Wood End Lock, trent and mersey

[djangobole]

A petition against the HS2 has been set up adjacent to Woodend Lock on the Trent & Mersey, If you disagree with HS2 then

Sign this petition – do it – do it now!

 

It wil pass over the canal about 200 yards from this beautiful lock and also pass through the field further on very close to Kings Bromley Marna.

[Guest]

Ti's a nice spot indeed

 

[mayalld]

A petition against the HS2 has been set up adjacent to Woodend Lock on the Trent & Mersey, If you disagree with HS2 then

Sign this petition – do it – do it now!

 

It wil pass over the canal about 200 yards from this beautiful lock and also pass through the field further on very close to Kings Bromley Marna.

 

 

Where can I sign the petition in support of HS2.

 

I was rather shocked to see that WW had published a really quite unbalanced piece alleging that HS2 would actually sever the T&M, preventing navigation.

[matty40s]

Where can I sign the petition in support of HS2.

I was rather shocked to see that WW had published a really quite unbalanced piece alleging that HS2 would actually sever the T&M, preventing navigation.

 

Ridiculous, the plans clearly show the swingbridge that is to be built.......

[mrsmelly]

A petition against the HS2 has been set up adjacent to Woodend Lock on the Trent & Mersey, If you disagree with HS2 then

Sign this petition – do it – do it now!

 

It wil pass over the canal about 200 yards from this beautiful lock and also pass through the field further on very close to Kings Bromley Marna.

 

Hi

I signed it online last week just after passing thro said lock and mooring at my favourite canal junction and pub at Fradley. After reading online both the for and against HS2 schools it soon becomes apparent that it will be an obscene waste of public money ( an immense amount ) we dont need monstrous noisy traffic of any kind thro our rapidly diminishing countryside, those few people who have sad lives all about tearing about just for money can now do meetings etc online with modern technology. My brother in law a director of a large ammerican company has in his house a room set with high speed video links etc and does business with several of his staff in several countys at the same time without even getting in a car. No its not needed what is needed is a certain section of our community in the uk to realise that the biggest latest this that and the other is not necessary........oh and what a suprise it starts in London. We have approximately 60 million people in the uk with only 10 million living in or near to that dump so 50 million others will be funding London yet again................

Rant over.

[paddy r]

Ridiculous, the plans clearly show the swingbridge that is to be built.......

:P

thank you

coffee stings when it come's out your nose!!!!!!

[Flyboy]

It's actually going pass over the canal twice in about 1/2 mile. About 100 yards north and 300 yards south of Woodend lock just before the sharp bend. It will cross the the canal with only 3 & 5 feet clearance so will completly sever the canal for boats.Not much seems to have been said how this section is being bypassed to keep the navigation open. The line will go through Fradley Woods plus the wood on the other side which will completely ruin the tranquillity and special nature of this area. The owner of Woodend cottage must be really upset by all this. I urge everybody to object to HS2 most strongly.

[RLWP]

Where can I sign the petition in support of HS2.

 

It's just you and me Dave

 

Richard

[mayalld]

It's actually going pass over the canal twice in about 1/2 mile. About 100 yards north and 300 yards south of Woodend lock just before the sharp bend. It will cross the the canal with only 3 & 5 feet clearance so will completly sever the canal for boats.Not much seems to have been said how this section is being bypassed to keep the navigation open.

 

Indeed not.

 

Just a lot of alarmist hot air that suggests that HS2 will cause the closure of the canal.

[David Mack]

It's actually going pass over the canal twice in about 1/2 mile. About 100 yards north and 300 yards south of Woodend lock just before the sharp bend. It will cross the the canal with only 3 & 5 feet clearance so will completly sever the canal for boats.

 

I raised this with HS2 through a FOI request. They can't (or won't) actually give the headroom clearance to be provided, but they have given reassurance that adequate headroom will be provided.

 

FOI correspondence is here.

