PHASE ONE
DESIGN REFINEMENT CONSULTATION
Consultation Document | London-West Midlands
ENGINE FOR GROWTH ENGINE FOR GROWTH HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
May 2013 The Department for Transport has actively considered the needs of blind and partially sighted people in accessing this document. The text will be made available in full on the Department’s website via hyperlink. The text may be freely downloaded and translated by individuals or organisations for conversion into other accessible formats. If you have other needs in this regard please contact the Department. Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Telephone 0300 330 3000 General email enquiries [email protected] Website www.gov.uk/dft Crown copyright, 2013, except where otherwise stated Copyright in the typographical arrangement rests with the Crown. You may re-use this information (not including logos or third-party material) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence. To view this licence, visit www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/ or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or e-mail: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third-party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. To order further copies contact: DfT Publications Tel: 0300 123 1102 Web: www.dft.gov.uk/orderingpublications Product code: P1DC/01
Printed in Great Britain on paper containing at least 75% recycled fibre Contents
Foreword 4 1. Introduction 6 2. Euston Station 13 3. HS1-HS2 Link 21 4. Northolt Corridor 25 5. Heathrow junctions 29 6. Colne Valley viaduct 32 7. Maintenance Loop near Stoke Mandeville 36 8. Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot 40 9. Maintenance Loop near Wormleighton 43 10. Chelmsley Wood Curve 47 11. Water Orton 51 12. Bromford 54 13. Washwood Heath 59 14. Leeds junction 63 15. Manchester junction 66 16. How to respond to the consultation and next steps 70
3 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
Foreword
This Government is committed to building a competitive and dynamic economy for the long term which is why we are pressing ahead with HS2, a powerful engine for growth which will bring greater capacity, improved connectivity, local regeneration and economic development that will help our economy grow and prosper. HS2 presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform Britain’s economic geography which is why it is backed by entrepreneurs, businesses, passengers, and many local authorities alike. This new railway will become a priceless national asset which will generate a return on investment that will continue paying back for generations to come. HS2 will benefit our national economy in two distinct ways. By providing fast, direct links between our major cities it will bring new opportunities for millions of people, providing better access to jobs and markets. HS2 will also relieve congestion for suburban commuters, for example on services into London Euston where passenger numbers are forecast to exceed seat capacity by up to 60% by 2030, as well as provide much needed additional freight capacity on the existing rail network. Earlier this year I announced the preferred route for the second phase of HS2, but we have also been pressing ahead with developing the detailed design of phase one between London and the West Midlands. As with all major projects, we have been working hard on the detailed design of HS2 and have modified our proposals in a number of ways since they were set out in January 2012. This is an important process to ensure that the design is of the highest quality and reduces as far as practicable its impacts on people and the environment. We are therefore proposing a range of design refinements along the line of route. Many of these refinements are small in scale but some are more significant, altering the local impact of the scheme. To ensure well informed decision-making I have decided to consult on these changes. Some of these refinements arise from responding to representations from individuals and organisations affected by the HS2 route, some arise from the operational requirements of the railway. In all instances, I have considered the options available and indicated my preferred proposal for each refinement, but I want to give people the opportunity to make their views known and also provide further evidence to inform my final decision.
4 Foreword
Following this consultation I will make a decision on which changes to include in the design of the railway, and this will accompany the HS2 phase one hybrid bill that is due to be introduced into Parliament by the end of the year. The changes that I am proposing will help make the railway the best it can be, providing passengers with the high level of service they expect while minimising as far as practical the impact on local communities. They will help ensure that we are on target to deliver a vitally important improvement to the nation’s infrastructure, a project that will become as integral to our national life and prosperity as our motorways and existing railways.
The Rt Hon Patrick McLoughlin MP Secretary of State for Transport
5 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
1. Introduction
1.1 Background 1.1.1 In January 2012 the Government published High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future – Decisions and Next Steps1, which set out the route and stations for Phase One of HS2 following consultation. Since then engineers and environmental specialists have continued developing the design of this route to ensure that HS2 is as efficient, cost effective and environmentally friendly a railway as is reasonably practicable. HS2 Ltd – the company set up to develop the scheme on behalf of the Government – has also continued to engage with the local communities and others with an interest such as local authorities, environmental bodies, Network Rail, Transport for London and utility companies. 1.1.2 This work and engagement has led HS2 Ltd to refine the design of the railway and in a small number of locations propose changes to the design that go beyond simply developing the January 2012 design. In these cases the Secretary of State has decided to formally consult on his proposed change. This will allow him to consider the views of the public before making a final decision on whether the changes should be included within the design of HS2 submitted to Parliament with the hybrid bill for Phase One. 1.1.3 Details of each of these design changes can be found in this document.
1.2 What we are consulting on 1.2.1 The development of a major engineering project such as HS2 involves a process of design refinements right up until the point of construction. When refining the design, HS2 Ltd has considered making improvements, where possible, on environmental, technical, service and cost grounds. The majority of these are minor and are reflected in the scheme design whose environmental impacts are set out in the draft Environmental Statement which is being consulted on in parallel to this consultation.
1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-speed-rail-investing-in-britains-future-the-governments-decisions
6 1. Introduction
1.2.2 However, there are 14 proposed changes to the design of the route that go beyond the normal process of design development for a scheme of this nature. These changes involve either introducing new operational rail infrastructure that was not envisaged in January 2012, or a significant alteration to the original design that gives rise to new or increased significant environmental effects2 on people, wildlife, land or property compared to the January 2012 design. 1.2.3 The Secretary of State has decided to consult on these proposed changes before making a final decision on whether to include them within the design that will be submitted to Parliament alongside the hybrid bill. This consultation sets out the options examined and the Secretary of State’s proposed changes. 1.2.4 In summary, the 14 proposed changes are: 1. at Euston, to replace the January 2012 proposal to rebuild Euston Station with a revised proposal for a new station providing new shared passenger facilities to the front of the station while retaining 13 existing platforms, with only minor modification, at their current level on the eastern side of the site, and 11 new platforms for high speed trains on the western side, constructed at a lower level; 2. in the London Borough of Camden, to widen the North London Line viaduct between Kentish Town Road and Hawley Road to provide capacity for HS2 trains connecting onto HS1, in addition to local passenger and freight services using the line; 3. in the London Borough of Ealing, to replace the proposed surface section of the route between Old Oak Common and Northolt with a bored tunnel including three new vent shafts; 4. in the Colne Valley, make provision so that a future link to Heathrow can be connected to the Phase One main line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services; 5. also in the Colne Valley, to move the proposed alignment of the Colne Valley viaduct by up to 60 metres to the north to reduce the disturbance to the River Colne; 6. near Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire, to provide a maintenance loop to support efficient operation of the railway; 7. at Calvert, to improve access between the proposed Infrastructure Maintenance Depot and HS2 tracks to the south; 8. near Wormleighton in Warwickshire, provide a maintenance loop to support efficient operation of the railway;
2 A significant environmental effect is defined in HS2 London to West Midlands EIA Scope and Methodology Report, see http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/HS2%20London%20to%20West%20Midlands%20 EIA%20Scope%20&%20Methodology%20Report%20revised_0.pdf
7 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
9. near Chelmsley Wood, to increase the height of the railway over the M42 and Coleshill Heath Road and move the route eastwards so that it is further away from the Chelmsley Wood residential area; 10. at Water Orton, to move the line nearest Water Orton by up to 30 metres southwards in order to reduce visual and sound intrusion for local residents; 11. at Bromford, to replace the proposed surface section of the route running beneath the M6 Bromford Viaduct with a bored tunnel; 12. at Washwood Heath, to enhance access from the west to the HS2 rolling stock depot to improve operational flexibility; 13. at Curdworth, to make provision for a future extension to Leeds so that it can be connected to the HS2 Phase One line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services; and 14. near Lichfield, realign the northern end of the Phase One route and make provision for a future extension to Manchester so that it can be connected to the HS2 Phase One line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services. The location of these changes is shown on Fig.1.
8 1. Introduction
Figure 1 Overview Map
London and West Midlands: Design Refinement Consultation - Proposed Changes
!DERBY
(!Manchester junction LICHFIELD! !OAKHAM
!LEICESTER
PETERBOROUGH!
HINCKLEY (!Leeds junction ! Bromford(! (! (! Water Orton Washwood (! Chelmsley Wood Heath depot !COVENTRY
! REDDITCH ! ROYAL LEAMINGTON ! SPA !NORTHAMPTON
(! Wormleighton maintenance loop !BEDFORD
EVESHAM ! MILTON BANBURY! !KEYNES
(! Calvert depot
!LUTON
!AYLESBURY HERTFORD! (! Stoke Mandeville maintenance loop OXFORD ! ! ST ALBANS
HIGH
WYCOMBE!
Colne Valley viaduct (! HS1 - HS2 Link Heathrow junctions (! (! (! Northolt Corridor ! Euston SLOUGH Station !READING Legend !NEWBURY January 2012 Route (! Proposed Change Location © Crown copyright and database right 2013. Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100049190. HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000027
9 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
1.3 Draft Environmental Statement consultation 1.3.1 In parallel with this consultation HS2 Ltd is also consulting on draft environmental information that will form part of the formal Environmental Statement which will be deposited in Parliament alongside the hybrid bill by the end of 2013. The draft Environmental Statement sets out, at the present level of understanding, the likely significant environmental effects of the Secretary of State’s proposed scheme for HS2 Phase One. It therefore includes the likely significant environmental effects of the Secretary of State’s 14 proposed design changes set out in this consultation document. Following the conclusion of both consultations the formal Environmental Statement will be updated to reflect the Secretary of State’s final decisions on which proposed design changes to include in the design submitted alongside the hybrid bill. 1.3.2 Further information on the draft Environmental Statement consultation, including a set of maps showing plans and profiles for the Phase One route, can be found at www.hs2.org.uk.
