Why are people opposed to HS2? (And other HS2 discussion)

[The Ham]

I'd argue both 2A and 2B(west) need to go ahead to make the best of what has been provided at 1. What should be done with some of the excess capacity freed by 2B(east) ? Perhaps more west coast services, more Liverpools, perhaps Chester, Blackpool added. Full 400m capabilty would not be required at new destinations, as trains can split and combine at major hubs such as Crewe and Preston. The Golborne connection is needed as any alternative junction near Warrington on some additional NPR/HS2(x) new Liverpool access would entail difficult junctions in built up areas on rather twisty routes anyway so would significantly slow down Scottish bound HS2 trains. The double track north of Crewe, although avoided in Ph1/2A by trains turning right to Manchester, and beautifully aligned for high speed, really needs to be avoided by Scottish HS Expresses as it's shared with some local traffic and, importantly, lots of freight. That element of 2B(west), and the fast tunnel under Crewe, is essential to remove express conflict with other traffic, again releasing capacity that could be used by other local services, and providing flexibility and resilience for all traffic groups; complete grade separation, so no need to ensure everything is stationary every half hour(?) to let a pair of expresses thunder through, then hold on pause for another five minutes because one passes through late.

So here's my political compromise:
---------------------------------------
Phase 1 - Complete as planned, but make provision to use some of the new Birmingham Curzon Street terminus capacity for Long distance Cross Country trains reversing with new connections to Gloucester and and Coventry lines an eventual aim. This could effectively use the Birmingham spur additionally as an extra pair of fast tracks for the Cross Country Derby access.
Phase 2A - Complete as planned.
Phase 2B(W) - Complete trunk route through Crewe to Golborne (The Scottish Connection), Make suitable provisions for new NPR junctions, but do not build Manchester spur.
Continued support and encouragement for development of NPR proposals by Northern planning bodies, with possibility and desire that some HS2 services might be diverted via some of that infrastructure once it is completed.
Phase 2B(E) - Cancel (some elements might be resurrected by NPR).
Extra West Coast services to use some of the capacity released on the south section of the Trunk.

That's just pushed the cost of NPR, potentially making it not viable and therefore leaves the North with less significant investment.

 

[MarkyT]

Cancellation could also be exploited as a populist hoodwink by libertarians who are irrationally prejudiced against rail due to transatlantic influences. Many ordinary people are irrationally prejudiced against HS2 because it is painted an elitist corrupt thing just to save a few rich businessmen a few minutes and award big contracts to 'their mates'.
I think it would be huge mistake to abandon any of HS2, but if something has to give then it could only be the 2B(E) leg, and perhaps some elements in the North West that could be delegated to NPR, but that must be balanced by replacement commitments for the affected regions such as full electrification of MML so the new (currently envisaged bimode) Intercity fleet could be delivered as all electric, progressive electrication of the XC central core, starting with the shared section on MML and the route to Birmingham, and full commitment to NPR including new routes and electrification of improved classic routes. Once sufficient route miles were electrified, the XC fleet could be progressively replaced with bi-modes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You do realise NPHR requires HS2's track between Manchester Interchange and Piccadilly, right?

I don't support Northern Powerhouse Rail, so that doesn't matter. The money would be better spent on electrification and capacity and speed enhancements of the existing routes (such as the direly needed Piccadilly P15/16 and possibly even a 17/18), which unlike on the south WCML are completely feasible.

When something the length of an 11-car Pendolino is running every 15 minutes from Manchester to Leeds is when the North's regional lines are getting full in the manner of the South WCML. Class 185s are a joke capacity-wise (however nice the interior might be), and even a 5-car 80x doesn't cut it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of the WCML capacity released how much will go to semi fast services and how much to open access? Quite rightly we talk about better services linking places such as Milton Keynes and Rugby with the major conurbations but I would imagine that OA operators will be looking at a niche of faster than coach and cheaper than HS2 on the traditional city centre to city centre flows.

None, one would hope. The indicative timetables I've seen suggest a combined semifast and fast service with increased stops at Watford, MKC and Rugby as well as more services at the local stations - that's what is needed - and all of it 12-car too.

HS2 shouldn't be premium-fare by a significant margin. If it is, the capacity will be wasted as people will cram onto residual WCML services, which basically utterly negates the point. Mind you, the fares issue is basically the same as Gatwick Express, and we know how well that went.

 

[MarkyT]

That's just pushed the cost of NPR, potentially making it not viable and therefore leaves the North with less significant investment.

