Professional Documents
Culture Documents
High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
February 2011
Contents
Page
1 Introduction 1
1.1 The Purpose of this Report 1
1.2 Overview of the Route 1
1.3 The Layout and Content of this Report 3
3 Euston Station 13
3.1 General Description 13
3.2 The Footprint of the Station 14
3.3 Platform Arrangements 16
3.4 HS2 Track Arrangements 18
3.5 Classic Track Alignment 20
3.6 Concourse Level 20
3.7 General Site Development 22
3.8 Constructability 23
3.9 Existing Train Services During Construction 23
3.10 Platform Use during Construction 23
3.11 Underground Facilities at Euston 24
5.2 Alignment 34
6.1 Introduction 39
6.5 Concourse 41
6.8 Construction 42
8.7 Wendover 63
9 Wendover to Quainton 65
12.2 Ladbroke 93
iv
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
1 Introduction
1.1 The Purpose of this Report
This report describes the Government’s proposed route for a high speed rail line
between London and the West Midlands. It has been prepared on the advice of
High Speed Two Limited.
It describes, in non-technical language wherever possible, the layout and main
features of the route. It does not describe all the various route alternatives that have
been considered since the start of route development work. This historical work
has been presented to the public in a series of documents placed on the DfT website:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/
There are also other sources of information concerning the scheme on High Speed
Two Limited’s website:
http://www.hs2.org.uk/
This report describes a scheme whose detailed drawings are on the DfT website
referred to above. There are figures/drawings in this report, but they are at a smaller
scale and they show considerably less detail. If full information is needed, the
reader should visit the DfT website.
1
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
●● have a new station in Birmingham near Curzon Street, with direct access to
Moor Street Queensway, and with access to New Street Station and the
City Centre.
2
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
3
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
4
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
For cuttings and embankments, it was assumed that the side slope of the earthworks
would be 1:2 (1 vertical to 2 horizontal). Therefore, for, say, an 8m deep cutting or
an 8m high embankment, there would be a side slope width of 16m on one side,
and 16m on the other side. Adding this to the “no earthworks” dimension of about
20m to 25m would therefore give a total fence-to-fence dimension of about 52m to
57m. This is a conservative design assumption. In practice it may be possible to
use steeper slopes to reduce the fence-to-fence dimensions. Where tracks enter
tunnels in two separate tunnel bores, the distance between tracks would be about
20m instead of the usual 5m.
2.3 Tunnels
The range of tunnel configurations used was as follows:
●● Twin Bored, Single Track Tunnels (with cross passages where required);
●● Single Bore, Twin Track Tunnel (with or without central dividing wall).
The tunnelling methods considered were:
●● Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM) driven tunnels with the machine type
dependent on ground conditions;
●● Mined tunnels, i.e. tunnel driven without a shield, generally utilising
Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL) for initial ground support.
The minimum tunnel size was determined by the size of the train, and all the
ancillary equipment such as the electrification system, emergency walkways,
drains etc. This minimum for a single-track, single-bore tunnel is 7.25m internal
diameter. Aerodynamically, this tunnel size would allow speeds up to 250kph.
Above 250kph, aerodynamic, rather than physical envelope considerations,
determined the required tunnel size (the faster you travel, the larger the tunnel).
Tunnel sizes were calculated from the specific length and desired speed. In some
cases, the tunnel would not be circular, but would be a flattened ellipse. Whether a
circle or flattened ellipse, the “height” of the tunnel was determined, then it was
assumed that the tunnel would be an equal distance below ground at the portal.
Thus, for a tunnel of size “D”, the track level would be 2D below ground at the
portal and deeper thereafter. In a twin-tunnel arrangement, the tunnels would be
connected by cross-passages at 250m intervals.
5
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
It was assumed that tunnels longer than 2km are likely to be driven by TBM rather
than mined with SCL support. It was also assumed that, for tunnels shorter than
2km, there would be no need for a dividing wall in single twin-track tunnels. The
train stopping distance is likely to mean that trains would run through, rather than
stop in, tunnels of this length in case of an emergency. This assumption was based
on North Downs tunnel on HS1.
