Could/should HS2 Eastern leg be shelved?

[daodao]

Even if there is only demand for two London services, there are potentially other services that could run to use up the new capacity relieve the current lines. For example a Leeds - Piccadilly - Airport- Crewe service to relieve the Castlefield corridor. There's also the potential for a Chester - Crewe - Airport - Piccadilly service or diverting the Cardiff - Manchester service that way.

There are no plans for a link northward out of Crewe station onto HS2 phase 2b north of Crewe, so phase 2b will only be able to be used by trains coming from London/Birmingham on HS2 phase 2a.

 

[JamesT]

There are no plans for a link northward out of Crewe station onto HS2 phase 2b north of Crewe, so phase 2b will only be able to be used by trains coming from London/Birmingham on HS2 phase 2a.

The consultation run last year on Phase 2b ( https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/hs2-phase-2b-western-leg-design-refinement-consultation ) includes a “Crewe Northern Connection “ to provide exactly that link.

 

[Greybeard33]

The consultation run last year on Phase 2b ( https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/hs2-phase-2b-western-leg-design-refinement-consultation ) includes a “Crewe Northern Connection “ to provide exactly that link.

Indeed:

2.10 The proposal to include a Crewe Northern Connection (CNC) would allow High Speed
services from the south to call at an enhanced Crewe Hub Station, and then join the
HS2 line to serve destinations to the north of Crewe. This would provide more journey
opportunities for passengers and capitalise on the journey time and performance
improvements delivered by Phase 2b of HS2 north of Crewe.
2.11 Depending on the delivery of Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) and other
improvements to the WCML, CNC could in future allow between 5–7 HS2 trains per
hour to call at Crewe, in line with the vision of a Crewe Hub.
2.12 Combined with a potential new NPR line between Hoo Green and Liverpool, the CNC
would allow trains to Liverpool to call at Crewe, and then use a future NPR route to
Liverpool, rather than the WCML. This would release further capacity on the WCML
that could be used for other services and would improve journey times to Liverpool
beyond those achieved through Phase 2a of HS2.

2.20 The Minister of State is minded to include the Crewe Northern Connection in the
design for HS2 to support the wider strategic vision for Crewe Hub and enhance
regional connectivity and journey times to the North.

 

[HSTEd]

A crewe northern connection allows all sorts of interesting options.

Hopefully it gets into the final scheme.

 

[Ken H]

I suspect this is where ‘NPR’ is heading, although not to Chester. It all depends on what is in the IRP, but I see the day where we have 4 from Leeds, but they won’t be London or Liverpool bound trains.

if TfGM need HS2 Crewe manchester building, they can pay for it. fed up with local politicians with their hand out to central government and the taxpayer.

 

[Purple Orange]

if TfGM need HS2 Crewe manchester building, they can pay for it. fed up with local politicians with their hand out to central government and the taxpayer.

If N Yorks needs anything at all, should it pay for it and not use general taxation? Need a new school? Yorkshire must pay for it.

This is of course a silly argument. The benefits of completing phase 2b is far wider than just Greater Manchester. Without it, Birmingham doesn’t get the benefits it will see from relieving capacity in to New Street. If it is linked to a trans pennine line, Yorkshire will also benefit.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Aug 2021 ==

A crewe northern connection allows all sorts of interesting options.

Hopefully it gets into the final scheme.

Yeah it provides quite a new range. If we assume Leeds-Manchester is linked to HS2 via Piccadilly, we could see far better connections between towns also not the WCML and Leeds, which currently has poor connections. Failing a new line to Liverpool, I could see services from Newcastle & Leeds pass through Manchester to Crewe, Stafford, Wolves, Birmingham New Street and onwards.