Actually I tend to agree regarding the Manchester tunnel on 2B(W), as that has such congestion busting appeal immediately, getting the longer distance fast stuff out of the Stockport corridor. And a well connected Manchester Airport station is likely to be a very popular station for the broader area so worth serving ASAP. The cost would occur whichever account it came out of though and part of the business case for the Manchester arm must come from it's future use as a key part of NPR, yet there are still many decisions and commitments to be made to fully exploit any synergies, particularly at Piccadilly where, if the NPR station is to be situated beneath the HS2 terminal, the design for the basic structure of that has to be finalised before the latter can start construction, or if NPR trains are to reverse at Picadilly, space for their additional platforms on the surface at least needs to be identified and safeguarded, and revised junction layouts need to be explored and land safeguarded.

 

[MarkLong]

Actually I tend to agree regarding the Manchester tunnel on 2B(W), as that has such congestion busting appeal immediately, getting the longer distance fast stuff out of the Stockport corridor. And a well connected Manchester Airport station is likely to be a very popular station for the broader area so worth serving ASAP. The cost would occur whichever account it came out of though and part of the business case for the Manchester arm must come from it's future use as a key part of NPR, yet there are still many decisions and commitments to be made to fully exploit any synergies, particularly at Piccadilly where, if the NPR station is to be situated beneath the HS2 terminal, the design for the basic structure of that has to be finalised before the latter can start construction, or if NPR trains are to reverse at Picadilly, space for their additional platforms on the surface at least needs to be identified and safeguarded, and revised junction layouts need to be explored and land safeguarded.

I think NPR's scary price tag cause negative effect too, why not try to advocate step by step? Firstly a new Man-Leeds line, with Leeds to York wired, then to other projects. The opposition are far less in this way i think,

 

[LOL The Irony]

I don't support Northern Powerhouse Rail, so that doesn't matter. The money would be better spent on electrification and capacity and speed enhancements of the existing routes (such as the direly needed Piccadilly P15/16 and possibly even a 17/18), which unlike on the south WCML are completely feasible.

Enjoy grayling's half ars*d TP electrification then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Enjoy grayling's half ars*d TP electrification then.

The point is don't throw money up the wall on NPR, but instead spend it on all the Manchester and Leeds suburbans being wired 8-car services, then look at the regional stuff, and only once that is all satisfactory (=up to London area standard) move onto building vanity projects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think NPR's scary price tag cause negative effect too, why not try to advocate step by step? Firstly a new Man-Leeds line, with Leeds to York wired, then to other projects. The opposition are far less in this way i think,

No.

Firstly, get rid of the 2-car DMUs. All of them, except the tiny branch lines (Windermere does not count as a tiny branch line; it and Barrow should be served by an 8-car EMU train running from Manchester Airport splitting and joining at Lancaster) on which the Class 195s could run. Every service through Manchester Piccadilly P13-14 to be at least 8x20m and no diesels at all in the major cities.

Then and only then build new stuff.

 

[LOL The Irony]

The point is don't throw money up the wall on NPR, but instead spend it on all the Manchester and Leeds suburbans being wired 8-car services, then look at the regional stuff, and only once that is all satisfactory (=up to London area standard) move onto building vanity projects.

We sort of have to bite the government's hand off for this "vainity" project. It took 50 years for Piccadilly & Victoria to get a direct heavy rail link.

 

[Esker-pades]

The irony being that HS2 is actually about local transport - providing more south WCML capacity for commuters.

And other things. Comments like these give the sceptics like @PR1Berske ammunition to scrap it altogether.

I'd fully support axing it north of Birmingham, though.

Decisions should be made on practical benefit and not emotionally. It would be better to spend the phase 2 money on electrification, rolling stock and Metrolinking.

Commuter from Bletchley supports the phase that will give them the most benefit, but does not support anything additional!

It is already well established that HS2 funds are reserved for HS2, and that if it isn't spent on that, it isn't going to be spent on other railway projects.

Here are some "emotional" arguments for HS2 Phase 2:

The Manchester to Stockport problem:
Presently, long distance services from London run at 20 minute frequencies, going against the generally half hourly services that are more appropriate for demand across south Manchester commuter destinations. It leaves an inefficient timetable and a poor service at some locations. Congleton cannot get a reasonable service because the paths are required by the InterCity services. I'm sure @agbrs_Jack can give more of an insight into Congleton's chronic lack of services. One cannot solve this without removing other services first. We've already had to turn back the second Mid-Cheshire Line train per hour at Altrincham because of a lack of paths from Stockport to Piccadilly.

Manchester Piccadilly has a platform problem. The southern throat is seriously congested, and the stacking of 2 or 3 trains in a single platform at multiple points throughout the day is a symptom of the lack of available platforms. Remove the constant blocking of 6 and 7 and there's a bit of breathing room.

The bottleneck that is Crewe. Removing the services that pass through non-stop is a good thing.

The Leeds/York arm and the ECML:
More fast paths are required, especially on the Southern section of the ECML. The fast Edinburgh services, fast Leeds services etc. can be replaced to give better services to currently underserved destinations, or to new destinations......