 

David

[Guest]

I raised this with HS2 through a FOI request. They can't (or won't) actually give the headroom clearance to be provided, but they have given reassurance that adequate headroom will be provided.

 

FOI correspondence is here.

 

David

 

If you look at the route map

 

http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/HS2-ARP-00-DR-RW-04230.pdf

 

It can be seen that the proposed route (which has been revised as a result of consultation it seems) crosses the T&M actually at the exact spot we are moored in the photo above. What isn't clear to me is why the route hasn't been moved further to the west - as in towards the bottom of the map, completely negating the need for the two crossings.

 

It is inevitable that people will not be happy when it ends up next to them but this look unnecessary to me and could be changed (Said not as a civil engineer of course)

 

But also lets not forget that many many miles of canal share their routes with railways - there is nothing particularly new about that.

[RLWP]

If you look at the route map

 

http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/HS2-ARP-00-DR-RW-04230.pdf

 

It can be seen that the proposed route (which has been revised as a result of consultation it seems) crosses the T&M actually at the exact spot we are moored in the photo above. What isn't clear to me is why the route hasn't been moved further to the west - as in towards the bottom of the map, completely negating the need for the two crossings.

 

It is inevitable that people will not be happy when it ends up next to them but this look unnecessary to me and could be changed (Said not as a civil engineer of course)

 

<snip>

 

Now, that seems to me to be exactly the sort of objection to raise. The route near us has already been moved once to avoid a huge and unsightly bridge

 

Richard

[Guest]

Now, that seems to me to be exactly the sort of objection to raise. The route near us has already been moved once to avoid a huge and unsightly bridge

 

Richard

 

To me if the curve on the right of the PDF map was less acute it would be possible to run the line just north of the sewage works and miss the T&M all together - I don't know the contours though and as I say I'm not an engineer.

 

But it's worth raising it which I will do - it is a really nice spot.

 

Seen looking back the other way (South) towards the lock.

 

[alan_fincher]

It's just you and me Dave

 

Richard

No it isn't.

 

Broadly I'm in favour too.....

 

Although that does not mean that these things have to be accepted as they are in first draft, and consultation and adjustment is entirely sensible to try and reach the best compromises over any route.

 

Improving rail links just has to be a better thought out option than the continual onslaught of new roads.

[Chertsey]

No it isn't.

 

Broadly I'm in favour too.....

 

Although that does not mean that these things have to be accepted as they are in first draft, and consultation and adjustment is entirely sensible to try and reach the best compromises over any route.

 

Improving rail links just has to be a better thought out option than the continual onslaught of new roads.

But surely HS2 isn't competing with roads, or even existing rail links, but with air travel. I fully support the argument for a comprehensive, reliable, affordable rail network, but this is just about replicating existing routes, only faster. In my book that doesn't justify either the financial or environmental cost.

[alan_fincher]

But surely HS2 isn't competing with roads, or even existing rail links, but with air travel. I fully support the argument for a comprehensive, reliable, affordable rail network, but this is just about replicating existing routes, only faster. In my book that doesn't justify either the financial or environmental cost.

Unfortunately it seems to me you are not easily going to stop a situation where large and increasing numbers of people want to travel ever increasing distances.

 

Of course with the ability of many of us, for many years, to be able to largely do our day job sat in our own room at home, you could argue that these increased levels of travel should be unnecessary. That's a rather different argument, of course, but I do feel that not enough is done to avoid business travel, full stop.

 

Or even argue that people should be happy to holiday locally, and not regularly go on very long jaunts for pleasure. I can't disagree with that either.

 

But if we accept the premise that more and more people want to travel, (and, note, I'm not saying I think that's right that we must do this!), then it is a fact that increasingly many airports, airspace, railways and roads are close to bursting point at peak times.

 

Air travel is in my view the most environmentally unfriendly of all the lot, and the amount of air travel done should not be increased by the expansion of existing airports or the building of new ones in my view.

 

I also think that major construction of new roads is not the way to go.