 

[ohgoditsjames]

Binning off the eastern leg and creating a ‘C’ between Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds would be disastrous to Sheffield and Derby in the long run. Sheffield would likely lose much of its cross country services as the longer PAX flows on that market would be rerouted to use a 'C-shape' HS2/3 network to come from Edinburgh/Newcastle down ECML (upgraded or not) to York then pick up the high speed C via Leeds & Mcr to Brum (where they could change to slower classic connections onwards to Bristol or South Coast if Brum isn't final destination).

 

[PTR 444]

I don’t think Sheffield will lose ‘Cross Country’ services if the Eastern Leg is binned. A more likely scenario I imagine is that the Plymouth - Edinburgh service gets curtailed at York, while the Newcastle via Doncaster service is split into a Reading - Hull and Sheffield - Edinburgh service. That way Sheffield maintains direct links with all the cities it currently has.

 

[The Ham]

Something which is overlooked, whilst there's worse case scenario looking at 40% falls in rail use the 2019 passenger numbers had London to West Midlands/North West/Scotland passenger numbers at ~175% of the 2009 passenger numbers.

Therefore, even at those worse case scenarios, passengers will still be at 105% of 2009 passenger numbers.

Now whilst that may not make building HS2 totally worthwhile for 2022 passenger numbers, it has to be remembered that we're not building it for then, but rather at least 20 years in the future.

Now whilst 2026 may not reach the 150% of 2009 passenger numbers predicted, we only need passenger numbers to recover to 85% of their pre pandemic levels to be pretty much on track.

Even if we assume that the worst case scenarios are accurate (unlikely as we're already seeing 50% [Edit: checked the latest data and it appears that circa 56% is fairly likely over the last few weeks] and there's still a LOT of WFH at companies which haven't moved to their flexible working future, and anyway WFH will have limited impact on HS2 passenger numbers, so it wouldn't take much to hit 60%) and we see 60% of rail use in 2022, to reach 150% by 2026 rail growth would need to be nearly 10% per year. Although for the full scheme (2035) to reach the 200% of 2009 passenger numbers it would require 4.5% growth (which isn't unheard of).

That's unlikely, however if we hit 70% in 2022 that's then only 5.2% per year to reach 2026's 150%, or 3.3% to reach 2035's 200%.

 

[AM9]

London and Birmingham are both major cities, while London is the capital of the UK. I don't see anything contradictory in that.

It's like bus companies spatting over passengers while ignoring all the cars driving past. The North West needs to come together as one to truly challenge the South East, and that will mean Manchester as a regional capital.

It's like Rotterdam and Den Haag, both major cities in the Randstad. Den Haag is more important politically. This doesn't bother them, they get on with working together for the prosperity of the region.

This pathetic tribalism has beset real progress in some Northern city pairs for decades, and on RUK for the years that I've been a member. Given that many outside the south-east think that London doesn't care at all about anything outside the M25, this perpetual squabbling makes a perfect excuse to say that there is no strategy there so put it off until there is a coherent view of what's needed. Inter-city competition maybe a motivator on the terraces of football stadia, but has no place in developing regional prosperity.

 

[Purple Orange]

This pathetic tribalism has beset real progress in some Northern city pairs for decades, and on RUK for the years that I've been a member. Given that many outside the south-east think that London doesn't care at all about anything outside the M25, this perpetual squabbling makes a perfect excuse to say that there is no strategy there so put it off until there is a coherent view of what's needed. Inter-city competition maybe a motivator on the terraces of football stadia, but has no place in developing regional prosperity.

This. Looking at the political landscape across the city regions from Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds & Sheffield, only Manchester is acting in a way you’d expect with respect to political cohesion and strategy. That may be due to the fact that the other three are comparative newbies. However that means the government will instead focus on Manchester which is clear on what it wants.

 

[AForumUser]

This. Looking at the political landscape across the city regions from Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds & Sheffield, only Manchester is acting in a way you’d expect with respect to political cohesion and strategy. That may be due to the fact that the other three are comparative newbies. However that means the government will instead focus on Manchester which is clear on what it wants.

It is easy to be cooperative when "cooperation" means everybody else is subservient to you.