1.4 Implications of route changes for safeguarding 1.4.1 A consultation on safeguarding the land expected to be required for Phase One of HS2 closed on 31 January 2013. The Secretary of State will make in due course a separate announcement on the outcome of that consultation. 1.4.2 In general, the nature of safeguarding is that for it to be effective at preventing conflicting developments, it needs to be done at an early stage, even where design work is still on-going. This means that the areas considered for safeguarding are broader than the railway line itself. This also means that many of the proposed changes within this consultation do not affect the draft safeguarding boundaries. However, in the two instances where new tunnels are proposed (in Ealing and Bromford) the nature of safeguarding depending on the option finally chosen would be very different. Therefore, the Secretary of State is not intending to safeguard these areas until final decisions have been taken on these parts of the route. 1.4.3 Safeguarding directions for these remaining parts of the route would be issued once the Secretary of State has made a decision following this consultation.
1.5 Next steps 1.5.1 The responses to this consultation will inform the Secretary of State’s decision on the final design for the Phase One route. The Government aims to reach a final decision on the design that will be incorporated into the hybrid bill in the Autumn to allow it to be deposited in Parliament by the end of the year with the formal Environmental Statement.
10 1. Introduction
1.5.2 The design of the route will continue to evolve as a result of the responses received to these consultations and the more detailed design work that is being undertaken. It is possible that this could give rise to further significant design refinements. If this is the case these changes would be subject to public consultation as part of the proposed period of representations on the Environmental Statement, which will occur after the hybrid bill is deposited. People affected by the railway will also be able to petition as part of the bill process.
11 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
Table 1: Table of changes by Community Forum Area
Change Community Forum Area Euston Station 1. Euston HS1-HS2 Link 2. Camden Town & HS1 Link Northolt Corridor 5. Northolt Corridor Heathrow junctions 6. South Ruislip to Ickenham 7. Colne Valley Colne Valley Viaduct 7. Colne Valley Maintenance Loop near Stoke Mandeville 11. Stoke Mandeville & Aylesbury Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot 13. Calvert, Twyford & Chetwode Maintenance Loop near Wormleighton 16. Ladbrooke and Southam Chelmsley Wood Curve 24. Birmingham Interchange and Chelmsley Wood Water Orton 19. Coleshill Junction Bromford 25. Castle Bromwich and Bromford Washwood Heath 26. Washwood Heath to Curzon St Leeds junction 20. Curdworth to Middleton Manchester junction 22. Whittington to Handsacre
12 2. Euston Station
2. Euston Station
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to replace the January 2012 proposal to rebuild Euston Station with a revised proposal for a new station that would provide new shared passenger facilities to the front of the station while retaining 13 platforms, with only minor modification, at their current level on the eastern side of the site, and 11 new platforms for high speed trains on the western side, constructed at a lower level.
2.1 Summary of the January 2012 proposal 2.1.1 The design proposed in January 2012 included a complete rebuild of Euston station to incorporate existing train services alongside HS2. The existing station would have been demolished and a new station of 24 platforms constructed on the site as far west as Cobourg Street. The platforms would have been provided below ground level with the concourse above at ground level. To ensure that existing services to Euston could continue to operate during the construction period, a phased approach was envisaged with construction complete in time for HS2 to open in 2026.
2.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 2.2.1 Since January 2012 more detailed work on construction planning and railway systems design has revealed that a complete rebuild of the station would take more than twelve years to construct, increasing the impact on the local community and rail passengers. Starting work as planned in early 2016, the new station would not be finished in time for HS2 services to commence in 2026. It would also be considerably more expensive to build than had previously been estimated because of the associated construction complexity and the emerging scale of the works. 2.2.2 HS2 Ltd has therefore undertaken additional work to propose a revised design at Euston that has a shorter construction period with less disruption and a lower cost whilst still providing an integrated, redeveloped station for all.
13 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
2.3 Design options 2.3.1 In addition to the January 2012 scheme, HS2 Ltd has considered a range of different options for Euston Station. Set out below is a description of the proposed scheme and those options suggested most often by consultees: 1. Retention of 13 platforms in the existing station (in the area currently occupied by platforms 1-15) and construction of new HS2 platforms on the site of the former platforms 16-18 and land to the west as far as Cobourg Street. This option is the proposed scheme. 2. Redevelopment of the existing station site with double deck platforms to limit land take (the “double deck up” option). This option would stack the platforms on top of each other with a concourse level between them. The lower deck would be located below ground, the concourse at ground level and the upper deck above. Upper deck trains would pass over Hampstead Road (at approximately the same height as a three storey building) before descending into tunnel at Parkway. This option could avoid property demolition in the Regents Park Estate and the area around Cobourg Street, although St James’s Gardens, the National Temperance Hospital and Euston Square Gardens would remain impacted. There would be a visual impact on those housing blocks closest to the high level tracks by Hampstead Road. The works would require the existing station to be entirely rebuilt, and to do this whilst maintaining the current train service would be extremely complex. Capacity to run long distance services would be reduced by around 50% for a five year period, with a consequent effect on train services and passengers. The duration of the works would extend to 15 years translating into an opening date of 2031. Given the complexity, cost and duration of these works, this option was not felt to be preferable to the proposed scheme. 3. Redevelopment of the existing station site with alternative double deck platform configuration to minimise land take as far as practicable (the “double deck down” option). This option seeks to place both platform decks below a ground level concourse and run all trains under Hampstead Road, to retain the benefit of the reduced land take of the double deck option but remove the impacts associated with an elevated upper deck level. Similar to “double deck up”, this option would require the existing station to be entirely rebuilt. With this option, the London Underground lines running directly below the station would limit how far down into the ground the lower level can be placed. As a result, the station concourse would have to be around four metres higher than Eversholt Street. Land take would be greater than with a “double deck up” option because it would require demolition of two housing blocks on the
14 2. Euston Station
Regents Park Estate as well as impacting the St James’s Gardens, the National Temperance Hospital and Euston Square Gardens. In contrast to “double deck up”, greater excavation would be required, along with additional works to rebuild the Underground station, and this would extend the construction duration to around 19 years with an opening date of 2035. Given the complexity, cost and duration of these works, this option was not felt to be a practicable option and was not taken forward for further consideration.
The proposed scheme 2.3.2 The proposed scheme seeks to minimise, as far as practicable, the amount of work required on the existing Euston station. This would allow West Coast Main Line services to operate largely unaffected by construction of the HS2 station to the west. This would remove the need for the progressive phasing of works and the switching back and forth between available platforms of existing services during the works. This would significantly reduce the complexity of construction and shorten the construction period while ensuring that the station remained operational throughout, with less disruption to existing services. 2.3.3 In addition to the provision of integrated passenger facilities at the front of the station, some work would also be required on the existing Euston station platforms. There are currently eighteen platforms, some of which are short platforms. Assessment has shown that, following commencement of HS2 services, thirteen long platforms could be used to serve other train services on the existing lines into Euston. It is proposed to remove the existing short platforms 9 and 10 which would allow platforms 8 and 11 to be lengthened providing thirteen long platforms in the area currently occupied by platforms 1-15. Undertaking this work in concert with modifications to the track layout in the existing station approach would enable the three platforms adjacent to Melton Street (currently platforms 16-18) to be removed. 2.3.4 The new platforms for HS2 services and concourse extension could then be built to the west adjacent to the remaining conventional platforms and concourse, within approximately the same overall site area as the January 2012 design. This approach would reduce the extent to which rebuilding work has to be undertaken on tracks and platforms where normal train services are running. Land take on the eastern side of the station approach would also be reduced. 2.3.5 Work undertaken indicates that this scheme would provide the necessary capacity and operational capability for existing and HS2 trains, as well as passengers who would be served by a single integrated concourse. The scheme could be built to an integrated design with a continuous concourse serving the whole station that would look and feel like a new station. Enhanced London Underground facilities would also be provided.
15 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
Concourse Deck Concourse Servicing Area Delivery Area Retail Area Mechanical & Electrical Plant Allocation SCHEME 2012 JANUARY STATION Euston Station January 2012 scheme
EUSTON 2.1: Figure 2.1 Figure FIGURE
16 2. Euston Station Allocation Concourse Deck Concourse Area Servicing Area Delivery Retail Area & Electrical Mechanical Plant Euston Station proposed scheme Euston Station proposed
Figure 2.2 Figure
17 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
2.3.6 The proposed scheme offers opportunities for over-station development, with the potential for development around and above the new station that would support future homes, open space and businesses. As this scheme is simpler to construct whilst still running the train service into Euston, the HS2 opening date of 2026 could be delivered.
Effects of the proposed scheme 2.3.7 The table below sets out for comparison the main effects of the January 2012 proposal as now developed and the current proposed scheme.
Table 2.1 Comparison of main effects January 2012 proposal Proposed scheme as developed (See Fig. 2.2.) (See Fig. 2.1.) HS2 opening date. 2028 2026 Construction disruption. Extensive excavations to lower One third less excavation and all platforms. removal of excavated materials needed. Longer construction duration and consequent disruption Shorter construction duration for local community and rail resulting in less disruption to local passengers. community and rail passengers. Multiple and complex phasing Services could continue to operate to rebuild the station whilst mostly as normal without repeated operating train services. relocation. Greater disruption to train Minor reduction in peak train services and passengers with services during construction. services having to move from old platforms to new ones while platforms are being progressively demolished and rebuilt, with consequent higher risk of unplanned disruption to train services. Cost. The proposed scheme is estimated to cost around £400m less than the January 2012 proposal as developed. Effect on property on the Demolition of up to 215 homes and a community hall on the west side of the station. Regents Park Estate and mainly commercial property in Melton Street and Cardington Street including 14-15 Melton Street, which is Grade II listed. Part of St. James’s Gardens would also be required. In January 2012 it was assumed that part of the Grade 2* listed Royal College of General Practitioners building on the corner of Melton Street and Euston Road would have to be demolished; following further work, it is now expected that the whole building could be retained under either proposal. Continued
18 2. Euston Station
Table 2.1 Comparison of main effects January 2012 proposal Proposed scheme as developed Effect on property on the The Royal Mail Barnby St. site, Only the Royal Mail Barnby St. site east side of the station. some gardens at the southern would be required. end of Mornington Crescent and some community land on the Ampthill Estate would be required.