I'm so sorry. My emotions appear to have got the better of me in this comment .

 

[kevin_roche]

These arguments assume there are significant votes in cancelling HS2 (or phases of it).

I'm thinking there are significant votes for leader of the Conservative Party not necessarily votes for the Conservative Party. They already know northerners in cities won't vote for them.

 

[quantinghome]

I'm thinking there are significant votes for leader of the Conservative Party not necessarily votes for the Conservative Party. They already know northerners in cities won't vote for them.

I'm not convinced. I suspect there will be other issues more prominent in Conservative party members' minds. OK, one issue. Also there are some key marginals spread around the midlands and north which they have to win to get a majority - Crewe, Pudsey for example.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Manchester to Stockport problem:
Presently, long distance services from London run at 20 minute frequencies, going against the generally half hourly services that are more appropriate for demand across south Manchester commuter destinations. It leaves an inefficient timetable and a poor service at some locations. Congleton cannot get a reasonable service because the paths are required by the InterCity services. I'm sure @agbrs_Jack can give more of an insight into Congleton's chronic lack of services. One cannot solve this without removing other services first. We've already had to turn back the second Mid-Cheshire Line train per hour at Altrincham because of a lack of paths from Stockport to Piccadilly.

Congleton, a small rural Cheshire town, has 1tph to Manchester and to Stoke. I'm not sure why people seem to think it justifies more, other than possibly extending the latter to Crewe for better connectivity.

Manchester Piccadilly has a platform problem. The southern throat is seriously congested, and the stacking of 2 or 3 trains in a single platform at multiple points throughout the day is a symptom of the lack of available platforms. Remove the constant blocking of 6 and 7 and there's a bit of breathing room.

I would agree about Piccadilly. One of the biggest things it needs is 15/16, and it needs it now. But you could also have a Platform 0 and -1 (!) on the car park on that side. These are good examples of things that could be funded with the NPR/HS2 later phase money.

The bottleneck that is Crewe. Removing the services that pass through non-stop is a good thing.

All services should call at Crewe for better connectivity (and all Scottish services all stations between Crewe and Carlisle inclusive). Problem solved.

 

[Esker-pades]

Congleton, a small rural Cheshire town, has 1tph to Manchester and to Stoke. I'm not sure why people seem to think it justifies more, other than possibly extending the latter to Crewe for better connectivity.

Patronage of ~350k per year. As with other threads: population is not everything.

I would agree about Piccadilly. One of the biggest things it needs is 15/16, and it needs it now. But you could also have a Platform 0 and -1 (!) on the car park on that side. These are good examples of things that could be funded with the NPR/HS2 later phase money.

Again, the idea that HS2 money will be put to other rail uses is a red herring that has been pointed out time and again.

All services should call at Crewe for better connectivity (and all Scottish services all stations between Crewe and Carlisle inclusive). Problem solved.

Problem not solved. You're just shifting the capacity problems from the Up Through to platform 10 or whichever one is used. One can't magic up capacity by stopping more trains at the bottleneck.
EDIT: In addition, I don't think Euxton Bulshaw Lane is crying out for a direct service to London and Glasgow.

 

[MarkyT]

Congleton, a small rural Cheshire town, has 1tph to Manchester and to Stoke. I'm not sure why people seem to think it justifies more, other than possibly extending the latter to Crewe for better connectivity.
I would agree about Piccadilly. One of the biggest things it needs is 15/16, and it needs it now. But you could also have a Platform 0 and -1 (!) on the car park on that side. These are good examples of things that could be funded with the NPR/HS2 later phase money.

Doesn't really solve the throat or Stockport corridor problems though. Although initially a sceptic I have become a strong supporter of the new Manchester leg, although I am agnostic over which project actually builds it. Either way, both HS2 and NPR trains will eventually use it. I suspect one of Grayling's primary reasons for opposing Piccadilly 15/16 is advice he's been given over the business case for a new NPR connection through Manchester. Spend too much on the Oxford Road corridor and you undermine the case for the new link. And in that context yes your premise that the Ordsall chord was a white elephant is true as there would be another, better way for fast Trans-Pennine services to get to Manchester Airport, and then go on to serve Warrington and Liverpool.

All services should call at Crewe for better connectivity (and all Scottish services all stations between Crewe and Carlisle inclusive). Problem solved.

And perhaps some subsidised runway slots need to be reserved at Heathrow for the time conscious Scottish travellers who will thus abandon rail following the slowdown.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EDIT: In addition, I don't think Euxton Bulshaw Lane is crying out for a direct service to London and Glasgow.

OK, not Euxton and Leyland, I forgot about those

 

[Sceptre]

Phase 2b(E) isn't as necessary as Phase 2b(W), but to cancel it would be incredible political naivety; there is a palpable feeling in Leeds that the government has repeatedly shafted the Leeds area, and between Regional Eurostar, Supertram, electrification, and devolution, I have to agree.