In general terms, tunnels under London were required to offer 225kph capability,
those through the Chilterns to offer 320kph, and those in “open country” to offer
400kph. Care was taken to ensure that the horizontal and vertical alignments in
tunnel locations would not preclude 400kph running should suitable train
technologies be developed. The specific solutions are described in the route
descriptions.
Most tunnels would need some provision of buildings on the surface, above the
line of the tunnel, for ventilation, escape, emergency intervention etc. These areas
would need to be accessible to the emergency services. The report notes where
these facilities are suggested.
6
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
The roof of the tunnel would therefore be about 9m above track level.
7
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
8
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
For the larger, longer or higher structures, a “viaduct” form of structure would be
used, as shown in the computer-generated image below.
9
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
Example of a “Balancing Pond” in which rainfall run-off from the railway is stored
before controlled release into a receiving watercourse. These areas are often used to
provide for habitats lost elsewhere on the scheme.
10
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
These requirements have not yet been fully designed, and the plans accompanying
this report should therefore be regarded as a minimum requirement. This is because
this stage of design was focussed more on the principles of the scheme (particularly
in terms of its horizontal and vertical alignments) rather than a fully detailed
proposal showing the totality of land that would ultimately be required.
11
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
2.12 Construction
On the open-country route elements, it was assumed a 10m construction width
would be required beyond the permanent earthworks for site compounds, storage
of contractor’s materials, laying-out areas for track components and units, and
working space around major structures etc.
It is likely that major construction compounds will be provided at about 15-20km
intervals along the route. Detailed locations cannot be provided at this stage, as
much will depend on the contracting strategy that would develop through detailed
design. Proposed tunnel entrances will need their own dedicated compounds
located at the tunnel mouth.
12
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
3 Euston Station
3.1 General Description
Euston Station would be the London terminus for HS2.
The existing station footprint would be extended to the west and south to create
room for the additional and longer platforms. The tracks would be lowered such
that the platform roof would be at existing ground level, providing a level surface
at street level. Improved London Underground facilities would be included.
There would be a total of 24 platforms as follows:
●● 10 high speed platform faces on the westerly side of the station;
●● 2 Hybrid platform faces situated between, and accessible from, the westerly
HS side and WCML easterly side;
●● 12 WCML Classic platform faces on the easterly side.
Construction of the station would take approximately 8 years. During construction,
planning would ensure that there is minimum impact on existing classic services.
13
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
14
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
15
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
16
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
17
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
18
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
The HS2 lines would need to be lower than the present track levels at Hampstead
Road Bridge by approximately 1.5m and the bridge would require complete
reconstruction for its entire length. The track lowering would require the new
western retaining walls to be higher than the existing.
The track fans would start north of Hampstead Road Bridge. Their complexity and
the requirement to link with adjacent Classic track fans would require all fans to
19
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
20
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
21
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
buses, taxis and possible future trams). There would also be a facility to the north
of the concourse level to provide a transverse route for buses and taxis. This would
be developed at a future design stage.
The existing concourse space beneath the existing rail concourse would be taken
by the platform level extension, necessitating its reconstruction. The new concourse,
to be provided below railway track level, would extend from the existing footprint,
both north and west, to provide 2 additional escalators to each of the Northern and
Victoria lines, effectively doubling the platform access.
A zone would be reserved between Classic and HS2 platforms to provide vertical
circulation for the new rail concourse above track level to the new LUL concourse
below track level. This would be by escalator, lift and stairs. It is anticipated that
interchange between the two concourse levels would be achieved locally to the
points of access to HS2 and Classic platforms to minimise pedestrian movements
and resulting conflicts. This central zone would also facilitate replacement vent
shafts to the Underground lines.
22
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
Paul’s Cathedral, which would limit the central zone of the site to approximately
50mOD (i.e. medium rise). The demolition of the westernmost office block would
improve this sight line. However, the extension of the station footprint and throat
to the west would displace four residential blocks owned by LB Camden and
would significantly reduce St. James’s Gardens. The issues raised by these
engineering requirements lie outside the scope of this report.
3.8 Constructability
Euston station would be constructed in phases to enable retention of existing
classic services throughout. A number of alternative sequences are being considered
to reflect differing disruption and completion requirements. In all cases, the
construction would start from the west taking in the site extension to Coburg Street,
and then Platforms 14-18.