Accessibility to the In both cases, there will be expanded sub-surface ticket hall Underground. facilities, additional access to London Underground platforms and a sub-surface link between Euston and Euston Square Underground stations. Both schemes would be compatible with a possible future connection to Crossrail 2. Access to bus services. Bus facilities to the front of the station. The current proposal is for improved bus facilities to be re-provided in a linear configuration. Pedestrian/vehicular New pedestrian and vehicular link to the north of the station routes. connecting the streets to the east and west of the station. New sub-surface pedestrian route providing access from the station to the south side of Euston Road. Opportunities for new Route across the north side of the pedestrian routes across the concourse to connect Drummond station to reduce severance Street to Doric Way. effects on the adjacent communities and particularly a route from Drummond Street to Doric Way. Regeneration In both options there is considerable potential for residential, office, opportunities. retail and other commercial development above and around the station. The scale of these opportunities will depend on future regeneration plans and the design of the station. Opportunities for over-station development would probably be greater for the January 2012 proposal because all the railway tracks would be below ground level enabling greater flexibility with space at ground level and above.
19 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
2.3.8 The proposed scheme meets the transport requirements and performs better in terms of programme, reduced construction disruption and cost than the developed January 2012 design. However, although it offers potential for over-site commercial development and improved east-west routes across the station compared to the current situation, the developed January 2012 design has greater potential in these areas. 2.3.9 HS2 Ltd is continuing to work with the London Borough of Camden and others to prepare a local regeneration plan for new developments and amenities at and around the station site, as well as better accessibility to and across the station. However, any such developments would be the subject of separate planning applications so the benefits can only be indicative at this stage. Nevertheless, this work is expected to offer benefits for passengers, residents and businesses, as well as for wider local regeneration.
2.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 2.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to include the proposed scheme in the design to support the hybrid bill as the revised proposal: meets the operational requirements for the station; delivers the majority of the benefits related to the January 2012 design but with reduced disruption to the local community and passengers without affecting HS2’s proposed opening date of 2026; and does so at a lower cost.
2.5 Question 2.5.1 Rather than rebuilding Euston station entirely, the new proposal would provide new shared passenger facilities to the front of the station while retaining 13 platforms, with only minor modification, at their current level on the eastern side of the site, and 11 new platforms for high speed trains on the western side, constructed at a lower level. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
20 3. HS1-HS2 Link
3. HS1-HS2 Link
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to widen approximately 200 metres of the North London Line between Kentish Town Road and Hawley Road for an additional track to provide capacity for HS2 services connecting onto HS1 in addition to local passenger and freight services using the line.
3.1 Summary of the January 2012 proposal 3.1.1 A link between HS2 and the High Speed 1 (HS1) line north of St. Pancras was included in the January 2012 proposals, allowing HS2 trains from further north to bypass London Euston and connect straight into continental Europe or Kent. The link would have started in a new single track tunnel from Old Oak Common to Primrose Hill. It would then have joined an existing freight line through Chalk Farm to the junction with the North London Line (NLL) just west of Camden Road station. After running along an upgraded section of the NLL it would have joined an existing connection to HS1 just north of St Pancras, allowing up to three trains per hour. (See Fig. 3.)
3.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 3.2.1 As stated in its ‘Review of possible refinements to the proposed HS2 London to West Midlands Route’ published in January 2012, HS2 Ltd has been working with Network Rail and Transport for London to understand better the local capacity constraints of this short stretch of track, the aspirations for future passenger and freight services on the NLL and potential solutions. 3.2.2 Further work by Network Rail has now demonstrated that the rail junction and proposed shared section of the NLL to the west of Camden Road station would not provide sufficient capacity to meet the future passenger service and freight requirements in this area, and would not allow for the required three trains per hour for HS2.
21 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
3.3 Design options 3.3.1 A range of options to address the capacity issues were identified including an enhanced surface option (the Proposed Scheme) and four potential tunnel options. A much longer tunnel linking directly to HS1 where it reaches the surface at Barking was discounted on the grounds of cost, broadly estimated at around £3 billion more than the most expensive of the shorter tunnel options considered below.
Enhanced surface option (the Proposed Scheme) 3.3.2 The enhanced surface option would be the same as the January 2012 option but would provide an extra section of track for the NLL west of Camden Road station to increase capacity. This would involve widening a 200 metre long section of the NLL by up to 5 metres where it runs on viaduct between Kentish Town Road and Hawley Road. It would enable HS2 trains to use a dedicated single track along the south side of the railway viaduct where the two routes converge at Camden West Junction (just west of Camden Road Station), with NLL services using the two tracks to the north. The revised design would provide the NLL with the same capacity as now, but could limit future options for development of the conventional rail infrastructure. 3.3.3 In addition, HS2 would have dedicated use of one of the two existing freight tracks running east from the Primrose Hill area to Camden West Junction leaving a single track for freight. This is assessed to be adequate for existing freight volumes, but could affect the future capacity for freight to and from the West Coast Main Line via this route. If necessary, it would be possible to re-route some freight services via Gospel Oak, but this could have impacts on the future use of this line. 3.3.4 In order to build the additional track on the north side of the NLL to the west of Camden Road station, the Kentish Town Road bridge and the viaduct towards Hawley Street would need to be widened. This would necessitate demolition of two homes and a dental surgery, and the temporary occupation of premises occupied by approximately ten businesses. There would also be some noise disturbance to adjacent residential properties during construction.
Tunnelled options 3.3.5 Four tunnelled options were also considered, three following the surface rail alignment and one a significantly longer tunnel to the north under previously unaffected residential properties. However, the first three options were assessed as having high construction risks associated with the shallow tunnel depths needed for the tunnels to avoid conflict with the four London Underground tunnels and major sewers in the area.
22 3. HS1-HS2 Link 200 Station Camden Road 100 Metres 0 HS1 line St.Pancras Station line line and viaduct Widening of railway existing to HS1to Existing connection © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190and database copyright © Crown
To HS1 route To HAWLEY ROAD HAWLEY Camden Road Station Euston Station West Coast West Main Line ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( North London Line ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Kilometres HS1-HS2 link Existing freight link
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Primrose Hill Station (disused) January 2012 Route Proposed Change HS1 line North London Line Existing connection to HS1 Existing freight link to West Coast Main Line Tunnel to Tunnel Old Oak Common Figure 3:HS1 - HS2Link Legend: Figure 3 Figure I
23 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
3.3.6 The three tunnel options following the surface alignment would rise up on a shallow ramp to join the NLL viaduct to the north of St Pancras, bridge over the Midland Mainline, and then turn south onto the existing link to HS1. They would also involve permanent stopping up of between three and four roads depending on the option (including St Pancras Way, Baynes Street, Camley Street and Randolph St). 3.3.7 The longer northern tunnel option would involve significantly greater loss of domestic property – around 26 homes – where the tunnel would come to the surface on the north side of the NLL near the junction of St Pancras Way and Wrotham Road. St Pancras Way (A5202) – a busy local link road – would be permanently severed. This longer option would also require a vent shaft for emergency access and tunnel ventilation. This would be located in Talacre Gardens probably leading to some permanent loss of green open space. 3.3.8 A tunnelled option would have advantages in terms of providing full segregation of services from HS1 to HS2, of reducing the need for surface works along the NLL route including viaduct widening, the upgrading of Camden Road station and the replacement of eight bridges on the NLL, and of not representing a potential constraint on future enhancements to NLL capacity. However, the construction risks associated with tunnelling in this area (which would in practice be likely to add substantially to the costs), the permanent stopping up of roads, and the substantially increased loss of domestic property for the northern tunnel option, argue in favour of the surface route.
3.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 3.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to make this change to the January 2012 proposal in order to provide sufficient capacity for future growth in services on the North London Line as well as for HS2 services. The surface route is preferred to a new tunnel because it is assessed to have less construction risk, to involve fewer domestic property demolitions, and to avoid loss of open space and permanent stopping up of roads in a busy urban area.
3.5 Question 3.5.1 This proposed change consists of the widening of the North London Line viaduct between Kentish Town Road and Hawley Road to provide capacity for HS2 trains connecting onto HS1 in addition to local passenger and freight services using the line. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
24 4. Northolt Corridor
4. Northolt Corridor
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to replace the proposed surface section of the route between Old Oak Common and Northolt with a bored tunnel including three new vent shafts.
4.1 Summary of the January 2012 proposal 4.1.1 The route for HS2 announced in January 2012 included a 9km section of surface route between the tunnelled sections at West Ruislip and Old Oak Common. This surface section would have followed the existing Chiltern Line and London Underground Central Line and passed beneath 20 existing road bridges.
4.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 4.2.1 In August 2012, following representations from the local community, Ealing Council and the Mayor of London who were concerned at the impact of the works on local transport networks, HS2 Ltd commissioned a comparative study of tunnel options as an alternative to this surface option. 4.2.2 The study concluded that the surface option would involve much greater design complexity, local traffic disruption and risk to the costs and construction timetable than originally anticipated. Particular issues were that: • In January 2012 it was thought that some of bridges on the route could be retained and that only a few would require complete rebuilding. However, following further route development and site investigation, it is now considered that all 20 bridges would be likely to need to be reconstructed, including those for the Hanger Lane Gyratory, and in many cases the bridge supports, as well as bridge decks, would need to be replaced. • As a consequence of the more extensive works, the associated utility diversions would be greater and traffic disruption would be likely to be more severe and over a longer period. • These factors, together with the greater insight provided by more detailed engineering design, mean that the estimated cost of the surface section is now considerably higher than originally estimated.