 

Of all the options, even though it's a big hit, I admit, railways seem the best way of carrying maximum people and maximum freight for the lowest overall impact.

 

I know HS2 is not about freight, but if handled sensibly, and the right incentives were in place, switching many rail passengers from existing lines to new high speed lines, should free up extra capacity on the existing rail network, and hopefully allow more people and things currently moved around the place in even higher impact ways to be moved by something that isn't quite as damaging.

 

But really is to move to a situation where people don't expect to be able to travel any distance at any time for any purpose as an absolute right, and where more recognition is given to how damaging it all is.

 

If you can think of a way that could be made to happen, I'll then start to oppose all new transport links, but until it does, rail seems just to make a lot of sense to me.

 

(And yes, we did use entirely rail and bike travel to go and start moving our new boat, and I really was stunned just how busy the trains were, even at an ungodly hour of the morning!. Long "commutes" in big Volvos to go boating aren't that kind to the environment either! )

[Chertsey]

If I ruled the world (or even the country) I'd ban domestic flights of under a certain distance - say 400 miles. People use it because its there. When new roads are built, more traffic is generated. I'll bet that even if HS2 is completed, it won't take passengers off aeroplanes, but will lead to a. more people travelling/being expected to travel in total, and b. (if it's affordable) it will take custom away from the slower rail routes, which serve more stations, leading to them becoming uneconomic, and reduced or even axed services to the intermediate stations. HS2 isn't being built as a public service; it's because someone, somewhere, sometime is going to be making big money out of it - almost certainly paid for by the taxpayer.

 

One thing's for sure though; it's way too late for a petition to change anything.

 

PS. Most of our boat commutes have been by train.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Chertsey

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

it will take custom away from the slower rail routes, which serve more stations, leading to them becoming uneconomic, and reduced or even axed services to the intermediate stations.

 

<snip>

 

That is one of the anti-HS2 standard arguments. The last presentation I saw by them followed that one with the argument that Virgin and Chiltern will reduce fares and out compete HS2.

 

Richard

[Hairy-Neil]

It's just you and me Dave

 

Richard

 

Can I join....

[Chertsey]

That is one of the anti-HS2 standard arguments. The last presentation I saw by them followed that one with the argument that Virgin and Chiltern will reduce fares and out compete HS2.

 

Richard

Is it? Either way surely it indicates duplication and over-provision.

I've not really been following the HS2 story in any great detail, so I would be interested to hear why people, other than those who stand to profit from it, think it's a Good Thing. I agree that trains in general are a Good Thing, but on its own I don't think that's a sufficient argument for this particular one.

[mayalld]

Is it? Either way surely it indicates duplication and over-provision.

I've not really been following the HS2 story in any great detail, so I would be interested to hear why people, other than those who stand to profit from it, think it's a Good Thing. I agree that trains in general are a Good Thing, but on its own I don't think that's a sufficient argument for this particular one.

 

Basically, the WCML is full. There are no spare paths.

 

Huge numbers of paths are taken up by services that don't stop anywhere (Most Manchester to London services have only 2 stops after Stockport, and there is one that runs express SPT-EUS).

 

Taking Manchester-London as an example. This service has 3 patterns;

 

Manchester/Stockport/Wilmslow/Crewe/London

Manchester/Stockport/Macclesfield/Stoke/London

Manchester/Stockport/Stoke/Rugby/London

 

2 of those service make no calls south of the HS2 divergence

 

So, we can see a future state where the services that don't call at Rugby become HS2 services, whilst the Rugby service remains on WCML, possibly with more stops south of the divergence, and the freed up paths become available for semi-fast services.

 

If HS2 is a success, and extends even further north, it would allow the permanent bus substitution in the Stoke area to be removed, and will bring local services back to stations like Barlaston.

[Hairy-Neil]

Anything that will free up paths on the existing lines for 'local' stopping trains has got to be a good thing. A recent 25 mile journey, with one station jump down the east coast main line, took me over 5 hours....