Services would then be temporary diverted from the low-numbered platforms into
the newly constructed HS2 platforms, which would then support all the fast WCML
services. At this stage, minor track modifications north of Park Road would
segregate the fast and slow services and the final 4-line approach to the Classic
Station would be completed.
The construction of the low-numbered platforms would then be followed by the
middle zone of the station which currently serves the Slow WCML tracks.
Upon completion, the fast and slow services would be diverted back into their final
platform allocations, and the HS2 platforms reconfigured for GC gauge.
23
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
24
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
25
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
26
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
27
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
28
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
29
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
This report has yet to describe the proposed HS1 to HS2 link, but this link would
be in tunnel, and would broadly parallel the Euston to Old Oak Common Tunnel,
sharing its shaft provisions.
It was assumed that intermediate shafts would not be used for passenger evacuation
in the event of an emergency. In this scenario, passengers would evacuate from the
incident tunnel, via the cross-passages, to the non-incident tunnel which would act
as a place of safety. They would then exit the tunnels via the portals (depending on
the location of the incident) or via a dedicated relief or rescue train. All these
emergency arrangements would be subject to future discussions with the emergency
authorities and the HMRI/HSE.
30
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
31
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
The shafts would contain mechanical and electrical equipment, and would require
some form of structure at the surface. This structure is known as a “headhouse”.
This headhouse would typically be a 2-storey building, and an image of a typical
such headhouse is shown below.
Each headhouse would require a secure access from a public highway, and a typical
urban arrangement is shown below.
32
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
4.5 Construction
It is envisaged that the tunnels would be constructed from Old Oak Common
towards Euston, such that the spoil (earth from tunnelling) would be brought to the
Old Oak Common end for removal.
This tunnelling would not be able to begin until the Old Oak Common station box
was substantially complete, and before completion of the station works. It is
envisaged that two Tunnel Boring Machines (TBMs) would be used, with a slight
lag between the two drives, with cutter-head refurbishment being carried out at the
intermediate shafts. These tunnels would be driven through soft ground, generally
competent (consistent and suitable for tunnelling) London Clay.
33
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
5.2 Alignment
The HS1 link would lead from the Old Oak Common area towards the Chalk Farm
area. It would be a single-track, GC-gauge link from Old Oak Common to the
North London Line (NLL) at Camden Junction. A maximum speed of 160kph is
proposed in the new tunnel, but existing linespeeds would be retained on the North
London Line.
The route would begin at Old Oak Common in a single-track tunnel, approximately
15m below ground level between the HS2 Up and Down Line tunnels. It would be
the same diameter as the HS2 tunnels (7.25m), and would initially lie between the
Euston lines.
Between Old Oak Common and the shaft at Alexandra Place, the 3 tunnels would
share a common alignment that would allow sharing of intervention shafts.
Between the shafts at Alexandra Place and Adelaide Road, the HS1 link would
begin to rise such that it would cross over the Euston-bound tunnel and then run to
its north, while beginning its rise to the surface. The alignment of the tunnels
would still be such that they can all be serviced by the intervention shaft at Adelaide
Road.
The portal of the HS1 link tunnel would emerge on existing railway land near the
disused Primrose Hill Station. This arrangement assumes that the existing “Up
Empty-Stock line” tunnel, which is disused, would be abandoned.
From Camden Junction, the link would utilise the southern line across the Camden
Viaduct through Camden Market. The proposed scheme would modify the existing
Camden Road Station platform arrangement with the re-establishment of the
northern platforms for NLL service.
34
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
35
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
The line speed through Camden would be limited to approximately 60kph. The
existing connection between HS1 at St Pancras Tunnel Portal and the north London
Line corridor would be re-used. This connection was developed primarily for
Eurostar access to the temporary maintenance facilities at North Pole and is now
little used.
Whilst the new viaduct at the North London Line was designed for twin GC gauge
operation, the remaining NLL connection was not enhanced and is standard W10
gauge. Full GC gauge provision is required, which is substantially larger than W10
gauge in both width and height. However, since running speeds would be severely
constrained, the enhanced clearances associated with high speed operations have
not been adopted.