25 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
4.3 Design options 4.3.1 As an alternative to the January 2012 surface option the option of tunnelling between the already proposed tunnels at Old Oak Common and Ruislip, was considered. This would result in a continuous tunnel between Old Oak Common station and West Ruislip. 4.3.2 The fully tunnelled option would involve boring an additional 9km of tunnel and provision of three additional vent shafts. One vent shaft would be on the West Gate site just to the west of Hanger Lane Gyratory, one in the Greenford Business Park in Greenpark Way and the third on industrial and railway land east of Mandeville Road. (See Fig. 4.) 4.3.3 This option would avoid the level of traffic disruption caused by the surface works including Hanger Lane Gyratory and would eliminate the risks associated with construction alongside and over the Central Line. It would also avoid the need to demolish a block of eight flats, two community halls and around 50 commercial units, which would be required for the surface option. 4.3.4 For the tunnel, approximately the same number of commercial units (within a small number of previously-unaffected buildings) would still be required to construct the vent shafts and construction worksites. Two residential properties may need to be demolished depending on the size of the construction site at Mandeville Road, which is still to be finalised. The tunnelled option would also mean an increase of around 1.3 million cubic metres in excavated material that would need to be removed – as much as possible by rail – from the tunnel worksites located in the industrial areas adjacent to Old Oak Common station and at West Ruislip. 4.3.5 The cost of constructing a continuous tunnel is now estimated to be broadly comparable to that of constructing the surface route in the light of the additional scale and complexity of surface works, although the risks to cost and construction timetable would be greater for the surface option. This proposal would mean that the route for HS2 would be in continuous bored tunnel from Old Oak Common to West Ruislip.
4.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 4.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to replace the surface section of track with a continuous tunnel extending all the way from Old Oak Common to West Ruislip. This would reduce as far as practicable disruption during construction and loss of property. It would be no more expensive to construct than the surface route, would involve less risk, and could be completed in less time.
26 4. Northolt Corridor Metres 0 25 50 ! ( © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000029 copyright © Crown Metres 0 50 100 ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Kilometres Metres ! ( 0 25 50 Northolt Corridor 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
January 2012 proposed tunnelled section Proposed Northolt tunnel shaft Vent ! ( Figure 4:Northolt Corridor Legend: Figure 4 Figure I
27 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
4.5 Question 4.5.1 This proposed change consists of replacing the proposed surface section of the route between Old Oak Common and Northolt with a bored tunnel including three new vent shafts. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
28 5. Heathrow junctions
5. Heathrow junctions
Proposed change Secretary of State is minded to make provision so that a future link to Heathrow can be connected to the Phase One main line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services.
5.1 Summary of the January 2012 proposal 5.1.1 In January 2012 the Government announced that HS2 should be linked directly to Heathrow as well as its preference for implementing the link as part of Phase Two of the scheme. The Government has subsequently established the Airports Commission to examine options for Britain’s international aviation hub, and in January 2013 further work on the High Speed link to Heathrow was paused pending the Commission’s report. 5.1.2 The route announced by the Secretary of State in January 2012 does not include junctions to serve Heathrow. Nor has the Government yet stated a preference for any alignment for the route to Heathrow. But in order to minimise as far as practicable the area of blight and uncertainty, the Secretary of State has published a route to the airport recommended by HS2 Ltd without stating any Government preference3. The published route thus has no formal status but is nevertheless an indication of current thinking based on the work undertaken so far.
5.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 5.2.1 If the Phase One route were constructed without junctions that allowed easy connection to a future link to Heathrow in Phase Two, these would need to be constructed while Phase One services were operational. Works would have to be undertaken in a combination of short night time periods and more extensive line closures which would be both expensive and very disruptive for passengers. To avoid this expense and disruption, the Secretary of State is therefore minded to make provision for the connections to Heathrow as part of the Phase One hybrid bill.
3 http://www.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/inserts/130116%20heathrow%20route%20description%20for%20ehs%20 final%20policy%20approved%20text.pdf
29 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
5.3 Design options 5.3.1 To minimise safety risk and track maintenance, junctions off a mainline should be located on straight sections of track. For junctions to serve Heathrow the only straight sections of track in the vicinity of Heathrow that are not in tunnel are on either side of the Colne Valley. (See Fig. 5.) These are, therefore, the only practicable locations for the junctions. It should be noted that one junction location can support a range of different route options to serve Heathrow from this location. 5.3.2 At each junction location the approach taken has been to provide as part of Phase One the minimum infrastructure necessary to allow a link to Heathrow to be constructed, if and when a link is taken forward, without significant disruption to HS2 train services. In the west, the cutting from the Chiltern tunnel would be widened by up to 30 metres for a distance of 1.6km to accommodate additional tracks. An underpass would also be provided beneath the proposed scheme. In the east, the cutting east of Harvil Road would be approximately 20 metres wider for about 650 metres before the proposed scheme crosses the Colne Valley on a viaduct.
5.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 5.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to make provision for these future connections in order to avoid major disruption to HS2 Phase One services if and when a link to Heathrow is built.
5.5 Question 5.5.1 This proposed change consists of making provision so that a future link to Heathrow can be connected to the Phase One main line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
30 5. Heathrow junctions Kilometres | 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 400 Harvil Rd I 200 Metres 0 Potential linkPotential to Heathrowto © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000030 copyright © Crown
| ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( to Heathrowto ! ( ! ( Potential linkPotential ! ( ! ( ! ( ow Junctions 400 Heathr
200 Metres Proposed underpass Proposed Phase One route Proposed Phase One work entrance Tunnel wallsRetaining cuttingRailway River Colne for Heathrowfor connection 0 Figure 5:Heathrow Junctions Legend: Figure 5 Figure
31 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
6. Colne Valley viaduct
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to move the proposed alignment of the Colne Valley viaduct by up to 60 metres to the north to reduce the disturbance to the River Colne.
6.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 6.1.1 The January 2012 route included a 3.3km long viaduct up to 15 metres above ground to carry HS2 across the Colne Valley. On either side of the valley there would have been a section of embankment and cutting adjacent to the entrances to the tunnel at Ruislip (to the east) and the Chiltern tunnel (to the west).
6.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 6.2.1 The January 2012 route crossed the River Colne at a shallow angle. This meant that for 300 metres the viaduct would be above the river and six piers would need to be built in the river bed. 6.2.2 Part of the Colne Valley is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and the route passes through the SSSI, including a section of the River Colne. HS2 Ltd and the Environment Agency expressed a preference for an alignment that avoids either building in the river or diverting its course, with the aim of preserving the water environment and the ecology of the river. HS2 Ltd has therefore reviewed the alignment to consider whether it is possible to reduce construction within the river channel.
32 6. Colne Valley viaduct
6.3 Design options 6.3.1 A number of options were explored to reduce the impact on the River Colne: 1. The alignment would be moved 60 metres to the north to enable the viaduct to cross the River Colne at close to a right angle, minimising the length of span across the river. (See Fig. 6.) This would mean that only a single pier would need to be placed in the river. With further refinement of the design it may be possible to rearrange the pier locations so that no piers would be needed in the river itself, though the water course would still be affected by the piers on either side. This is the proposed scheme. 2. An intermediate alignment between the January 2012 alignment and the proposed scheme above, which would result in three piers in the river. 6.3.2 The proposed scheme would reduce the environmental impact on the River Colne and cost broadly the same as the January 2012 alignment. The shallower curve would also enable the design speed of the viaduct to increase from 300kph to 320kph, which would have a small benefit for journey times for all services. The viaduct would move further away from the nearest housing in Denham and closer to the more distant homes in South Harefield, but the effect of the change on residential areas would be minimal. 6.3.3 There are three properties that would be directly affected by realigning to the north: • At the Merck research centre in Ickenham, retaining walls or more building relocation would be needed. • The impact on the Hillingdon Outdoor Activities Centre (HOAC) would be reduced compared to the January 2012 option. The proposed scheme would pass by the HOAC buildings on the northern boundary of the site rather than crossing directly over the site with a direct impact on the HOAC buildings. Both options would, however, pass over the HOAC sailing lake. • Dew’s Farm, a locally listed building adjacent to HOAC, would now need to be demolished as a result of the realignment. 6.3.4 The intermediate option would still require three piers in the river bed and would not offer significant environmental or property advantage compared to the proposed scheme. It would have a design speed on the viaduct of 310kph.
33 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
6.3.5 HS2 Ltd is continuing to consider whether, using the proposed scheme, the single pier in the River Colne could be removed from the channel of the river as well. This would require an extended span between piers and would still be likely to require construction in the river due to the proximity of the piers to the river bank. In addition, it would result in a number of other environmental impacts such as visual impacts from the need to increase the size of the structure to ensure that it was strong enough to support the extended span. At this stage it is not certain whether removing the pier would be a better environmental outcome overall but HS2 Ltd is continuing to work on this as part of developing and assessing the proposals for the realigned viaduct. 6.3.6 Any of these alignments across the Colne Valley would entail a significant viaduct structure and landscaped embankments. All routes would still run across the HOAC sailing lake and Mid-Colne Valley SSSI and would affect the River Colne itself, though the effect on the river would be much reduced in the proposed scheme.
6.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 6.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to make the proposed change as it would lead to an improved crossing design with reduced disturbance to the river.
6.5 Question 6.5.1 This proposed change consists of moving the proposed alignment of the Colne Valley viaduct by up to 60 metres to the north to reduce the disturbance to the River Colne. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
34 6. Colne Valley viaduct 10050 Metres 0 Merck centre research Kilometres 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 I Dew's Farm © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000031 copyright © Crown Activities Centre L a k e Hillingdon Outdoor S a v a y ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( alley viaduct ! ( River Colne Crossing Colne V
January 2012 Route Proposed Change Mid Colne SSSI Valley River Colne Figure 6: Colne Valley FigureViaduct 6:Colne Valley Legend: Figure 6 Figure
35 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
7. Maintenance Loop near Stoke Mandeville
Proposed change To support efficient operation ofthe high speed railway, the Secretary of State is minded to locate a maintenance loop near Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire.
7.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 7.1.1 The route announced in January 2012 included an Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) for the high speed route at Calvert, about half way along the route. This site is the base for maintenance of all elements of the static railway including track, signalling and overhead power equipment, cuttings and embankments.
