Poor design increases costs

The Guardian tells us HS2 costs are under review by Sir Jeremy Heywood. I think the design should be scrutinised too.

By Cnbrb (Own work) [CC0], via Wikimedia Commons

Commentators point out that most along the route feel disenfranchised, just bypassed. That need not be the case. Most motorways go past city centres, but connect to local routes. Why not do the same for high speed rail?

Building new surface stations in already crowded and busy cities is a huge proportion of the cost, and of timescale. Why not take a leaf out of Crossrail?

In short, don't just look at the money. Reconsider the design. 

Why should HS2 or HS3 terminate in London?

Updated March 2020

I think high speed railway designers have a fetish for London terminals. St Pancras was refurbished for HS1, and what a brilliant result for a previously largely redundant station.

www.constructionnews.co.uk

However Euston is already the fifth busiest, so squeezing in additional capacity there is a nightmare. Unsurprisingly various reports have suggested a temporary HS2 terminal at Old Oak Common; what nonsense. Prime Minister Johnson thinks throwing more money at the scheme will bring it forward, however it's planning and engineering that's critical. But why have a London terminal anyway?

Crossrail is connecting in beneath existing stations. Why not do the same with these new high speed rail schemes? After all the HS2 London route is already in a tunnel. All the servicing of train sets can then be located outside Town, which is more practical.

And finally, why not continue the line to serve Essex populations so often starved of good connections.

In short, we could do with some joined up thinking to produce a fantastic transport system that joins things up beautifully. And here's a fantastic suggestion that does just that by linking HS1 and HS2.

www.newcivilengineer.com

I wish!