desperately needed with HS2 is for it to be policy-driven.
Government first has to decide what its policy should be. Then, and
only then, government should invite consultants to design a route that
fulfils the policy objectives that have been set out.

Instead, the HS2 team has been given a dangerous combination of
(1) no strategic direction apart from "London-Birmingham" and
(2) apparently unlimited freedom to suggest whatever the team thinks
is appropriate. The result is that some idiot drew a straight line on
the map and, er, that's just about it.

Strategic decisions needed to be made *by government* on whether
Heathrow and/or other intermediate destinations should be served. This
should **never** have been left to HS2 to decide. And, having made
that glaring mistake, the worst possible course of action was to ask
Mawhinney to throw in his two penn'orth.

Government's duty is to govern and make strategic decisions. Whether
or not Heathrow should be served is a strategic decision. It should
have been decided on *before* HS2 were let loose, not after.

There is now a considerable danger that, in its rush to get any sort
of high speed rail project under way, Lord Adonis' series of serious
errors of judgment will be compounded by bringing in Mawhinney, Uncle
Tom Cobbleigh and all to fudge strategic decisions that should already
have been set in stone before HS2 was set up.

And who in the name of God chose Mawhinney for this review? A
thoroughly nasty man, he was a spectacularly bad Secretary of State
(for less than a year) who was definitely not missed. His tenure as
Chairman of the Football League has hardly been covered in glory.

First we had Foster (on the IEP) and now Mawhinney (on HS2). Lord
alone knows how these people were chosen for these tasks.

On Jul 21, 6:43 pm, "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)"

etc etc.

As has been discussed a lot already recently, some sort of comprehensive hub
station at Old Oak Common could provide for a high-quality interchange
giving access to Heathrow (all 4/5/ whatever terminals of it).

I note however the notion he seems to be putting forward that OOC could
itself be the London terminus of the HS2 line. I suppose that could spare
the significant costs of adapting/ rebuilding Euston, plus the costs of
bringing the line into Euston, but despite Crossrail it'd mean access wasn't
so easy.


Now this study was kicked off by Adonis, although the poisoned chalice was
handed to a Conservative. So will it be agreed by Hammond and his team?

They have been very trenchant in saying that it must go via Heathrow,
haven't they.

But given the financial constraints, it's hard not to consider the whole
thing as something of a chimera. But perhaps it might be unwise to
completely dismiss it all, as decisions taken now or in the imminent future
might have their repercussions.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:43:39 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"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. "

The Ryanair model of high-speed rail, then. What a stupid idea.

If we can't afford to do it properly, we can't afford it at all and
shouldn't bother.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.

"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:43:39 +0100, "Paul Scott"
wrote:

"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. "

The Ryanair model of high-speed rail, then. What a stupid idea.

If we can't afford to do it properly, we can't afford it at all and
shouldn't bother.

I don't agree.

It's this "we have to have the complete solution at day one or we don't
start" attitude that causes everything to be cancelled in this country.

Nurnberg in Germany is the same size as Bristol. It has a three line
underground system because 40 years ago it built a line from nowhere to
nowhere with a station in between and added (on average) a new station every
year.

What has Bristol got in 2010?

tim

On 21 July, 20:17, Neil Williams
wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 18:43:39 +0100, "Paul Scott"


The Ryanair model of high-speed rail, then. *What a stupid idea.

If we can't afford to do it properly, we can't afford it at all and
shouldn't bother.

Perhaps the cheapest and easiest way to accomplish getting any
passengers from Heathrow, if indeed there will be any. Is to route the
current Heathrow Express into Euston, with a stop at Old Oak Common
for CrossRail. The expanded Euston Terminal for HS2 could then see a
line that shadowed the M1, to outskirts of Birmingham,,Thence the
existing proposals to split North of there for West and East Coast
Destinations. No expensive and costly new line through the Chilterns.
The pain has already been created with the M1 so least possible chance
of objections.

J

Too bad. It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010, wrote:

Too bad. It'd be nice to see Heathrow get a Schipol-style set up.

Or even a Gatwick-style set up.

tom

--
Come on thunder; come on thunder.

On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 21:12:22 +0100, "tim...."
wrote:

It's this "we have to have the complete solution at day one or we don't
start" attitude that causes everything to be cancelled in this country.

No. We have to have a useful solution from Day 1. A line that stops
somewhere in the suburbs of West London is not a useful solution when
a lot of passengers won't want to use Crossrail (which as a result
will probably end up overcrowded) but will prefer to take a taxi from
a central London station.

But I admit my preference is that it should not go ahead. Capacity on
existing lines is far more important than trying to corner a
relatively small domestic air travel market.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To reply put my first name before the at.