 

[Tobbes]

It is easy to be cooperative when "cooperation" means everybody else is subservient to you.

What is this evening supposed to mean? Who is subservient to whom in this?

 

[AForumUser]

What is this evening supposed to mean? Who is subservient to whom in this?

They are talking about how the north needs to get behind Manchester as a regional capital, then wondering why Manchester is the only place working to that goal.

 

[Purple Orange]

They are talking about how the north needs to get behind Manchester as a regional capital, then wondering why Manchester is the only place working to that goal.

I don’t subscribe to the idea of Manchester being formally defined as a regional capital. The point I made earlier was that Manchester has got its act together politically with cohesion across all boroughs, whereas the rest d not appear to have done the same.

 

[Gareth]

Not sure about the others but I don't agree that applies to Liverpool. Not these days, at least.

 

[Purple Orange]

Not sure about the others but I don't agree that applies to Liverpool. Not these days, at least.

Liverpool is politically operating in a way that is optimal you mean?

 

[Gareth]

The LCR is operating as well as it can, given the circumstances.

None of this is that important anyway. In this country, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my opinion), local government doesn't matter.

 

[Purple Orange]

The LCR is operating as well as it can, given the circumstances.

None of this is that important anyway. In this country, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my opinion), local government doesn't matter.

Well it does matter because the politics in the LCR appears to be a mess, whereas in GM it is not. This will have an impact upon transport investment, because Manchester appears to be decisive in what wants, but that doesn’t appear to be the case elsewhere. West Yorkshire isn’t shouting loud enough for the eastern branch and the LCR isn’t shouting loud enough for a new line in to Liverpool.

 

[Tobbes]

The LCR is operating as well as it can, given the circumstances.

None of this is that important anyway. In this country, rightly or wrongly (wrongly, in my opinion), local government doesn't matter.

Local government does matter, though I'd like to see devolution go further (notably in favour of a federal UK).

However on the question of where HS2 should go, if there is to be a single HS2 hub connecting with NPR, it is hard to see the argument in favour of a NW city other than Manchester, given the geography and the relative size of the economies.

 

[Gareth]

****ing relentless.

 

[daodao]

However on the question of where HS2 should go, if there is to be a single HS2 hub connecting with NPR, it is hard to see the argument in favour of a NW city other than Manchester, given the geography and the relative size of the economies.

Apart from 1 or 2 districts, South Manchester, which would be served by HS2 phase 2b with the new station sited at Hale Barns for airport, is one of the most economically prosperous parts of Northern England, with local house prices on a par with much of SE England. It doesn't justify further promotion over other parts of Northern England with government largesse to build HS2 phase 2b north of Crewe.

 

[Tobbes]

****ing relentless.

And your responses are consistently underwhelming; Liverpool's case is simply weaker than Manchester's. And though you reject it in the face of the evidence, the spillover effect is real, and that helps Liverpool.

 

[Gareth]

No, I'm not doing this. You started all this crap last time and I'm not going to bite this time.

 

[Tobbes]

No, I'm not doing this. You started all this crap last time and I'm not going to bite this time.

Hmm. It's not a question of biting, but if all you can do us stick your fingers in your ears and say "la-la-la, it's all an anti-Liverpool plot", then your case will get the slating it deserves.

 

[Gareth]

It's simply a case of realising your posts are intended to anagonise and that you have an agenda - one that isn't exactly forged in a love for Liverpool or its people.

This is the last reply you will receive from me on this subject (and mostly likely any other subject).

I'd say it's been a pleasure but I'd be lying.

 

[Tobbes]

It's simply a case of realising your posts are intended to anagonise and that you have an agenda - one that isn't exactly forged in a love for Liverpool or its people.

This is the last reply you will receive from me on this subject (and mostly likely any other subject).

I'd say it's been a pleasure but I'd be lying.

