HS2 Crewe-Manchester Bill Published

[plugwash]

I just don't see how ATO helps with reversal dwell times unless it's allowed to operate unsupervised some of the time so the driver can change ends while the train is in motion.

 

[Watershed]

I just don't see how ATO helps with reversal dwell times unless it's allowed to operate unsupervised some of the time so the driver can change ends while the train is in motion.

The only difference that ATO makes is giving a consistent approach to, and acceleration out of, the platforms. Meaning that you don't have to allow for variable levels of driver caution - as you see today, for example, to avoid tripping the TPWS grids.

Given that drivers will almost certainly be on a "step back" arrangement, the reversal won't be any different to an ordinary crew change in that sense.

 

[Bald Rick]

I just don't see how ATO helps with reversal dwell times unless it's allowed to operate unsupervised some of the time so the driver can change ends while the train is in motion.

as well as reducing the time taken to get in / out of the platform, it will also help the process for the driver shutting down one end and opening up the other.

 

[snowball]

Andy Burnham gave evidence this morning to the HoC Transport Committee. It should be available here later in the day.

Edit: now working for me though I had to wind forward 15 minutes to 09:30 at the start to bypass a repeating message saying "The session will start shortly".

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I haven't looked at the video yet, but this is what the Guardian made of it:

North of England faces ‘second-best trains’ for 200 years, warns Burnham

Greater Manchester mayor says government’s £96bn rail plan will not bring the claimed benefits

www.theguardian.com

The north of England risks being left with “second-best” trains for 200 years under the government’s £96bn rail plan, the mayor of Greater Manchester has told MPs.
Andy Burnham said that while his city would do better than most in the north, the plan would not “maximise the levelling-up benefits” that ministers claimed it would bring.

The integrated rail plan, published in November, axed the north-eastern leg of HS2 and angered leaders in the region by failing to include a new promised high-speed line linking cities across the north of England.
Appearing before the transport select committee, Burnham said that while the investment would bring benefits, the north was being asked to settle for second best again.
He said: “These are once-in-200-years decisions for the country and particularly for the north of England. If we get second best then the north will have second best for 200 years or more.”
He added: “If we accept second best again, it’s our great-great-grandchildren who will grow up … with inferior transport and a smaller economy.”
The chair of the committee, Huw Merriman, suggested that Manchester was the beneficiary of most of the £96bn investment, but Burnham said a large proportion of the HS2 spending included in that total was in the route south of Birmingham, to London.
The redesigned plans for Manchester Piccadilly station, with HS2 trains now arriving overground, would cost a vast amount of city centre space as well as affecting how rail services could run to Leeds, he said.
“More economic benefit could be achieved if the station was designed as an underground station with full connectivity,” the mayor said, adding that planners were “risking the mistakes of the past by bringing in HS2 on the surface”.
He said an underground Piccadilly would allow regeneration for the centre to “be like the Canary Wharf of the north, a major success story”.
Burnham said the Treasury had not done a levelling-up analysis of the economic benefits that would come from the rail plan. The question about the spending, he said, should be “does it maximise the levelling-up benefits – and I don’t believe it does”.
Martin Tugwell, the chief executive of Transport for the North, said its own studies showed that building the promised line across the Pennines, linking Manchester, Bradford and Leeds, would bring an additional £14.4bn a year in gross value added, and 130,000 jobs across the country.
He told the committee: “You make the economic potential of the north real, you contribute from the north to the rest of the UK, rather than it needing support from the rest of the UK to the north.”
The testimony on Wednesday came after the secretary of state for levelling up, Michael Gove, unveiled long-awaited plans to close the gap between rich and poor parts of England. Gove dismissed claims there was no new money for the programme as a “bogus argument”.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I haven't looked at the video yet, but this is what the Guardian made of it:

North of England faces ‘second-best trains’ for 200 years, warns Burnham

Greater Manchester mayor says government’s £96bn rail plan will not bring the claimed benefits

www.theguardian.com

I get Burnham has his own agenda but i felt he made a good case for what Manchester and the North needs to help its economy and local connectivity such that it feels like the DofT didn't take too much notice of what the North wanted in the IRP. Nought will change in the short term of course but there is long time to go and plenty of political changes to come that may alter the IRP over time.

