Possible Alternatives to HS2

[Harvey B]

With HS2 Currently Under Construction there are still Environmental Activists Protesting against HS2 and wanting it to stop because it will Cut through Ancient Woodlands Destroy Natural Habitats of Some Animals.

I'm Personally in support of HS2 as it will free up Mainline Capacity for Local Stopping Trains or even freight Trains and it will take Many Cars, Buses and Lorries off the Road meaning that Fewer cars and lorries will be on the road (And also I love Trains so In My Opinon, the more Trains the better)

But Our Current Railway system is near the Capacity limits (And Sometimes at the Capacity Limits) So Re-nationalisation aside as these problems will still happen under a re-nationalised "British Rail 2.0" How do we solve these Capacity Issues if HS2 isn't Built? HS2 Needs to happen in my opinion

As Far as I'm Concerned the Only other Possible Alternative would be to Expand both the ECML and the WCML to 4 Tracks Each but that would mean no weekend intercity serviced for 15 Years and the other problem is that on both these lines there are places that both the ECML and the WCML cannot expand past their current two tracks so at some point down the line those Capacity Problems will start to occur yet again.

In My Opinon, Apart from re-routing HS2 to avoid these places there's no other Reasonable Alternative to building HS2.

So How do we solve all the Current issues on the Current Network if HS2 isn't built at all? I'd like to hear people's ideas of Possible HS2 Alternatives or If these Alternatives seem more reasonable to building HS 2 or not

 

[D365]

So How do we solve all the Current issues on the Current Network if HS2 isn't built at all? I'd like to hear people's ideas of Possible HS2 Alternatives or If these Alternatives seem more reasonable to building HS 2 or not

HS2 is being built. Speculating would therefore be rather aimless.

For all those claiming that home working will be the holy grail, the three lockdowns have proven why it isn't sustainable on a full time basis - economically and socially. As others have alluded to, part-time office working will actually make high speed more desirable.

 

[Purple Orange]

If environmental issues are a concern, then there is no alternative but to build it.

1. HS2 creates additional capacity on the existing rail lines to run more local-regional services.
2. A higher frequency of services means it is a more attractive proposition than to drive.
3. Getting more people out of their cars reduces carbon footprint
4. The London-Glasgow & Edinburgh market should be more attractive by train than by air, resulting in lower carbon emissions.

 

[Hadders]

We're building a new railway for the next 100 years, not for next year or the year after.

Adding additional tracks to the WCML and ECML is simply not an option and would end up costing more, and be more disruptive than building new.

 

[Irascible]

HS2 is being built. Speculating would therefore be rather aimless.

For all those claiming that home working will be the holy grail, the three lockdowns have proven why it isn't sustainable on a full time basis - economically and socially. As others have alluded to, part-time office working will actually make high speed more desirable.

Although part-time office working might also spread out usage across the day a bit more ( might even drive up staying away from home for a day or two a bit more if people live more remotely ), so plans for peak capacity might be a bit off. Who knows though, interesting tiimes ahead.

Proper modal shift for long distance would have more knock-on effects, like less wear on the road network, less injuries on the road & less health costs & maybe more people in general will treat trains as extensions of offices rather than the odd few that have been doing it for decades - trains can offer rather more space per passenger than coaches or regional aircraft ( providing the service as a whole can offer enough ); for that the average journey time needs to be lower by rail and/or it needs to be an attractive place to work rather than a sardine can, so we really ought to be considering more high speed rail. It doesn't have to be *that* high speed to beat driving assuming there's some integrated transport at each end.

One of the biggest things I see about HS2 is it's building new urban terminii - we seem to have filled up a lot of the ones we already have ( which is actually pretty nuts given how busy & complicated railway movements were 90 years ago ).

 

[D365]

Adding additional tracks to the WCML and ECML is simply not an option and would end up costing more, and be more disruptive than building new.

Absolutely. You'd end up chopping down a similar number of trees, and - just as importantly - buildings.