 

[PR1Berske]

Opposition up North might be muted because so few people think it has any relevance to them, and likely feel it'll never get built in the first place!

 

[Glenn1969]

I live in Yorkshire and there is just as much need for capacity in Leeds and Sheffield as there is in Manchester

 

[LOL The Irony]

We've already had to turn back the second Mid-Cheshire Line train per hour at Altrincham because of a lack of paths from Stockport to Piccadilly.

That's not even happening. It's still going to be 1tph.

 

[mmh]

Nobody knows, it's up to future franchises.

That's HS2 in a nutshell. We need more capacity! What for? I don't know but we need it, let's build it and work that out later!

 

[Glenn1969]

Is a Labour win at the next election the best hope of the Leeds leg of HS2 getting built?

 

[Ianno87]

The bottleneck that is Crewe. Removing the services that pass through non-stop is a good thing.

All services should call at Crewe for better connectivity (and all Scottish services all stations between Crewe and Carlisle inclusive). Problem solved.

It's services that non-stop Crewe that make it work! It simply doesn't have the platform capacity to stop everything.

Besides, today enough stops to give all the connectivity needed...anything more is overkill. Stopping the Euston-Scotland doesn't add anything new, especially as (due to Shap and Beattock) it is so closely timed to the Brum-Scotland anyway.

 

[6Gman]

Opposition up North might be muted because so few people think it has any relevance to them, and likely feel it'll never get built in the first place!

I've received an invitation in the past few days to view groundworks under way on HS2. In the north of England.

Just saying.

 

[The Ham]

That's HS2 in a nutshell. We need more capacity! What for? I don't know but we need it, let's build it and work that out later!

I would suggest that the opposite is true, there's so many places which are in need of more capacity that by saying that A gets out but B doesn't could result in more people being upset by HS2.

Having said that there's also an element of because HS2 benefits flows like Southampton/Manchester and Reading/Birmingham and Leeds/Guildford no one's quite sure what it will do to existing passenger flows and so there could be extra demand some places and reduced demand elsewhere.

 

[PR1Berske]

I would suggest that the opposite is true, there's so many places which are in need of more capacity that by saying that A gets out but B doesn't could result in more people being upset by HS2.

Having said that there's also an element of because HS2 benefits flows like Southampton/Manchester and Reading/Birmingham and Leeds/Guildford no one's quite sure what it will do to existing passenger flows and so there could be extra demand some places and reduced demand elsewhere.

Isn't there a danger that you're trying to believe that HS2 solves all that comes before it?

WCML capacity, Northern capacity, new route development, flows to Southampton; HS2 can't do *everything*!

I get it, you support it; but how can it truly do all you ask of it?

 

[The Ham]

Isn't there a danger that you're trying to believe that HS2 solves all that comes before it?

WCML capacity, Northern capacity, new route development, flows to Southampton; HS2 can't do *everything*!

I get it, you support it; but how can it truly do all you ask of it?

It can't do everything (such as Exeter/Plymouth) but it certainly can do the three things that you listed as well as a whole lot more.

The point is that although it may not be able to sustain all those jobs beyond 20/40/60 years from opening, however through be plenty of time for future rail improvements to cater for that, unlike smart timetabling which may (or may not) gain a few years of capacity before something new is needed just on the WCML.

That's before you consider all the other schemes which would be needed to benefit all those places which would benefit from HS2 (probably quite a few may not justify improvements in their own right).

Of the things I've said Which do you think aren't possible?

 

[Esker-pades]

It's services that non-stop Crewe that make it work! It simply doesn't have the platform capacity to stop everything.

Besides, today enough stops to give all the connectivity needed...anything more is overkill. Stopping the Euston-Scotland doesn't add anything new, especially as (due to Shap and Beattock) it is so closely timed to the Brum-Scotland anyway.

Sorry, I should clarify:
By "removing services" I meant move them to another line (HS2).

 

[PR1Berske]

It can't do everything (such as Exeter/Plymouth) but it certainly can do the three things that you listed as well as a whole lot more.

The point is that although it may not be able to sustain all those jobs beyond 20/40/60 years from opening, however through be plenty of time for future rail improvements to cater for that, unlike smart timetabling which may (or may not) gain a few years of capacity before something new is needed just on the WCML.

That's before you consider all the other schemes which would be needed to benefit all those places which would benefit from HS2 (probably quite a few may not justify improvements in their own right).

Of the things I've said Which do you think aren't possible?

As you know I'm sceptical that anything should be done to fix the WCML. I can't fathom how a new line into London Euston is going to open up new opportunities into Southampton. Improvement up here should not be dependent on investment down south.

Capacity up here needs greater work than just downgrading intercity services because everything is transferred onto HS2 from Birmingham.