 

[hwl]

I haven't looked at the video yet, but this is what the Guardian made of it:

North of England faces ‘second-best trains’ for 200 years, warns Burnham

Greater Manchester mayor says government’s £96bn rail plan will not bring the claimed benefits

www.theguardian.com

Burnham certainly has his own agenda as someone else isn't paying for his gold plating. "maximise levelling up benefits", he fundamentally misunderstands it is about optimising* levelling up benefits. The difference between the two is better spent levelling up elsewhere given government expenditure is limited.

* e.g. BCR i.e. External Benefit : Net Cost ratio used in TAG and HMT Green Book.

 

[Martin23230]

The redesigned plans for Manchester Piccadilly station, with HS2 trains now arriving overground, would cost a vast amount of city centre space as well as affecting how rail services could run to Leeds, he said.

I'm confused, this quote implies that the Manchester HS2 station was planned to be underground but has now been redesigned to be overground. Is that true? I thought the HS2 platforms were always going to be above ground next to the existing station, then when it came to adding more platforms for NPR services there was a suggestion they could be in tunnels but instead they're going to be integrated into the above-ground station. Was there ever a suggestion that the HS2 terminus (i.e. for services from Birmingham/London) would be underground? And is Burnham now saying he wants the entire thing (HS2+NPR) to be underground?

 

[hwl]

it feels like the DofT didn't take too much notice of what the North wanted in the IRP.

I would argue they did in many cases. But they did so by looking functionally at what was required for the vision not at how many local mayors wanted to achieve it at higher cost often with "Status" station buildings included.
e.g. Liverpool wanting a new terminus when a far cheaper solution that provides the capacity is to remove the Lime Street throat capacity issues and maintain excellent local connectivity.

The local politicians involved weren't doing that kind of analysis.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Burnham certainly has his own agenda as someone else isn't paying for his gold plating. "maximise levelling up benefits", he fundamentally misunderstands it is about optimising* levelling up benefits. The difference between the two is better spent levelling up elsewhere given government expenditure is limited.

* e.g. BCR i.e. External Benefit : Net Cost ratio used in TAG and HMT Green Book.

For sure but listening to it the meeting it feels like its a battle between national connectivity vs regional vs local connectivity. The chaos that Castleford corridor is now necessitates a reduction in capacity with no sign of any solution to improving that for at least a decade. When surely we need to effect modal change and improve air quality in our cities this is a significant failure.

 

[hwl]

I'm confused, this quote implies that the Manchester HS2 station was planned to be underground but has now been redesigned to be overground. Is that true?

No - only in his Manchester vision was it redesigned to go underground

I thought the HS2 platforms were always going to be above ground next to the existing station, then when it came to adding more platforms for NPR services there was a suggestion they could be in tunnels but instead they're going to be integrated into the above-ground station. Was there ever a suggestion that the entire HS2 station would be underground?

No

And is Burnham now saying he wants the entire thing (HS2+NPR) to be underground?

Yes

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Overall it was quite an interesting session, except for the waffling from (I think) the Tyneside member - when presented with a 2-minute deadline he wasted most of it saying how quick he was going to be...
Andy Burnham was quite lucid, he knows his stuff, and the politics, and brushed off the testy "why HS2" debate.
I think they got a bit bogged down with the "£96 billion for Manchester" line, when in reality it is only a fraction of that.
Patrick McLoughlin also waffled a bit, even though he knows more than anyone about the original commitments and costs.
There was too much about past issues and not enough about the IRP itself.
I'm afraid Martin Tugwell knows too much for his own good, wasted his time in focus and did not really advance the cause of TfN in the face of "what good has it done" questions.
I thought Liverpool, Sheffield (and Newcastle) lost out in the debate which concentrated on Manchester, Leeds and Bradford.
The TSC will be visiting Bradford as part of the review, so I expect sparks will fly there.