7.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 7.2.1 Since the January 2012 proposals were announced, HS2 Ltd has developed a maintenance strategy for the railway to enable the infrastructure to reliably support the proposed train service. The frequency of the train service limits the opportunity to undertake maintenance, which must thus take place during the night closure period or in limited periods at the beginning and end of the day when the service is less frequent. To maximise the amount of work undertaken within this night shift, maintenance trains would need to arrive quickly at their work sites. As a result HS2 Ltd has recommended a maintenance loop be located at Stoke Mandeville, approximately half way between the maintenance depot at Calvert and Euston station, and also one at Wormleighton in Warwickshire, approximately half way between Calvert and Birmingham. (See Chapter 9.) 7.2.2 The principal function of the loops is to allow maintenance trains to be kept securely during the day in readiness for maintenance work during the night. The trains can then reach the location for their maintenance works quickly and so optimise the maintenance approach for the railway. A second function is as a safe stopping location for any passenger train that develops a fault.
36 7. Maintenance Loop near Stoke Mandeville
7.2.3 The maintenance loop sites need to be largely flat, straight and located next to a straight section of the main line with sufficient space for connections to both sides as well as good road access. The length of the loop line needs to be approximately 1.25km long to allow a train to be parked clear of the HS2 line if necessary. The track corridor width at maintenance loops would be about 16 metres wider than the two track section to allow for the additional loop line on either side. During the night, when in use, the site would be lit by low level lighting.
7.3 Design options 7.3.1 When looking for a suitable site for the maintenance loop, HS2 Ltd required sites that were straight, broadly flat and roughly halfway between Calvert and Euston. 7.3.2 The mid-point between Calvert and Euston is within the Chilterns tunnel, 40km from Euston. This limited potential sites to those lying north or south of the Chilterns tunnel. The potential site locations identified were near: • Stoke Mandeville; • Denham, close to the M25; • Hyde Heath between the Chiltern’s tunnel and the South Heath Green tunnel in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB); and • Between Grim’s Ditch and Wendover Dean in the Chilterns AONB.
Stoke Mandeville 7.3.3 The proposed option at Stoke Mandeville lies between Nash Lee Road and the A4010 Risborough Road. In order to accommodate the length of flat track necessary for the loops and rail access, changes in height would be necessary at each end of the loop. The northern end of the Wendover green tunnel would need to be lowered in its existing cutting by a further 1.5 metres, and the rail embankment and diverted Risborough Road at Stoke Mandeville would need to be raised by approximately 4 metres. (See Fig. 7.) 7.3.4 The addition of loops at Stoke Mandeville would impact the local landscape, though to a lesser extent than the Grim’s Ditch option. Nearby dwellings may experience additional occasional noise intrusion in addition to that already generated by A4010 Risborough Road. As a result of these effects, HS2 Ltd is reviewing with Buckingham County Council and the local community proposals for a Stoke Mandeville bypass, which would remove the need to raise the Risborough Road bridge with its associated embankments and the nearby embankment and bridge on Marsh Lane.
37 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
Denham and Hyde Heath 7.3.5 Both the Denham and Hyde Heath sites were not progressed further as neither site allowed the loop lines to be connected to both sides of the main line due to physical space restrictions or other railway infrastructure. In addition, the Denham site is the proposed site for the junction to potentially serve Heathrow using the only section of straight track near the south entrance to the Chilterns tunnel. Locating the maintenance loop in this area would mean that it would not be possible to construct the link to Heathrow in the future. The track gradients of the Hyde Heath site also proved too steep for the site to be used for maintenance loops.
Grim’s Ditch and Wendover Dean 7.3.6 To accommodate the maintenance loops between Grim’s Ditch and Wendover Dean would require the route to be moved horizontally eastwards by up to 100 metres from the January 2012 alignment to provide a sufficiently straight and flat area. This would also affect the vertical levels of the railway with deeper cuttings near South Heath green tunnel and an increase to the height of the southern end of the Wendover Dean viaduct of around 1 metre. As a result this option could have increased sound and visual effects on homes on Potter Row. There would also be an impact on an area of ancient woodland, Jones’ Hill Wood, and there would be additional visual impacts on the AONB including, in particular, additional rail infrastructure within the designated area.
7.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make this change 7.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to locate a necessary maintenance loop at Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire as this location is the most operationally efficient and has the least impact on the local environment of the viable options.
7.5 Question 7.5.1 This proposed change consists of providing a maintenance loop near Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire to support the efficient operation of the railway. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
38 7. Maintenance Loop near Stoke Mandeville point access Highway to track to point access Highway loopparallel Maintenance © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000032 copyright © Crown ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " to track to ! ( ! ( loopparallel Maintenance ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Kilometres Maintenance loop near Stoke Mandeville
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 January 2012 Route Proposed Change cuttingRailway Figure 7:Maintenance Loop near Stoke Mandevillenear Stoke Legend: Figure 7 Figure I
39 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
8. Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to provide an additional east-south ‘chord’ - a short, curved connecting rail line - to improve access from the proposed Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot to HS2 tracks to the south.
8.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 8.1.1 The January 2012 route included access to the HS2 mainline from the Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) via a link line to the north of the depot. 8.1.2 At this location HS2 crosses the Bicester-Bletchley line, which is currently a lightly used single track freight railway. The IMD is just to the north east of the crossing point. There is also an east-to-south railway chord serving the Calvert waste transfer facility and connecting the Bicester-Bletchley line to the line to Aylesbury which runs south from Calvert alongside the proposed HS2 track. 8.1.3 In January 2013, the Government announced its support for the East West Rail (EWR) project to upgrade and electrify these railway lines to provide services from Bedford to Oxford and beyond as well as onto the Aylesbury Link. The EWR services turning south to Aylesbury will require a new east-south chord, because the lines to Aylesbury will be shifted slightly eastwards to accommodate the new HS2 lines.
8.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 8.2.1 The developed January 2012 proposal envisages that trains from the IMD heading south would reverse northwards into sidings near Twyford before continuing south on HS2 tracks. However this solution makes accessing the southern part of the route from the depot relatively slow and could unnecessarily disturb residents of Twyford. This arrangement would cause more maintenance trains to pass Twyford than is necessary and such trains would mainly be leaving the depot in the late evening and returning in the early morning.
40
8. Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot
!
!
! !
Proposed new chord for EWR Aylesbury services
!
!
! !
Infrastructure Maintenance Depot
Proposed new chord for depotfor !
© Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000033 copyright © Crown
!
!
! ! HS2 ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( e Maintenance Depot ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Kilometres Calvert Infrastructur
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 January 2012 Route Proposed Access Chord to Maintenance Proposed Rail East (EWR) West Proposed new chord for EWR Aylesbury Existing Bicester-Bletchley railway alignment Depot services ! MaintenanceDepot Figure 8:Calvert Infrastructure Legend: ! Figure 8 Figure I
41 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
8.3 Design options 8.3.1 The option investigated was the construction of a new HS2 east-south chord to enable trains from the Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) to directly access the southbound HS2 tracks. The HS2 southbound link would be located close to the new EWR chord. This would avoid the need for all maintenance trains going to and from the south to reverse near to Twyford and would avoid the noise and visual impacts that such train movements could generate. (See Fig. 8.) 8.3.2 The new chord would also facilitate construction of the railway as the depot site is proposed to be a construction worksite and an east-south chord would assist the movement by rail of material and equipment. 8.3.3 Whilst the precise alignment of the two east-south chords is not yet certain, the HS2 chord to the depot would not be expected to have any significant environmental impacts. (The new EWR chord is likely to be close to the Grade II listed Sheep’s Furze Farm and may therefore involve demolition of some or all of the buildings.)
8.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 8.4.1 The introduction of an east-south chord for HS2 allowing direct access to the depot from the south would significantly improve the operation and resilience of the railway. There would also be less disturbance at night for Twyford residents if maintenance trains do not have to undertake a reversing manoeuvre.
8.5 Question 8.5.1 This proposed change consists of an additional chord to give direct access between the proposed Calvert Infrastructure Maintenance Depot and HS2 tracks to the south. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
42 9. Maintenance Loop near Wormleighton
9. Maintenance Loop near Wormleighton
Proposed change To support efficient operation of the railway, the Secretary of State is minded to locate a maintenance loop near Wormleighton in Warwickshire.
9.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 9.1.1 The route announced in January 2012 included an Infrastructure Maintenance Depot (IMD) for the high speed route at Calvert, about half way along the route. (See Fig. 9.) This site is the base for maintenance of all elements of the static railway including track, signalling and overhead power equipment, cuttings and embankments.
9.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 9.2.1 Since the January 2012 proposals were announced, HS2 Ltd has developed a maintenance strategy for the railway to enable the infrastructure to reliably support the proposed train service. The frequency of the train service limits the opportunity to undertake maintenance, which must thus take place during the night closure period or in limited periods at the beginning and end of the day when the service is less frequent. To maximise the amount of work undertaken within the night shift, maintenance trains need to arrive quickly at their work sites. As a result HS2 Ltd has recommended a maintenance loop be located near Wormleighton, approximately half way between the maintenance depot at Calvert and Birmingham, and also one at Stoke Mandeville in Buckinghamshire, approximately half way between Calvert and Euston. (See Chapter 7.) 9.2.2 The principal function of the loops is to allow maintenance trains to be kept securely during the day in readiness for maintenance work during the night. The trains can then reach the location for their maintenance works quickly and so optimise the maintenance approach for the railway. A second function is as a safe stopping location for any passenger train that develops a fault.
43 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
9.2.3 The maintenance loop sites need to be largely flat, straight and located next to a straight section of the main line with sufficient space for connections to both sides as well as good road access. The length of the loop line needs to be approximately 1.25km long to allow a train to be parked clear of the line if necessary. The track corridor width at maintenance loops will be about 16 metres wider than the two track section to allow for the additional loop line on either side. During the night when is use, the site would be lit by low level lighting.
9.3 Design options 9.3.1 When looking for a suitable site for the maintenance loop, HS2 Ltd required sites that were straight, broadly flat and roughly halfway between Calvert and Birmingham. 9.3.2 The undulating landscape and the curvature of the route between Calvert and Birmingham limit the number of sites that can support the maintenance requirements. Three straight sections were identified as potential locations, all in rural areas: • Lower Radbourne; • Wormleighton (the proposed scheme); and • Greatworth.