 

[LUYMun]

HS2 is essentially a "3-in-1" railway, which will relieve congestion on the WCML, MML and ECML. Upgrading any one, if not all, of these would be an economical and operational nightmare, and we are better off having HS2 built. And don't think about reopening railways - the Great Central Railway may sound like a good alternative, but without it going into Birmingham it ends up being a duplicate for the Midland Main Line, plus the GCR itself wasn't built for high speed standards.

I don't think protests will disrupt construction, however desperate they are. Once it has started it cannot go back. Sometimes I think that those environmentalists are a bunch of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard).

 

[A0]

HS2 is being built. Speculating would therefore be rather aimless.

For all those claiming that home working will be the holy grail, the three lockdowns have proven why it isn't sustainable on a full time basis - economically and socially. As others have alluded to, part-time office working will actually make high speed more desirable.

Well, the London - Birmingham bit is being built, but may yet see some 'economies' built in through reducing the scope.

The subsequent parts aren't yet in progress and I guess that's where things are possibly more at risk - so, for example, rather than building two branches north of Birmingham, do you just build one - probably Manchester and then onto Leeds from there - those are the kind of things that will be looked at.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Feb 2021 ==

HS2 is essentially a "3-in-1" railway, which will relieve congestion on the WCML, MML and ECML. Upgrading any one of these would be an economical and operational nightmare, and we are better off having HS2 built. And don't think about reopening railways - the Great Central Railway may sound like a good alternative, but without it going into Birmingham it ends up being a duplicate for the Midland Main Line, plus the GCR itself wasn't built for high speed standards.

I don't think protests will disrupt construction, however desperate they are. Once it has started it cannot go back. Sometimes I think that those environmentalists are a bunch of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard).

Well actually the GCR *was* built for high speeds - certainly more so than the Midland or LNWR mainlines - it had gentle curves, minimal gradients and only one level crossing between London and Sheffield - the result was it did actually have higher 'average' speed than certainly either of the 'Midland' routes - the ECML was better in that respect, with the bottlenecks tending to be at some of the key junctions which were ironed out by BR firstly in the 1960s and then again at electrification. The GCR's "problem" really was the last 20 or 30 miles where for economic reasons it ended up sharing the Met's line into London or the GW/GC joint.

 

[D365]

Sometimes I think that those environmentalists are a bunch of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard).

Only sometimes?

Well, the London - Birmingham bit is being built, but may yet see some 'economies' built in through reducing the scope.

The subsequent parts aren't yet in progress and I guess that's where things are possibly more at risk - so, for example, rather than building two branches north of Birmingham, do you just build one - probably Manchester and then onto Leeds from there - those are the kind of things that will be looked at.

The trouble is, once 'economies' are introduced to the core railway, all that happens is that you end up playing "catch-up" in the future.

On the other hand, sometimes those economies are needed in order to see a project through to completion...

 

[Irascible]

I don't think protests will disrupt construction, however desperate they are. Once it has started it cannot go back. Sometimes I think that those environmentalists are a bunch of NIMBYs (Not In My Back Yard).

I don't think most of the NIMBYs tripping HS2 up were environmentalists, rather people looking for excuses to object - the same sort of idiots who move to rural villages & complain to the council about the local farmer muck-spreading, or herding cows, or church bells ringing. I'd love to know where most of them were when we were driving major roads through environmentally sensitive areas...

Other than objecting to non-self-powered travel in principle because it uses power & resources & indirectly effects the environment generally, I don't think many actual greenies have big problems with electric railways, especially given the alternatives.

 

[LUYMun]

Well actually the GCR *was* built for high speeds - certainly more so than the Midland or LNWR mainlines - it had gentle curves, minimal gradients and only one level crossing between London and Sheffield - the result was it did actually have higher 'average' speed than certainly either of the 'Midland' routes

If you take into account of tilting mechanisms, which you might just push it into 125mph. However, the technology of tilting trains are becoming more expensive and more of a maintenance pain in recent times, that's one reason for HS2 being built. BTW when I said "high speed" I would refer to the projected speeds to be achieved from HS2 - at around 200mph or more.

 

[A0]

The trouble is, once 'economies' are introduced to the core railway, all that happens is that you end up playing "catch-up" in the future.