 

[Glenn1969]

I get Burnham has his own agenda but i felt he made a good case for what Manchester and the North needs to help its economy and local connectivity such that it feels like the DofT didn't take too much notice of what the North wanted in the IRP. Nought will change in the short term of course but there is long time to go and plenty of political changes to come that may alter the IRP over time.

I think the North wanted local and regional connectivity. This (particularly for Yorkshire and the North East and Cumbria) is largely missing from the IRP and HS2 plans as they stand at present.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think the North wanted local and regional connectivity. This (particularly for Yorkshire and the North East and Cumbria) is largely missing from the IRP and HS2 plans as they stand at present.

and why wouldn't they as they represent local interests and if we have to be honest inter urban service around the Northern cities are lagging well behind what London and to a lesser extent Birmingham have. The levelling up mission statement on public transport says

Public transport connectivity across the UK to be “significantly closer to the standards of London” including integrated ticketing and simpler fares.

The IRP doesn't go far enough to achieve that. Problem we have is funds and resources are limited so govt should decide what is the highest priority for the whole country. This is somewhat subjective of course and politically motivated but climate change / emergency seems pretty important so one activity that underpins delivering against that is to effect modal transfer that maximises reduction in emissions and that has to be local car use.

 

[edwin_m]

Burnham certainly has his own agenda as someone else isn't paying for his gold plating. "maximise levelling up benefits", he fundamentally misunderstands it is about optimising* levelling up benefits. The difference between the two is better spent levelling up elsewhere given government expenditure is limited.

Someone should probably ask the question of what he would turn down to get a through instead of a reversing station - three new hospitals or whatever.

 

[MattRat]

Burnham certainly has his own agenda as someone else isn't paying for his gold plating. "maximise levelling up benefits", he fundamentally misunderstands it is about optimising* levelling up benefits. The difference between the two is better spent levelling up elsewhere given government expenditure is limited.

* e.g. BCR i.e. External Benefit : Net Cost ratio used in TAG and HMT Green Book.

Correction, government expenditure is limited....the further outside London you go.....

 

[hwl]

Correction, government expenditure is limited....the further outside London you go.....

It is very limited everywhere including in London unless you are a PPE supplier...

 

[WatcherZero]

I'm confused, this quote implies that the Manchester HS2 station was planned to be underground but has now been redesigned to be overground. Is that true? I thought the HS2 platforms were always going to be above ground next to the existing station, then when it came to adding more platforms for NPR services there was a suggestion they could be in tunnels but instead they're going to be integrated into the above-ground station. Was there ever a suggestion that the HS2 terminus (i.e. for services from Birmingham/London) would be underground? And is Burnham now saying he wants the entire thing (HS2+NPR) to be underground?

The original HS2 plan was the platforms were ground level. This was changed in the route refinement to arriving on a viaduct.

 

[ricoblade]

Not sure if this is the right place but:

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/new...ed-to-ensuring-hs2-trains-reach-leeds-3581065

 

[snowball]

Manchester City Council's cabinet to discuss issues with the bill:

Manchester cements opposition to HS2 bill - Place North West

Manchester City Council is set to formalise its complaints regarding the government’s latest plans for the high-speed railway line.

www.placenorthwest.co.uk

Manchester City Council is set to formalise its complaints regarding the government’s latest plans for the high-speed railway line.

On Friday, the council’s cabinet will be discussing at least 13 key issues with the government’s bill for phase 2 of HS2. This is the leg that connects Crewe and Manchester and would see new stations built at Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport.

In a report to the executive ahead of the cabinet meeting, the council said it supported HS2 overall. However, it wanted to make sure the government’s plan would “maximise the benefits and minimise the negative impacts that HS2 will have for the city”.

The Manchester Piccadilly station has been a point of contention since the bill was unveiled in January, with both city council leader Cllr Bev Craig and Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham stating that the station needs to be underground rather than the proposed above-ground plan. Bolstering their case, architectural practice Weston Williamson + Partners publicised its designs for what a possible underground station could look like.

The council said that should an agreement not be reached between the council, the company behind HS2 and the Department for Transport then it would be petition the bill. The council has already instructed parliamentary agents to act on its behalf in negotiations.