Acutally, this neatly summarises the problem with your position; I like Liverpool, as it happens, and I don't wish its people anything other than the best. But this is not the same as one-eyed boosterism (in your case taken one corrosive stage further, in arguing that if Liverpool isn't on HS2 then Manchester shouldn't be either), because I'm also interested in promoting rail in the round, and in promoting value for money in public spending. Though you clearly don't like it, Manchester has a much stronger business case, making it much more likely that that element of HS2 will get built.... aiding Liverpool in the process. The simple truth is that the reverse is not the case.

Have a good afternoon!

 

[camflyer]

Calls for the whole thing to be scrapped

The HS2 rail link should be scrapped, senior Tories say

The future of the HS2 rail link is due to be discussed in the Commons on September 13 after more than 155,000 people signed a petition calling for it to be axed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Of course no mentioned from these "senior Tories" about how much scrapping all of HS2 would cost in terms of lost jobs, compensation and remediating works already started.

 

[Purple Orange]

It wont be scrapped. Usual nonsense.

 

[JonathanH]

Calls for the whole thing to be scrapped

The HS2 rail link should be scrapped, senior Tories say

The future of the HS2 rail link is due to be discussed in the Commons on September 13 after more than 155,000 people signed a petition calling for it to be axed.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Of course no mentioned from these "senior Tories" about how much scrapping all of HS2 would cost in terms of lost jobs, compensation and remediating works already started.

There is a parallel with the termination of work on the Channel Tunnel in 1974 when the money ran out so it is quite possible. Clearly there are costs incurred but that isn't really any different from the money spent on anything else over the last year. There would be a saving in costs not yet incurred. There would be short term jobs in the remedial work to unwind the work completed to date and the construction sector would move onto something else deemed a higher priority.

There is a piece here about sunk cost fallacy published today.
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/were-about-to-see-the-sunk-cost-fallacy-in-glorious-action-again

We're about to see the sunk cost fallacy in glorious action again

Tim Worstall

There are Nudge Units and pronouncements upon human economic fallibility all around us. Us folks don;t, in fact, approach the universe in the supremely calculating manner than certain economic models insist we do.

Except of course the models don’t insist, they just explore what would happen if we did. All of interesting economics is in explaining what happens when behaviour deviates from the model which is why we use such models. So that we can explore the deviations from them.

However, despite all this attention paid to such fallibilities we’re about to see the most monstrous display of the Sunk Cost Fallacy:

Conservative MPs are lining up to denounce HS2 in the Commons after more than 100,000 members of the public secured a debate on scrapping the high-speed rail line.

Senior Tories are preparing to urge ministers to put the project "out of its misery" as they point to spiralling costs and a shift to working from home as evidence that it should be cancelled and the £98 billion budget distributed elsewhere.

We know what’s going to happen next. There will be an outburst of shouting. But, we’ve already spent £1, £1 billion, £10 billion. If we don’t go on then all that will be wasted!

Sunk costs are sunk costs. This is money, those are resources, that have already been applied to this scheme, whatever it is. Whether we proceed with the scheme or not we will never get those resources, that money back. So, that we’ve already spent the cash is an irrelevance to the decision about whether we should proceed.

Our decision should be based upon whether the benefits from proceeding - from our current starting point - are greater than the costs of doing so. The past is indeed past and our decisions are about our path into the future that is.

We really are going to have multitudes shouting that we must not waste what is already spent. The problem with that shout being that what is already spent is already wasted. No decision can bring it back.

Now, whether HS2 should be cancelled or not is another matter. We have, often enough, pointed out that it should never have been started and recent changes just make that more true. But the welcome cancellation isn’t the point here. Rather, that the decision must be taken using the right metrics.

Sunk costs are sunk costs. What has already been spent is irrelevant. The decision must rest upon what is to be gained from spending how much given our current starting point?

This is politics so it won’t be but then bully for politics as a method of spending money then.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not posting my opinion here, just noting that it is possible and sunk cost wouldn't necessarily lead the decision - ultimately it will come down to populism.)