READERS’ LETTERS

London is blighted by terminal stations, and the building of HS2 is a great opportunity to start to correct this problem.

The Greengauge 21 schematic shows part of a high-speed network for the UK ( HS2M,

RAIL 821). It misses out some links such as Birmingham to Bristol, the South West and South Wales, and one can argue about which sections should be 320kph and which should be 200+kph. It is also missing some important places on the arrows, such as Norwich (from Stansted), the South Coast (from Heathrow), and Kent and East Sussex (HS1). However, the most important point is the lack of detail in London.

In my opinion, in railway terms the most pointless part of HS2 is Euston station. I read that there are proposals for 11 high-speed terminal platforms. This is ridiculous use of high-priced land in London, and shows the major flaw of terminal stations with a large amount of space required for stationary trains. Furthermore, in terms of creating a highspeed network, developing Euston is a dead end and likely to reduce the impact that HS2 has on the economy of the North.

Connecting HS2 to HS1 is not about getting access to Europe - this would be beneficial, but not the major reason for doing it. The major reason would be to form the beginnings of the network shown in the Greengauge 21 schematic.

Stations at Old Oak Common (for Crossrail), St Pancras/King’s Cross (for Thameslink and Crossrail 2) and at Stratford International (for the Docklands and perhaps even Brighton Main Line 2?) would make far more sense.

Yes, three stations would slow down the high-speed trains, but the door-to-door time is far more important than the time spent on a high-speed train. Three stations would provide much shorter journey times for those from Greater London going north, as well as easier access to Greater London for those coming from the North.

The station at Stratford could be used as a terminal station with trains being serviced in sidings located on much cheaper land. Some HS2 trains could go forward to destinations in Kent, East Sussex, Europe and even further, if there is a demand.

Connecting HS2 to HS1 would allow much better access to Kent and East Sussex from the North, and the building of a true network that would allow far better access around the whole of the UK. Yes, Euston needs developing - but not as the terminus to HS2. Keith Plumb, Cheshire

The reduction in rail freight grants ( RAIL 821) would appear to threaten the case for HS2.

HS2 is being justified on the basis of increasing network capacity. That extra capacity was needed mostly to meet forecast increases in demand for rail freight. That is why so many passenger services are planned to be removed from the existing network once HS2 is open.

HS2 itself (unlike HS1) is not being designed to carry freight trains. Ironically, HS2’s structure gauge would be perfect for the highest modern containers and ‘piggy-back’ lorries on trains. Instead, we will have the additional cost and disruption of gauge- converting the existing network (where required), over and above the cost and disruption of HS2. Do we know what the total bill for all of this will be?

I hope we do need that additional capacity for freight, but why don’t we provide new lines (or reopen old lines) designed for freight trains, and avoid all that silly bother of very high-speed rail?

Come to think of it, wasn’t there once a proposal to reopen the Great Central Railway to provide a European gauge freight route between the North West of England and the Channel Tunnel? Neil Roth, Blackheath

The development of the route for HS2 thus far gives me a distinct sense of déjà vu, by which I mean the way in which the first (highspeed) route from Yorkshire and the East Midlands to London will be by means of a connection into the first (high-speed) route from Birmingham to London.

What happened next in the mid-19th century? An independent route was developed from Derby towards London, and west and east coast routes to Scotland also came to fruition. Greengage 21 is clearly thinking along the same ‘lines’!

I just hope that route integration with the classic network is not compromised through pursuit of economy, or by employing planners who have little understanding of network thinking. Alan Fell, Exeter