These are the chief concerns from the council regarding the HS2 bill, as per the report:

• The design of Manchester Piccadilly station as a surface, turn back station, as opposed to an underground, through station, which could provide greater capacity, reliability, resilience, future proofing and passenger experience and result in a reduced land take.
• The retention of Gateway House, which inhibits connectivity to the rest of the city centre and fails to provide a suitable entrance and arrival point to the city at the Manchester Piccadilly HS2 station.
• The extent of highways infrastructure proposed at Pin Mill Brow, which are overly large, would unduly encourage car travel and increase pollution, sever areas of the city, and do not allow for active travel.
• The level and location of car parking proposed at Manchester Piccadilly, which is too high and not in keeping with the adjacent station’s role as a city centre public transport hub, unnecessarily encourages car travel, and takes up prime development land.
• The need for a multi-modal interchange which provides bus and coach parking facilities.
• The proposed access to a new ramp for Network Rail maintenance, which routes traffic through the Mayfield development, having an unacceptably negative impact
• Inadequate integration of, and powers for, Metrolink at both Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport
• The location of the proposed Metrolink turnback at New Islington rather than our preferred site at Velopark, and the proposal to sever the Ashton line for two years
• The proposed location of the ventilation shaft and headhouse on the Fallowfield Road Retail Park on Birchfields Road, and the need to provide adequate flood storage required for the proposed Palatine Road ventilation shaft
• An inappropriate design for highways access to Manchester Airport Station at Junction 6 of the M56, which does not take into account future demand from NPR services, planned development and Airport growth
• The level of construction traffic proposed and the need for consideration of measures to enable materials to be removed using rail at Manchester Airport
• The levels of environmental mitigation, which will be set out in more detail in the City Council’s response to consultation on the hybrid bill’s Environmental Statement
• Changes to statutory powers highlighted in the bill

 

[WatcherZero]

Typical isnt in, Government cuts funding for HS2 here but is providing £2bn of export loans to Turkey for them to build a HSR line of their own.

Britain agrees record $2.3 bln export finance deal to fund Turkish railway

Britain hosted the COP26 climate conference last year and its trade ministry said the deal would help Turkey decarbonise its transport sector and meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

english.alaraby.co.uk

Britain said on Thursday it had agreed its biggest-ever civil infrastructure export finance deal to underwrite a high-speed rail line between the Turkish capital Ankara and the port of Izmir in the west of the country.

Britain hosted the COP26 climate conference last year and its trade ministry said the deal would help Turkey decarbonise its transport sector and meet commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"Turkey is a vital trading partner for the UK.... It is fitting that UK Export Finance's biggest ever civil infrastructure deal is strongly sustainable," International Trade Secretary Anne-Marie Trevelyan said in a statement.

UK Export Finance (UKEF) will guarantee a 2.1 billion euro ($2.3 billion) loan to fund 503 kilometres (313 miles) of high-speed electric railway, the ministry said.

Several contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds were expected to be awarded for British-made railway lines, signalling and electrification systems, Britain said.

Credit Suisse and Standard Chartered Bank are leading the financing of the project.

Turkey's finance minister Nureddin Nebati said the deal would have a green loan structure.

"We are very glad for the cooperation and strong longstanding relations with UK Government and we hope to further strengthen our collaboration," Nebati said in a statement. ($1 = 0.9097 euros) (Reporting by Alistair Smout; editing by David Milliken)

 

[507020]

Typical isnt in, Government cuts funding for HS2 here but is providing £2bn of export loans to Turkey for them to build a HSR line of their own.

So for what reason can it justify this when by its own logic, high speed rail is totally unnecessary and should not be built. None of the reasons it has given for this international investment can possibly be valid, unless of course they are and it has contradicted itself as well as betraying the people of Yorkshire and the North East, but not Turkey.

Also, in what way is Istanbul not the capital of Turkey?

 

[zwk500]

So for what reason can it justify this when by its own logic, high speed rail is totally unnecessary and should not be built. None of the reasons it has given for this international investment can possibly be valid, unless of course they are and it has contradicted itself as well as betraying the people of Yorkshire and the North East, but not Turkey.