Lower Radbourne 9.3.3 This location would require the route and maintenance loops to be placed on viaducts or on embankment up to 14 metres high, raising the proposed route by 7 metres. Long access roads would be required to connect the site to the nearest suitable highway network. This location would be highly visible from the surrounding area and affect the setting of Hodnell Manor, a Scheduled Monument, fishing ponds and some listed buildings in Wormleighton. As the loops would be positioned higher than the natural landscape there would be increased likelihood of noise intrusion during construction and operation.
Wormleighton 9.3.4 The preferred location near Wormleighton could be contained within a section of deep cutting, reducing the visual, landscape and noise impact on the local community compared to the Lower Radbourne location. The site would be visible to users of nearby local roads and public rights of way.
44 9. Maintenance Loop near Wormleighton Kilometres 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 to track to I loopparallel Maintenance © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000034 copyright © Crown to track to loopparallel Maintenance ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( point access Highway Wormleighton Maintenance Loop Wormleighton
January 2012 Route Proposed Change cuttingRailway Figure 9:Maintenance Loop Legend: near Wormleighton Figure 9 Figure
45 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
Greatworth 9.3.5 At a distance of 20km from Calvert this location was assessed as too close to Calvert to be operationally desirable. This location would mean that maintenance trains would take too long to travel up towards sites nearer Birmingham leaving them little time to carry out any maintenance that might be needed.
9.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make this change 9.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to locate a necessary maintenance loop near Wormleighton in Warwickshire as this location is the most operationally efficient and has the least impact on the local environment of the viable options.
9.5 Question 9.5.1 This proposed change consists of providing a maintenance loop near Wormleighton in Warwickshire to support the efficient operation of the railway. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
46 10. Chelmsley Wood Curve
10. Chelmsley Wood Curve
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to increase the height of HS2 over the M42 and Coleshill Heath Road, and proposes to move the route eastwards so that it is further away from the Chelmsley Wood residential area, playing fields and open space.
10.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 10.1.1 The route announced in January 2012 crosses over the M42 and then threads northwards through the existing major road corridor of the M6, A452 Chester Road, M42 and M6 (Toll) passing Chelmsley Wood and Coleshill. As a result the route passes within 75 metres of homes in Chelmsley Wood. (See Fig. 10.) 10.1.2 This alignment was determined by the fact that it was the only “gap” within the transport infrastructure in the area, given the expected elevation of HS2 at this point. The alignment had significant local effects. Most notably, it would have required the loss of playing fields and open space close to Chelmsley Wood.
10.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 10.2.1 Following the January 2012 route announcement, more detailed design work revealed that the route needed to be raised where it crossed the M42, north of Junction 6, the M6, its sliproads and at Coleshill Heath Road to provide the necessary clearance to ensure that there was no conflict between the railway, the motorways and the local highway network. The option of tunnelling under the M42 was discounted because the costs were around £1bn higher than the lowest cost surface option. Similarly options to cross under the M42 and M6 were discounted. 10.2.2 This would mean that near Chelmsley Wood the route would be approximately 12 metres higher than originally proposed, before returning to the same elevation as the January 2012 route near Gilson. However, this higher elevation past Chelmsley Wood opens up options for the alignment through this area that were not available in January 2012, and these are explained below.
47 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
10.3 Design options 10.3.1 Alignments considered were: • The January 2012 alignment but at a higher elevation; • Moving the route up to 125 metres eastwards, further away from Chelmsley Wood, and crossing over Coleshill Heath Road on its current horizontal alignment. This is the proposed scheme; • Moving the route up to 125 metres eastwards, further away from Chelmsley Wood, crossing over a lowered Coleshill Heath Road, requiring a new horizontal alignment for Coleshill Heath Road and modifications to the junction with Yorkminster Drive; and • Moving the route up to 225 metres eastwards, further away from Chelmsley Wood and closer to the River Cole.
The January 2012 alignment but at a higher elevation: 10.3.2 Maintaining the January 2012 alignment past Chelmsley Wood, but at higher elevation, would potentially increase noise and would increase visual intrusion in Yorkminster Drive, Bluebell Drive and Lyecroft Avenue on the east side of Chelmsley Wood. It would also require the diversion of a fuel pipeline. The increase to the HS2 alignment would mean that Coleshill Heath Road would have to pass over the HS2 alignment at such a high level that it could no longer tie in with the adjacent highway network. This route alignment would also result in the loss of some local parkland, playing fields and play areas.
Route moved eastwards by up to 125 metres: 10.3.3 Two feasible sub-options have been considered. 10.3.4 Moving the route east by up to 125 metres crossing over Coleshill Heath Road on its current horizontal alignment, which is the proposed scheme, would lessen the environmental impact on the east side of Chelmsley Wood. The railway would be further away from people’s homes than the existing M6 motorway and it would reduce the impacts on the playing fields and parkland. It would need to be up to 12 metres above existing ground level. Overall, there would be a small reduction in the sound and visual intrusion to the eastern part of Chelmsley Wood compared with the modified January 2012 route, as described above. Further mitigation including possible landscape earthworks alongside Yorkminster Drive to screen the residential area of Chelmsley Wood from the HS2 rail alignment over Coleshill Heath Road is under consideration. The proposed route would also no longer require the diversion of the fuel pipeline.
48 10. Chelmsley Wood Curve HS2 crossing M42 M6 slip road M42 slip road ! © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000035 copyright © Crown Coleshill Heath Rd Bluebell Drive Lyecroft Ave Lyecroft Coleshill Manor Yorkminster Drive Yorkminster ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( Kilometres Chelmsley Wood Curve Chelmsley Wood
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 January 2012 Route Proposed Change Figure 10: Chelmsley Legend: Wood Curve Wood Figure 10 Figure I
49 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
10.3.5 Moving the route east by up to 125 metres crossing over a lowered Coleshill Heath Road would require a new horizontal alignment for Coleshill Heath Road and its junction with Yorkminster Drive. This would have negative environmental impacts on the east side of Chelmsley Wood. Although the railway would be further away from people’s homes than the existing M6 motorway, the modified highway network would have a greater impact on the playing fields and parkland than the proposed scheme. It would need to be up to 10 metres above existing ground level. Overall, there would also be a small reduction in the sound and visual intrusion to the eastern part of Chelmsley Wood compared to the modified January 2012 route, as described above. The proposed route would also require the diversion of the fuel pipeline and both Coleshill Heath Road and Yorkminster Drive would need to be lowered locally.
Route moved eastwards by up to 225 metres: 10.3.6 Moving the route east by up to 225 metres would introduce significant additional construction complexities arising from crossing the M42 and the River Cole. It would consequently involve additional costs as well as significant changes to the track layout of Birmingham Interchange station and the Delta Junction. Whilst with this option there could be a reduction in noise, there is likely to be a higher visual intrusion to the Chelmsley Wood residents than the options to move 125 metres away, which do not have the same complications.
10.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 10.4.1 Given the need to raise the route in this area in order to provide the necessary clearance over the M42 and Coleshill Heath Road, the Secretary of State is minded to move the route up to 125 metres eastwards, further away from Chelmsley Wood, with the route crossing Coleshill Heath Road on its current horizontal alignment. This would reduce the local noise effects and reduce the amount of local parkland, playing fields and play areas taken. The cost and complexity of moving the route further away from Chelmsley Wood is not justified.
10.5 Question 10.5.1 This proposed change consists of increasing the height of the railway over the M42 and Coleshill Heath Road and move the route eastwards so that it is further away from the Chelmsley Wood residential area. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
50 11. Water Orton
11. Water Orton
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to move the HS2 line nearest Water Orton by up to 30 metres southwards in order to reduce the visual and sound intrusion to residents of Water Orton.
11.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 11.1.1 The northern chord of the Delta Junction provides access to central Birmingham for HS2 trains travelling to and from the North, and is sited about 150 metres away from the southern edge of the village of Water Orton.
11.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 11.2.1 The community of Water Orton is already bounded on three sides by the M6 and M42 motorways and their interchanges. The community forum and local action groups have raised concerns about the visual and noise effects of HS2 on this community. Since January 2012, HS2 Ltd has been looking at options to reduce the noise and visual intrusion of the railway on Water Orton.
11.3 Design options 11.3.1 Since January 2012, HS2 Ltd has reviewed the location of the route near Water Orton to limit environmental impacts and to reduce construction complexity and risk. The main option investigated has been to move the line further away from Water Orton by up to 30 metres, which is the proposed scheme. (See Fig. 11.) 11.3.2 Moving the line further away from the residential area of Water Orton would leave more space between the railway and the community on which to undertake landscaping. By building up the land in this area it would create a screen that would reduce the visual and noise impacts on Water Orton Primary School and the local residential area. Moving the route south would also enable a marginally simpler route construction.
51 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
11.3.3 It is not considered feasible to move the tracks further away from Water Orton, as this would make the junctions with the HS2 main line significantly more complex and the track would not meet the technical specification for this section of the route.
11.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make this change 11.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to move the HS2 line further south away from Water Orton to reduce the impacts on the community of Water Orton.
11.5 Question 11.5.1 This proposed change consists of moving the line nearest Water Orton by up to 30 metres southwards in order to reduce visual and sound intrusion for local residents. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
52 11. Water Orton Route to Route The North north chord Delta Junction © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000036 copyright © Crown Water Orton Water Primary School ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Kilometres ! ( ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( Water Orton Water
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Route to Route central Birminghamcentral January 2012 Route Proposed Change Figure 11: Water OrtonFigure 11: Water Legend: I Figure 11 Figure
53 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
12. Bromford
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to replace the surface section of route below the M6 Bromford Viaduct with a bored tunnel.
12.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 12.1.1 The HS2 route announced by the Secretary of State in January 2012 proposed a spur into Birmingham that followed the existing Derby to Birmingham railway corridor before running for around 1km under the M6 Bromford Viaduct. The route then re-joined the Derby to Birmingham railway corridor before passing through Washwood Heath.
12.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 12.2.1 HS2 Ltd has developed the detail of the design of the route around Bromford, including responding to concerns raised by the local community and others. This work has identified a number of issues with the January 2012 option.