The modifications on the North London Line corridor would be:
●● Reconstruction of Camden Lock and Camden Road bridges;
●● Modifications to south side of Randolph Street, Baynes Street and
St Pancras Way bridges;
●● Widening of bridges at Kentish Town Road, Camden West Junction and at
supermarket access;
●● Modifications to platforms and track layout at Camden Road Station;
●● Remodelling of Camden West Junction may be required; and
●● Installation of new turn-outs to connect to existing HS1 tracks.
36
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
37
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
38
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
Image of Stratford International Station showing typical layout and size of cut-and-
cover box for Old Oak Common.
39
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
40
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
●● Train service frequency on the HS2 to HS1 link would be governed by the
turn-round/layover times in the platforms, and the time occupancy of the
single-track HS2 to HS1 connection.
●● A Through-running Platform to the HS2-HS1 link. There would be a
connection to HS2 at the west end of the station box, so trains could run
directly from the North through Old Oak Common and on to HS1. This
would require an enlargement of the station box to the west to accommodate
the required connections. Train service frequency on the HS2 to HS1 link
would no longer be governed by the turn-round/layover times in the
platform, but only by the time occupancy of the single-track HS2 to HS1
connection. Security and immigration issues would have to be addressed,
either at the passengers’ originating stations, or on the train during the
journey.
Two island platforms (four platform faces) would be provided on the GWML Fast
Lines, to permit successive trains to call without cumulative delay. The GWML Up
Relief Line and the Down GWML Relief Line would have a platform face. There
would also be an east-facing bay platform, with two platform faces and turnback
facilities for Crossrail.
41
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
6.5 Concourse
The station would initially function largely as an interchange as there would only
be modest local passenger demand, but this might change if redevelopment of the
area was envisaged and implemented. Concourse facilities would be provided
immediately above HS2 at approximately 6m below ground. This would link
directly beneath the GWML and Crossrail at the same level. Both GWML and
Crossrail platforms would be served by two banks of two escalators per platform,
together with lifts and stairs. Additional segregated space for international traffic
could be provided.
6.8 Construction
The station would be formed in an open cut box. The concourse would be sited at
-1 level above the tracks (at level -2) with links to the ground level new GWML
Station and Crossrail Station beneath the existing GWML tracks (at level 0). If
emergency or full operational crossovers were required at both ends of the station,
the box might need to be enlarged. The box would be sited to avoid conflict with
the Crossrail Depot access line.
42
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
43
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
Between them, these three junctions would allow Heathrow to be served either as
a spur off a triangular delta junction in the Denham/West Ruislip area, or as a loop
connecting the Denham junction to a South Ruislip junction. These junctions are
described in the relevant route section.
44
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
45
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
46
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
47
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
The East Bridge has 2 brick arches carrying the LUL tracks, widely separated by
the LUL island platform. There is then a “middle” span through which the Network
Rail lines run, and a more northerly span with no railway infrastructure under it.
The whole structure carries 8 lanes of highway traffic, but is split longitudinally,
having been extended (widened) in the past. The West Bridge is a single span
structure over all of the LUL and Network Rail lines. It appears to be wide enough
and high enough to accommodate HS2 with, perhaps, a marginal lowering of the
formation. The difficulty that arises is that it is not possible to devise a horizontal
alignment for 250kph that retains both bridges.
The preferred option is therefore the on-line replacement of the East Bridge,
retaining the road alignments. Comprehensive traffic management regime would
be required so as to keep disruption to traffic to reasonable minimum. It is envisaged
that the existing LUL station and lines would remain in their present positions
during and after the completion of the HS2 works.
48
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
49
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
50
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
51
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
52
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
53
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
54
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
55
56
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
57
58
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
Example of “Partial Retained Cut” where the upper slope is a cutting, and the lower
part is a retaining wall.
© Copyright David Anstiss and licensed for reuse under this Creative Commons Licence.
Along this length, a “green tunnel” is proposed where two public footpaths lead
from the A413 towards High Spring Wood. The bridge would be at ground level,
and would straddle between the retaining walls. The bridges would provide
continuity of public crossings and environmental/planting mitigation. The roads
along this length (such as Weedon Hill Road and Keepers Lane) would be
maintained at their present level, again on bridges straddling between retaining
walls.