Turkey is bigger than the UK, to be fair. But if you read the article it clearly states that the UK is simply the guarantor for the loan. The money is coming from Credit Suisse and Standard Chartered.

Also, in what way is Istanbul not the capital of Turkey?

The government is based in Ankara.

 

[John R]

So for what reason can it justify this when by its own logic, high speed rail is totally unnecessary and should not be built. None of the reasons it has given for this international investment can possibly be valid, unless of course they are and it has contradicted itself as well as betraying the people of Yorkshire and the North East, but not Turkey.

Also, in what way is Istanbul not the capital of Turkey?

In the same way that neither Sydney nor Melbourne are the capital of Australia.

 

[WesternBiker]

Turkey is bigger than the UK, to be fair. But if you read the article it clearly states that the UK is simply the guarantor for the loan. The money is coming from Credit Suisse and Standard Chartered.

It seems to me a standard export credit guarantee, designed to support British exports.

This is a mechanism that has been used for decades to support UK export contracts for goods, services or both, where the risk of non-payment is either too high for the market or would attract excessive risk premiums.

There is actually a (little known) part of the government set up to do this – UK Export Finance is an agency of the Department for International Trade.

 

[snowball]

Also known as the Export Credits Guarantee Department, it has been involved in many scandals.

From the Wikipedia page on it:

UK Export Finance - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Criticisms of ECGD​

The ECGD has been the subject of criticism by UK-based NGOs; The Corner House has claimed that the ECGD has in effect provided public subsidy for bribery; Campaign Against Arms Trade has argued that the ECGD provides excessive levels of support for arms sales; Jubilee Debt Campaign has argued that the cancellation of debts owed to the ECGD should not be counted towards UK Official Development Assistance figures; World Wide Fund for Nature argues that excessive greenhouse gases are emitted from ECGD-supported projects and that this is inconsistent with wider UK environmental policy.

In recent years, ECGD has been heavily criticised for prioritising investment in fossil fuels over renewable energy. A Catholic Agency For Overseas Development report showed that from 2010 to 2017, an estimated 97% of ECGD energy-related support went to fossil fuel development, principally oil and gas exploration and production in upper-middle-income countries. Just 3% went to renewables.[4] The Guardian reported that in the 2018–2019 financial year alone, ECGD committed nearly £2 billion in support to fossil fuel projects across the world.[5] A Parliamentary inquiry called on ECGD to stop funding fossil fuel projects by the end of 2021, citing that the scale of fossil fuel support violated the UK's obligations under the Paris Agreement.[6]

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It seems to me a standard export credit guarantee, designed to support British exports.
This is a mechanism that has been used for decades to support UK export contracts for goods, services or both, where the risk of non-payment is either too high for the market or would attract excessive risk premiums.

I'm struggling to think of what the UK rail sector could export to Turkey for this project.
Rails? Electrification? Signalling?
With the possible exception of rail supply, these contracts are usually awarded to the EU majors, who know a bit about building high-speed lines.

Several contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds were expected to be awarded for British-made railway lines, signalling and electrification systems, Britain said.

Turkey has also just cancelled the upgrade of the line west of Istanbul.

 

[WesternBiker]

Also known as the Export Credits Guarantee Department, it has been involved in many scandals.

I remember it was plagued with scandals before the ones mentioned there: of course, the department can only support projects which apply for support, as it is demand led. The argument I often heard was that, if it was not supported, the French (or whoever) would get the contract with similar credit support.

 

[Starmill]

Providing export credit guarantees is neither here nor there really unfortunately. At least any new ones to Russia have been taken off the market!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Mar 2022 ==

I'm struggling to think of what the UK rail sector could export to Turkey for this project.
Rails? Electrification? Signalling?
With the possible exception of rail supply, these contracts are usually awarded to the EU majors, who know a bit about building high-speed lines.

Turkey has also just cancelled the upgrade of the line west of Istanbul.

Maybe engineering consultancy. The UK has a lot of good rail technical consultants. I am aware that lots have been working on NEOM for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

 

[vic-rijrode]

I'm struggling to think of what the UK rail sector could export to Turkey for this project.
Rails? Electrification? Signalling?

Perhaps this forum?