Flood impact and the loss of community facilities 12.2.2 The January 2012 route proposed that HS2 would run beneath the M6 Bromford Viaduct. This required the River Tame, which currently runs beneath the viaduct, to be moved to the south with the potential that it could be recreated in a more natural setting as an environmental improvement. Following further development of this design and working closely with the Highways Agency, it became apparent that, although there was a workable, if complex, approach that would provide an integrated road-rail solution, meeting design requirements for flood alleviation would lead to a significant increase in land take. 12.2.3 The River Tame would still have to be moved to the south but it would not be possible to return it to a more natural form, instead extensive flood defences would need to be constructed up to the edge of Chillingham Road and Bromford Drive. This would require the demolition of community facilities such as the existing Bromford Neighbourhood Office, Firs and Bromford Community and Sports Centre, and the Bromford Residents Club. It would also lead to the loss of open spaces and the Tame Valley Academy playing field and the Bromford Bridge North play area. It would also involve loss of the playing fields of the Tame Valley Community School.
54 12. Bromford
Impacts on other infrastructure 12.2.4 In addition to the impact on community facilities and businesses, the need for extensive flood defences in this area would require the relocation of National Grid power lines, the removal of 12 pylons and the replacement with a utilities tunnel and 5 new pylons. It would also have led to significant road modifications, including major remodelling to the junction of Bromford Lane with Heartlands Parkway (A47) and the re-alignment of part of Chester Road (A452). These are two major north-south highways in east Birmingham across the rail corridor and so are pinch points on the network. The road modifications would have required the demolition of a number of business properties in the area. It should also be acknowledged that, although manageable, the integration of the high speed route with the M6 would have been likely to have caused significant disruption to traffic on the motorway and would have added risk to the project. 12.2.5 Taken together these issues increased the cost, risk and environmental impact of the proposed route through Bromford and led to HS2 Ltd exploring alternative options.
12.3 Design options 12.3.1 The design options examined were: • A twin-bored tunnel (the proposed scheme); and • A surface option aiming to rationalise the existing railway arrangements which already pass under the Bromford viaduct, so making space for HS2.
A twin-bored tunnel 12.3.2 This would see a 2.8km tunnel from Castle Bromwich Business Park to the Drew’s Lane industrial site in Washwood Heath, the proposed site for the Washwood Heath rolling stock depot. A retained cutting running down to the tunnel entrance would be required at either end, but HS2 Ltd do not currently envisage a need for a tunnel vent shaft. 12.3.3 The tunnel option would have the advantage that by not running beneath the M6 Bromford Viaduct there would be no need to move the River Tame south which would avoid the loss of community facilities, open space and play areas. It would also not require the relocation of the National Grid power lines and pylons for the length of the tunnel. Nor would it include any major highway works at Bromford Lane or Chester Road thus reducing the impact on local businesses and traffic.
55 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
12.3.4 This option would, however, generate around 1 million cubic metres of spoil from the tunnelling. There would be some demolition of business properties near the tunnel entrances in Castle Bromwich Business Park and at the proposed HS2 Washwood Heath Depot site. The specific properties affected would depend on the precise location of the tunnel entrances which is still being developed in detail. There would, however, be a substantial reduction in overall demolitions of commercial premises in the area affected by this proposal and significantly fewer road alterations. 12.3.5 Overall there would be significantly reduced landscape and visual impact compared with the surface route. (See Fig. 12.) The cost of the tunnel is estimated to be around £200m less than the surface route, given the simpler construction, reduced ancillary works and reduced construction risk.
A surface option aiming to rationalise the existing railway arrangements 12.3.6 An alternative option would be to rationalise the existing railway layout to the north of the proposed route to make space for HS2. The conventional railway is a mixture of the main lines from Birmingham to Derby and a series of freight connections and sidings. Use of the existing rail corridor would have avoided most, but not all of the changes to the M6 viaduct and the land taken to re-channel the River Tame. HS2 Ltd worked with Network Rail to develop a revised layout which would need to be constructed progressively to maintain existing railway operations. 12.3.7 Use of this railway land would still require remodelling of the existing roads and junctions that traverse the area, replacement of about 150 metres of M6 viaduct sub-structures, diversion of fuel pipe lines, and increase flooding risk. In addition this potential solution would constrain future development of the rail freight and local passenger network and was assessed as unlikely to be acceptable to Network Rail. 12.3.8 The cost of this option was initially assessed as broadly similar to the tunnelled option, excluding potential compensation costs to freight and passenger service operators during construction which were provisionally estimated at £30m.
12.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 12.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to replace the surface section of the route below the M6 Bromford Viaduct with a bored tunnel as it avoids the disruption to local infrastructure and the resultant significant adverse environmental and social impacts on the local community caused by the January 2012 option. The tunnel is also estimated to be the least expensive of the options considered and to involve least risk to both cost and construction timetable.
56 12. Bromford Metres 0 10050 Kilometres 0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 I © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000037 copyright © Crown ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( Metres Washwood Washwood Heath depot 0 10050 Bromford
January 2012 Route Proposed Change Proposed tunnelBromford entrance Tunnel Boundary of depot site including temporary land required for construction Figure 12: Bromford Legend:
Figure 12 Figure River Tame River
57 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
12.5 Question 12.5.1 This proposed change consists of replacing the proposed surface section of the route beneath the M6 Bromford Viaduct with a bored tunnel. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
58 13. Washwood Health
13. Washwood Heath
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to enhance rail access to the Washwood Heath depot from the west at Duddeston flyover in order to improve operational flexibility.
13.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 13.1.1 The January 2012 route includes the maintenance depot for Phase One and Phase Two high speed trains at Washwood Heath. The site would be about 1.5km long and needs good access to the rail and road network. This depot would provide the stabling for HS2 trains for routine maintenance and when not in use. It would also be the central point for taking deliveries and storing replacement parts before they are installed. The January 2012 route included only western access from the HS2 mainline to the proposed depot. So all trains using the depot would have to access it by way of Curzon St station.
13.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 13.2.1 Feasibility checks showed that the January 2012 depot access arrangements created the risk of trains queuing on the mainline with a resultant knock on impact on the operation of passenger services. The work also indicated that enabling access to the depot from the east, as well as the west, would add to operational resilience. Access arrangements have therefore been reviewed. Eastern access would be provided as part of the proposed Bromford tunnel, which would emerge in the north eastern end of the depot site. (See Chapter 12.) This chapter deals solely with the issue of western access.
13.3 Design options 13.3.1 HS2 Ltd has identified two options which potentially give appropriate access to trains coming from Curzon St station: • A junction half way along the Washwood Heath site – the developed January 2012 proposals. • A junction off the Duddeston flyover with two additional tracks providing access to the Washwood Heath depot at its western end – the proposed option. (See Fig. 13.)
59 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
Western access, entering the depot half-way along the Washwood Heath site 13.3.2 To allow trains to enter the depot at higher speeds to avoid train conflicts on the main line, the January 2012 developed access arrangement would mean the depot area and tracks would have to extend beyond the existing eastern boundary of the depot at Bromford Lane (A452). The tracks would cross the River Tame, take additional land, and result in demolition of businesses in the Bromford Lane area. The A452 highway modifications would also be greater. The tracks would constrain the layout of the depot, which would be less operationally efficient. 13.3.3 This option is also incompatible with the proposed tunnel at Bromford (described in Chapter 12) as the tunnel entrance would emerge at the north eastern end of the depot site conflicting with the additional track required for this option.
Western access provided by two additional tracks from the Duddeston flyover 13.3.4 The alternative option of western access near Duddeston approximately 350 metres south of Saltley Viaduct, would allow trains going into the depot to leave the main line earlier and so would not affect main line operations. The two new tracks would require limited additional land and affect one additional business property in Saltley Business Park. However, no business property to the east of the depot near Bromford Lane would be required. 13.3.5 The depot layout would be slightly closer to the residential properties to the west of Washwood Heath, but potential sound effects could be mitigated by the buildings and environmental screening. There is no significant change to the environmental effects from this option compared to the developed January 2012 option.
13.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make this change 13.4.1 The additional western access tracks to Washwood Heath are required to ensure that the railway operates effectively. The Secretary of State is minded to support the option of segregated tracks from Duddeston flyover as it is compatible with his proposal to provide a tunnel at Bromford which has its western entrance (‘portal’) at the eastern end of the Washwood Heath site – see Chapter 12. It would also require fewer demolitions than the alternative option and cause less disruption to local roads.
60 13. Washwood Heath ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " Bromford LaneBromford Washwood HeathWashwood depot January 2012 Route Proposed Change Proposed tunnelBromford entrance Tunnel Boundary of depot site including Area of proposed changes temporary land required constructionfor Figure 13:Heath Washwood Legend: © Crown copyright and database right NumberOrdnance Licenceright 2013. Survey 100049190.and database HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000038 copyright © Crown Saltley Business Park SaltleyViaduct Duddeston Kilometres Washwood Heath depot Washwood
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 I Figure 13 Figure
61 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
13.5 Question 13.5.1 This proposed change consists of enhancing access from the west to the Washwood Heath rolling stock depot in order to improve operational flexibility. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
62 14. Leeds junction
14. Leeds junction
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to make provision for a future extension to Leeds so that the new line, subject to securing the necessary Parliamentary approvals, can be connected to the HS2 Phase One line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services.
14.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 14.1.1 The HS2 Phase One route announced in January 2012 runs north of Birmingham to connect to the existing West Coast Main Line railway at Handsacre to enable HS2 train services to run on to northern cities and Scotland at conventional speeds. No provision was made in the January 2012 Phase One route for junctions to link to the proposed second phase of HS2.