59
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
60
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
61
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
62
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
8.7 Wendover
The route would follow the alignment of the Wendover Bypass, to its west. The
route would affect Bacombe Lane and Ellesborough Road, with loss of 6 residential
properties on Ellesborough Road. The route would incorporate a green tunnel at
Ellesborough Road, though it would not be possibly to wholly bury this structure
below ground, and exposed parts would require landscaping measures. There is
likely to be a substantial road diversion to pick up the severed part of Bacombe
Lane and to ensure connectivity of Ellesborough Road towards Wendover.
Pedestrian links would remain along the existing alignments.
The route would then continue to run to the south-west of the Wendover Bypass,
generally on embankment between 3m and 5m high to the Nash Lee Road area.
The route would pass over Nash Lee Road, which would have to be diverted and
lowered, with a new terminal roundabout at the northern end of Wendover Bypass.
63
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
64
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
9 Wendover to Quainton
The route would now enter a much flatter and low-lying landscape north of Stoke
Mandeville.
65
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
66
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
67
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
68
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
69
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
70
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
71
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
72
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
73
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
74
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
75
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
76
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
77
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
78
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
79
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
80
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
81
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
82
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
83
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
84
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
85
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
86
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
87
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
88
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
89
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
90
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
91
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
92
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
12.2 Ladbroke
The route would run more or less at ground level between Radbourne and Ladbroke,
except for a very localised cutting up to 26m deep at Windmill Hill.
The route would then pass north-east of Ladbroke, just above ground level, at
about 600m distance. The A423 would have to be diverted and raised to pass over
HS2.
93
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
94
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
95
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
96
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
97
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
98
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
99
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
100
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
101
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
102
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
103
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
104
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
105
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
106
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
107
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
108
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
109
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
110
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
111
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
112
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
113
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
114
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
115
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
15.2 Middleton
The route would pass at ground level through the alignment of the A4091, and a
permanent diversion would be required to lift the A4091 over the railway.
East of Middleton, speeds would be restricted to 350kph to enable the alignment
to pass west of Hints and to avoid the area of higher ground and quarry north east
of Hints.
116
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
117
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
15.3 Hints
The route would pass below Cranebrook Lane in a 16m cutting, and would then
run largely at ground level to the west of Hints but with a 21m cutting at Roundhill
Wood. The route would pass 300m west of Hints to avoid the area of higher ground
and quarry to the north-east.
The route would cross Bourne Brook on a 170m bridge. A retaining wall would be
required to prevent the railway embankment footprint infringing on the flood plain.
Near Bucks Head Farm are the “old” Watling Street and the “new” A5. It would
appear to be possible to pass below both roads, though some localised raising or
lowering might be needed, subject to survey.
North of the A5, the alignment would allow 400kph.
118
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
119
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
15.4 Whittington
The route would then run in cuttings of typically 7m but up to 19m depth to pass
400m west of Whittington Barracks and Whittington Heath.
The route would then be elevated on a mixture of embankment, minor structures
(short spans) and viaducts to pass over a flood plain, the disused canal and the West
Coast Main Line about 400m west of Huddlesford Bridge.
The route would then aim for a gap in property north of Streethay, passing over the
Lichfield City to Wichnor Junction line and the A38 on viaduct.
120
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
121
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
122
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
123
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
124
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
125
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
126
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
127
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
16.3 M6 Crossing
The M6 crosses the existing railway on an elevated viaduct and in doing so would
cross over the HS2 route. It crosses the existing railway and the River Tame on a
series of portal structures supported by lines of piers, which carry deck structures
on which the M6 is aligned. The existing railway and river would therefore lie
under what is effectively a tunnelled structure, at minimum clearance over the
existing railway. There are east-west openings through the structure, the
southernmost of which carries the River Tame.
It is proposed to realign the River Tame outside and south of the M6 structure, and
to utilise the river opening to carry HS2. This would be acceptable in providing the
required headroom for HS2 trains, provided that the HS2 tracks were about 1.5m
lower than existing. Some structural work would be required to strengthen the
piers against train derailment. Because of the proximity of the River Tame, these
lowered tracks would have to be protected from flooding by constructing bunds
along the full length of the diverted river channel. A benefit of the realignment
would be that the river would become an open-air watercourse, rather than covered,
with aquatic benefits. More investigation is needed on structural clearances.