On the other hand, sometimes those economies are needed in order to see a project through to completion...

To quote John Maynard Keynes 'When the facts change, I change my mind'.

The reality is that there is going to be, for the next 10 years at least, much less money to spend on all sorts of things as a direct consequence of Covid - indeed the long term effect on the rail network in terms of demand for travel and the type of travel is unknown. Currently the network is carrying about 15% of the passenger volumes forecast - that's not sustainable - and at that level it blows the case for HS2 completely out the water. Don't forget HS2 was predicated on what demand looked like in 10 - 15 years time from the current baseline. If that baseline is now down by a huge margin, that future demand will be as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If HS2 permanently reduces commuter demand to the point that the south WCML could return to a more 1990s-like timetable, then HS2 isn't really needed for that bit.

You might want to do some work in south Manchester, though, so services at e.g. Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel can be improved.

 

[D365]

To quote John Maynard Keynes 'When the facts change, I change my mind'.

The reality is that there is going to be, for the next 10 years at least, much less money to spend on all sorts of things as a direct consequence of Covid - indeed the long term effect on the rail network in terms of demand for travel and the type of travel is unknown. Currently the network is carrying about 15% of the passenger volumes forecast - that's not sustainable - and at that level it blows the case for HS2 completely out the water. Don't forget HS2 was predicated on what demand looked like in 10 - 15 years time from the current baseline. If that baseline is now down by a huge margin, that future demand will be as well.

Exactly. It's unknown.

There's two options. Either we pull out of HS2 completely, pay out for all the break clauses, piece Camden back together and lay off thousands of workers. Or we finish the job. Which includes a Phase 2 to the north.

 

[A0]

Exactly. It's unknown.

There's two options. Either we pull out of HS2 completely, pay out for all the break clauses, piece Camden back together and lay off thousands of workers. Or we finish the job. Which includes a Phase 2 to the north.

It's not as simple as saying there are 'only 2 options' - that's disingenuous.

There are several options - each with their own benefits and drawbacks, the obvious one will be complete London - Birmingham, if only because it's in-flight now and the cost of reversing that will be significant.

The Phase 2 options are less clear cut and as work hasn't started on those, they should be reviewed to assess whether or not they are still fit for purpose.

If HS2 permanently reduces commuter demand to the point that the south WCML could return to a more 1990s-like timetable, then HS2 isn't really needed for that bit.

You might want to do some work in south Manchester, though, so services at e.g. Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel can be improved.

But it wasn't the commuter demand (i.e. London commuters) which really stepped up the demand on the Southern WCML. The basic service pattern on the MK, Northampton and even Birmingham commuter services isn't significantly different.

The bigger demand was longer distance journeys - so the increase in services to/from Birmingham, Manchester etc - but you're unlikely to see Manchester reverting to an hourly service, nor the North Wales coast being a half-dozen oddly timed trains a day.

Those changes you suggest in parts of Manchester don't need HS2 though - Manchester's got several pinch points which have been covered on plenty of threads around here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But it wasn't the commuter demand (i.e. London commuters) which really stepped up the demand on the Southern WCML. The basic service pattern on the MK, Northampton and even Birmingham commuter services isn't significantly different.

It's very different indeed, particularly in the peaks. Though I suppose it depends how far back you go.

One key reason for HS2 is so it can be increased further.

The bigger demand was longer distance journeys - so the increase in services to/from Birmingham, Manchester etc - but you're unlikely to see Manchester reverting to an hourly service, nor the North Wales coast being a half-dozen oddly timed trains a day.

Yes, but 3tph to Brum and Manchester are not full or anywhere near it at most times of day (other than "artificial peaks" like Friday evening which was fixed by tweaking with fares). So that doesn't need increasing.

 

[The Planner]

It's not as simple as saying there are 'only 2 options' - that's disingenuous.

There are several options - each with their own benefits and drawbacks, the obvious one will be complete London - Birmingham, if only because it's in-flight now and the cost of reversing that will be significant.

The Phase 2 options are less clear cut and as work hasn't started on those, they should be reviewed to assess whether or not they are still fit for purpose.