14.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 14.2.1 On 28 January 2013 the Secretary of State announced his initial preferred routes for the extension of HS2 to Manchester and Leeds. The next step for these Phase Two proposals will be a comprehensive programme of engagement on all aspects of the proposals with a formal public consultation beginning later this year. 14.2.2 The Secretary of State’s initial preferred route to Leeds would connect to HS2 Phase One near Junction 9 of the M42 before following the route of the M42 as closely as possible to limit community severance and adverse effects on the local environment. The route would then pass between Nottingham and Derby so that an East Midlands station would be accessible to both cities as well as the East Midlands airport and the M1. Route options following the A38 corridor – and therefore with a junction further north – were discarded because they were up to 15km longer on the route to Nottingham and Derby. 14.2.3 It would be very expensive and disruptive to make connections to the HS2 Phase One route after the railway becomes operational because the works would have to be undertaken in a combination of short night time periods and more extensive line closures.
63 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
14.3 Design options 14.3.1 If the alignment of the Secretary of State’s initially preferred route to Leeds is confirmed, there is a choice for the design of the junction with the HS2 Phase One line. The northbound tracks to Leeds could pass either over or under the Phase One line. Neither option would affect the alignments of the HS2 Phase One route or highways in the vicinity and the land take would be similar, but an underpass would be less environmentally intrusive in terms of noise and visibility and would also cost marginally less to build. This is the proposed scheme. 14.3.2 For either option the environmental effects of the Leeds Junction south of the A4097 Kingsbury Road are minor as the HS2 route crosses mainly agricultural land between the M42 and roads to Junction 9, and industrial and utility activities in and around Hams Hall to the east. The landscape is already crossed by major roads, railways and electricity pylons. However, some of the outbuildings at the existing listed Dunton Hall Farm complex would need to be demolished. North of the Kingsbury Road the Leeds route would entail demolition at Mullensgrove Farm and Cocksparrow House Farm. 14.3.3 In addition to the grade separated underpass and lines through the junction, the spur works would comprise a retained cutting which would extend to a point just north of Marston Lane, which would be closed. This would be far enough that earthworks would no longer abut the Phase One line and would allow the full construction of a retaining wall between the Leeds up and down lines. (See Fig. 14.) 14.3.4 If, following consideration of the responses to the forthcoming consultation on Phase Two of HS2, there is any change to the alignment of the southern end of the route to Leeds, the design of the junction would need to be reviewed.
14.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 14.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to include provision for future connections to Leeds in the Phase One hybrid bill in order to limit disruption to HS2 services during construction of the proposed extension to Leeds.
14.5 Question 14.5.1 This proposed change consists of making provision at Curdworth for a future extension to Leeds so that it can be connected to the HS2 Phase One line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
64 14. Leeds junction 400 200 Metres Marston LaneMarston Farm 0 Cocksparrow Farm Hall Dunton Mullensgrove Kingsbury Rd © Crown copyright and database right 2013. Ordnance Survey HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000039100049190. Number Licence Survey Ordnance right 2013. and database copyright Crown © ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( Kilometres Leeds junction
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 January 2012 Route Proposed Phase One for Work Proposed Route Phase Two cuttingRailway Phase Two Figure14: Leeds Connection Legend: I Figure 14 Figure
65 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
15. Manchester junction
Proposed change The Secretary of State is minded to realign the northern end of the HS2 Phase One route and make provision for a future extension to Manchester so that the new line, subject to securing the necessary Parliamentary approvals, can be connected to the HS2 Phase One line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services.
15.1 Summary of January 2012 proposal 15.1.1 The HS2 Phase One route announced in January 2012 runs north of Birmingham to connect to the existing West Coast Main Line railway near Handsacre to enable HS2 train services to run on to northern cities and Scotland at conventional speeds. The route would be on embankment and pass through several existing and proposed commercial developments in Fradley Business Park.
15.2 Issues identified with the January 2012 proposal 15.2.1 On 28 January 2013 the Secretary of State announced his initial preferred routes for the extension of HS2 to Manchester and Leeds. The next step for these Phase Two proposals will be a comprehensive programme of engagement on all aspects of the proposals with a formal public consultation beginning later this year. 15.2.2 It would be very expensive and disruptive to make connections to the Phase One route after the railway becomes operational because the works would have to be undertaken in a combination of short night time periods and more extensive line closures. 15.2.3 In addition, the County and District Councils and the developers have asked HS2 Ltd to review the alignment in this area in relation to existing and proposed commercial developments. (See Fig. 15.)
15.3 Design options 15.3.1 Several groups of options were considered to provide the spurs for an extension to Manchester: • Options to lower the alignment to reduce environmental effects on the village of Streethay.
66 15. Manchester junction
• Options to reduce the effect on Fradley Business Park; and • Options for spurs for future extension to Manchester. 15.3.2 The most promising option in each group was taken forward for refinement and assessment. The option for reducing the effect on Streethay by running HS2 in a cutting under the West Coast Main Line east of Lichfield and under the A38 and the South Staffordshire Railway at Streethay would eliminate the need for a 4km long embankment. However, in addition to drainage problems and severe disruption during construction, this option would be very expensive in relation to the limited environmental benefit. A bored tunnel was also considered and discounted. Although a bored tunnel would reduce environmental effects, these do not justify the significant increase in construction costs. 15.3.3 From the remaining options, a revised proposal emerged that would skirt the Fradley Business Park by moving up to 80 metres south west of the January 2012 route. Though some business park land would be required, it would not significantly encroach on buildings or prevent the current development proposals. 15.3.4 As a result of this change the alignment would move approximately 200 metres north of the January 2012 route in the vicinity of the Trent and Mersey Canal. The environmental impacts, although in a different location, would be broadly similar to the January 2012 route alignment. 15.3.5 Compared with the January 2012 proposal, the proposed changes would not alter the effects on Streethay nor is there any significant difference in effects on areas adjacent to the sections of route in open countryside. The main outcome of the change would be on Fradley Business Park and its development plans. 15.3.6 The realigned link to the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre would be further away from Wood End Farm, and the encroachment into Ravenshaw Wood would be marginally greater. However, the Manchester extension would require much less of Fradley Woods. 15.3.7 The junction spur to serve Manchester would comprise an elevated railway which would extend to a point around 150 metres north of the Trent and Mersey Canal crossing. Around 200 metres of embankment would be built between the Phase One line and the canal, because access to this area for construction in the future would be difficult near the operational Phase One railway. The canal crossing would also be constructed, as the Phase One mainline already involves two crossings of the canal nearby and it would avoid repeated disruption if the third crossing in the area for Phase Two was completed at the same time. Finally around a further 150 metres of the route would be constructed north of the canal to avoid repeated impacts on the adjacent woodlands by both HS2 Phase One and Two.
67 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation I Figure 15 Figure 15: Manchester Junction Manchester 15: Figure Legend: to Manchester to Phase Two Phase spur Phase One Work for Phase Two Work for One Phase Phase Proposed residential Proposed affected by possibly plant Bottling site auction Warehouse/ site Development Railwayembankment Two Preferred Routefor Initial Phase Proposed and Changes Proposed Route 2012 January . . 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 TrentCanal Mersey and
Manchester junction Coast Main Line Main Coast West Existing Kilometres ! ( " ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( ! ( Streethay ©Crown copyright HS2-HS2-GI-MAP-000-000040 database and 100049190. Survey 2013. rightOrdnanceLicence Number A38 Railway Staffordshire South 400200 0 400200 0 Metres Metres FradleyPark
68 15. Manchester junction
15.4 Why the Secretary of State is minded to make the change 15.4.1 The Secretary of State is minded to change the alignment in order to reduce the impact on existing and proposed commercial developments. In addition, he is minded to include provision for future connections to Manchester in the Phase One hybrid bill in order to minimise disruption to HS2 services during the construction of the proposed extension to Manchester.
15.5 Question 15.5.1 This proposed change consists of realigning the northern end of the Phase One route near Lichfield, and making provision for a future extension to Manchester so that it can be connected to the HS2 Phase One line with the minimum of disruption to HS2 train services. Please give your views on this proposal, indicating whether or not you support the proposal together with your reasons.
69 HS2 London – West Midlands Design Refinement Consultation
16. How to respond to the consultation and next steps
16.1.1 The consultation closes on 11 July 2013. Please ensure that you send your response before that date to ensure that it is included in our analysis and consideration. 16.1.2 If you would like further copies of this consultation document or the consultation response form it is available to download at www.hs2.org.uk or to order in hard copy by calling 0300 123 1102. Please also use this number if you would like alternative formats (Braille, audio CD, etc.).
16.2 How to respond 16.2.1 You can respond to this consultation in the following ways: • online: you can respond online at www.hs2.org.uk • email: you can email your response to: [email protected] • post: you can post your response and additional material to the following FREEPOST address: FREEPOST RTEC-AGCS-CZCY Design Refinement Consultation PO Box 1152 Harrow HA1 9LH 16.2.2 All responses must include your name and organisation (if applicable). When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation. If responding on behalf of a larger organisation, please make it clear who the organisation represents and, where applicable, how the views of members were assembled. 16.2.3 If you have any queries you can contact us by email at: HS2Enquiries@ hs2.org.uk or by telephone on 0207 944 4908.
16.3 Events 16.3.1 We are holding a series of consultation events to provide further information about the issues described in this document. Visitors to these events will have an opportunity to speak with members of HS2 staff and view maps relevant to the local area. Further information on these events is available on the HS2 website at: http://www.hs2.org.uk/have-your-say/ consultations or by contacting 0207 944 4908.
70 16. How to respond to the consultation and next steps
16.4 What will happen next? 16.4.1 The consultation closes on 11 July 2013. Responses to the consultation will be summarised in an independent report that will be considered by the Secretary of State when making final decisions on the issues described in this document.
16.5 Freedom of Information 16.5.1 Information provided in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be subject to publication or disclosure in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. 16.5.2 If you want information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please be aware that, under the FOIA, there is a statutory Code of Practice which guides public authorities and which deals amongst other things, with obligations of confidence. 16.5.3 In view of this it would be helpful if you could explain to us why you regard the information you have provided as confidential. If we receive a request for disclosure of the information, we will take full account of your explanation, but we cannot give an assurance that confidentiality can be maintained in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not, of itself, be regarded as binding on the Department and HS2 Ltd. 16.5.4 The Department and HS2 Ltd will process your personal data in accordance with the Data Protection Act (DPA) and in the majority of circumstances this will mean that your personal data will not be disclosed to third parties.
71