128
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
129
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
130
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
131
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
132
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
17.2 Alignment
The horizontal alignments would be broadly parallel to the New Street to Coventry
line with a set of 80kph turnouts in the throat area, allowing all trains to access all
platforms. These turnouts would be situated on straight tracks extending some
1km east of the platforms.
The vertical alignment was dictated by both the junctions to the east, and road
clearances, particularly above New Canal Road; the tracks terminate immediately
west of Park Street causing its diversion. The proposed track level would be about
3-5m higher than existing rail levels.
17.3 Concourse
The concourse would be located at high level above Park Street and would feed
onto Moor Street Queensway and hence Moor Street Station. The concourse would
also extend over the road to deliver passengers on the north side facilitating
pedestrian access both to the Business District (Snow Hill) and to New Street via
the Bull Ring Pedestrian Plaza.
133
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
The concourse building would act as a shared area for both the arriving and
departing passengers, providing a seamless and integrated passenger experience to
and from the New Street Station and city centre direction. The concourse would
contain passenger and staff facilities, and would offer retail opportunities.
The connectivity with New Street Station could be achieved by travelators
connecting the Bull Ring plaza at high level to the new HS2 station entrance
concourses, and possibly by trams at street level providing safe inter-station
movement without pedestrians crossing major roads. Taxis and buses would use a
drop-off zone beneath the extended concourse, taking advantage of earlier
provisions made along Moor Street Queensway.
17.5 Construction
The station platforms (415m long and 10m wide) would be constructed on a new
viaduct adjacent to the existing brick viaducts. These viaducts would vary in height
up to approximately 8m.
A haul road could be formed from the Saltley Roundabout approximately 800m
from the concourse beneath the void and station deck. This could subsequently be
adapted to provide additional access to the station and adjacent development.
17.6 Phasing
The new Curzon Street Station would be integrated into the adjacent developments
currently envisaged as commercial offices and educational facilities. It is anticipated
that the opportunity to develop above the station (air rights) and potentially above
adjacent New Street lines would provide connectivity between the north and south
sides of the railway corridor.
Through arch access would enable the majority of roads to be retained from New
Canal Road to the east but only pedestrian access across the rail corridor to the
west of New Canal Road.
134
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
18 Glossary of Terms
Throughout this report, there has been reference to technical issues, or abbreviations/
acronyms. The following list contains most of those as a glossary of terms:
Chapter 1
●● High Speed Two Limited – the Company established by Government to
develop proposals for a high speed line
●● High Speed Two – the actual high speed line itself
●● DfT – Department for Transport
●● HS1 – High Speed 1 – the Channel Tunnel Rail Link from St. Pancras to
the Channel Tunnel
●● WCML – the West Coast Main Line
Chapter 2
●● OLE – Overhead Line Equipment (supplying power to the trains)
●● TBM – Tunnel-Boring-Machine-driven tunnel
●● SCL – Mined tunnels generally utilising a Sprayed Concrete Lining (SCL)
for initial ground support
●● GC Gauge – a technical term describing the physical dimensions of the
proposed trains
●● TSI – Document 2002/732/EC (Technical Specification for Interoperability
relating to the infrastructure sub-system)
●● OS – Ordnance Survey
●● DTM – Digital Terrain Model
●● DSM – Digital Surface Model
●● Up – a term used to describe the individual track heading towards London
●● Down – a corresponding term to describe the track heading away from
London
Chapter 3
●● OD – Ordnance Datum, i.e. height above sea level
●● LUL – London Underground limited
●● LB Camden – the London Borough of Camden
135
High Speed 2 Limited High Speed 2
Route Engineering Report
Chapter 4
●● NLL – the Network Rail route known as the North London Line
Chapter 6
●● GWML – the Network Rail route known as the Great Western Main Line
Chapters 7 and 8
●● None
Chapter 9
Chapters 10 and 11
●● None
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapters 14 and 15
●● None
Chapter 16
Chapter 17
●● None
136