You need 2A done too, chucking out at Handsacre permanently would trigger a need for something at Colwich. Considering 2A technically just needs the signature of Liz, I doubt that will get altered.

 

[D365]

The Phase 2 options are less clear cut and as work hasn't started on those, they should be reviewed to assess whether or not they are still fit for purpose.

And then we end up going round in circles yet again.

To bring this back to the original point of the topic, there is no feasible alternative to HS2 at this point in time, even if Phase 2b ends up being descoped in some way.

 

[Harvey B]

Exactly. It's unknown.

There's two options. Either we pull out of HS2 completely, pay out for all the break clauses, piece Camden back together and lay off thousands of workers. Or we finish the job. Which includes a Phase 2 to the north.

So what you're saying is that there's no Alternative to HS2 that's Suitable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's two options. Either we pull out of HS2 completely, pay out for all the break clauses, piece Camden back together and lay off thousands of workers. Or we finish the job. Which includes a Phase 2 to the north.

Or a third - don't build phase 2, just phase 1.

 

[Harvey B]

Or a third - don't build phase 2, just phase 1.

Or Fourth Build HS2 but try to avoid these problematic Areas

 

[A0]

Or a third - don't build phase 2, just phase 1.

See @The Planner 's response on Post #17.

 

[Ianno87]

Or a third - don't build phase 2, just phase 1.

But you also want to solve south Manchester...which Phase 2(b) does. Which also (with NPR) helps Castlefield too.

 

[D365]

Or Fourth Build HS2 but try to avoid these problematic Areas

The "problematic areas" are mostly Phase 1 (Chilterns).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But you also want to solve south Manchester...which Phase 2(b) does. Which also (with NPR) helps Castlefield too.

I suppose you could argue, if the south WCML doesn't need relieving any more due to considerable commuter traffic reduction, that it would be better to build a south Manchester relief line and NPR instead (plus do some of the Euston work so it has say 20 260m platforms, so all peak commuter services could be 12-car), and sack off phase 1!

 

[Ianno87]

I suppose you could argue, if the south WCML doesn't need relieving any more due to considerable commuter traffic reduction, that it would be better to build a south Manchester relief line and NPR instead (plus do some of the Euston work so it has say 20 260m platforms, so all peak commuter services could be 12-car), and sack off phase 1!

Phase 1 is so progressed now, you might as well keep going, especially when you consider that it's capacity will still be there in 100+ years time.

If Covid drops demand by about 20% back to ~2012 levels, and then grows organically from that (as railway demand always has done, being as much related to population growth as to travel/working habits etc.), it won't be very many years until HS2's capacity is needed anyway on the southern WCML. Covid just kicks the can down the road for a bit.

 

[Harvey B]

The "problematic areas" are mostly Phase 1 (Chilterns).

I don't see why Phase 2 Shouldn't be built if these Areas are in Phase 1

 

[AMR]

Birmingham to London to stay. Then Completely redo the Midland Mainline and make a Leeds to manchester high-speed link, and loop it round to Stockport and use the lay by as a terminus. Therefore You get the Manchester to Midland services taking a lot less time and run express services from manchester to London via 1 or 2 stops. as well as high-speed stoppers. This will take journey time longer than hs2 but you already build a part of the northern high-speed link. So the larger increase in price has little justification. You could also renovate the Sheffield route to Sheffield so that you don't need to go all the way to Leeds. Which would cost less money but you then don't have the Leeds to manchester already built for the next project.

 

[The Planner]

I suppose you could argue, if the south WCML doesn't need relieving any more due to considerable commuter traffic reduction, that it would be better to build a south Manchester relief line and NPR instead (plus do some of the Euston work so it has say 20 260m platforms, so all peak commuter services could be 12-car), and sack off phase 1!

I expect there is an element of tongue in cheek there, but to build that would certainly kybosh any demand post COVID too as you close the railway for many years.

 

[Glenn1969]

I have always argued that Phase 2 is actually needed more than Phase 1. Capacity issues around Manchester and issues around Sheffield and Leeds that prevent expansion should have been sorted years ago and badly need HS2/NPR. But I live in the North so guess I would say that