[sociable_hermit]

But surely HS2 isn't competing with roads, or even existing rail links, but with air travel. I fully support the argument for a comprehensive, reliable, affordable rail network, but this is just about replicating existing routes, only faster. In my book that doesn't justify either the financial or environmental cost.

What proportion of London - Birmingham / Manchester traffic is by air, then? Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby?

 

Mrsmelly is also missing the point, London is at one end but this is a transport route, so there are places in the middle and at the other end too, with people who will benefit. LOROL are the only entirely London-centric train operator, and they're funded by Transport for London, which seems fair enough.

Edited May 20, 2011 by sociable_hermit

[kbarber]

Is it? Either way surely it indicates duplication and over-provision.

I've not really been following the HS2 story in any great detail, so I would be interested to hear why people, other than those who stand to profit from it, think it's a Good Thing. I agree that trains in general are a Good Thing, but on its own I don't think that's a sufficient argument for this particular one.

Been said before but bears repeating: existing rail routes are at saturation point. Especially West Coast Main Line. Virgin is prime (perhaps sole?) user of WCML fast lines south of Rugby; they use 9 paths per hour off-peak and 11 paths per hour during the peaks. Green headway (the absolute maximum the line can handle without trains being slowed by signals) is probably around 2 minutes. But I believe timetable headway is 5 minutes, the minimum that can be managed to allow for decelerating Milton Keynes stoppers (the turnouts on the entry to the middle platform at MK are 70mph to maximise capacity). That's about the best that can be managed on the present infrastructure with lineside signalling; in other words, if anything wobbles even slightly there is already hardly any free space to allow things to catch up. There is certainly no capacity for growth. Likewise on the slow lines, where London Midland share the capacity with the various freight operators.

 

The only way to increase capacity is to build additional lines. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. The only possible alternatives if new lines are to be built are (i) to follow the existing routes - vastly expensive, highly disruptive (does anyone remember what it was like when they renewed Ledburn Junction????) and offering no real advantage in terms of speed (the WCML was the HS2 of its day, laid out at a time when 40mph was considered fast) - or (ii) to choose a new alignment where engineers don't have to work around a live railway, leaving the existing railway to run with minimal interference, and offering the possibility of much higher speeds.

 

HS2 is capacity driven, with the possibility of high speed being a bonus - but (as SNCF discovered) one that pays dividends. (Actually the LNER discovered that in the 1930s, and Gerry Fiennes systematised it in the 1950s/60s with his concept of Vitesse Commerciale and the incomparable Deltics, also on the ECML). Moreover, track layouts and rolling stock optimised for high speed and with sophisticated cab signalling allows even higher capacity - I believe the core section of the original PSE LGV now carries over 20 trains per hour each way during the peaks - a timetable headway, albeit I suspect very vulnerable to perturbations, of less than 3 minutes.

 

If, as seems reasonable to believe, regional traffic is increasing as quickly as long-distance, there will be both need and provision of 125mph London-Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool services calling at existing major centres when HS2 opens. The mix will change, the calling patterns will make them more semi-fast than express (still faster than the expresses of a decade ago though) and passengers from (say) Milton Keynes to Glasgow will need to change trains in Brum, but the overall service will be better and total capacity much higher.

 

Incidentally, talking of the HS2 of its age, I believe Mr Stephenson had to deal with very similar arguments to those the objectors are employing when surveying and building the London and Birmingham Railway.

[Guest]

Incidentally, talking of the HS2 of its age, I believe Mr Stephenson had to deal with very similar arguments to those the objectors are employing when surveying and building the London and Birmingham Railway.

 

As of course did not the builders of the canals too...

 

You seem to know your stuff about railways and I know from other posts Sociable Hermit does too - so just briefly to get this back on topic I'd appreciate thoughts as posted further up as to the necessity of the route to skirt across the Wood End lock area of the T&M - would what I'm suggesting be viable.

Edited May 20, 2011 by MJG