Shapps "promised to scrap HS2 Golborne spur"

[Sonik]

Who knows?

Shapps is using what the UCR said as an excuse to postpone the Golborne link for now. Sir Graham Brady is chairman of the 1922 committee, so currently has a key role in keeping Boris, and therefore Shapps, in their jobs. So I doubt if they will do anything to upset him in the short term. Don't expect any announcements soon.

But politics change. If it became more important to promise better Scotland-England links than keeping Brady happy, then they'd put the Golborne Link back on the table in an instant.

Not to mention it will be at least ten years before building starts.

That's a long time in politics, so anything could happen in the meantime.

 

[WatcherZero]

And if Labour get back in you could see it simply reinstated.

There is no way to get the same benefit as the Golborne link while spending the same or less, as they have pledged to remain within the same spending envelope then all they can do is provide a lesser option or nothing at all.
The fact they are still safeguarding the Golborne link and buying property along it suggests this is just a ploy to get the local MP's off their back for a while and support Boris in the no-confidence vote.

 

[Shrop]

And if Labour get back in you could see it simply reinstated.

There is no way to get the same benefit as the Golborne link while spending the same or less, as they have pledged to remain within the same spending envelope then all they can do is provide a lesser option or nothing at all.
The fact they are still safeguarding the Golborne link and buying property along it suggests this is just a ploy to get the local MP's off their back for a while and support Boris in the no-confidence vote.

It would be nice if it was this simple. Sadly there are so many MPs across all Parties who have very little interest in transport, with equally little understanding to match, that killing off a project asset like this may stick permanently irrespective of who has power in future. I only wish I was wrong.

 

[Sonik]

And if Labour get back in you could see it simply reinstated.

There is no way to get the same benefit as the Golborne link while spending the same or less, as they have pledged to remain within the same spending envelope then all they can do is provide a lesser option or nothing at all.
The fact they are still safeguarding the Golborne link and buying property along it suggests this is just a ploy to get the local MP's off their back for a while and support Boris in the no-confidence vote.

Without saying too much I think that depending on scope, any alternate options could introduce some different issues, and not just in terms of nimby objections.

But there are certainly possibilities; even the funding envelope is just an arbitrary figure set by the current administration so it should not really be considered a fixed boundary. There are plenty examples where governments have cut budgets then increased them again. You could just read the budget limit as an encouragement to produce an efficient design, that's very much the style of the current government.

In terms of ongoing political momentum, what will support that in the longer term, will be a layout that offers the most benefits, for the most people, across the political spectrum. The UK isn't China.

 

[WatcherZero]

Dont think this has been brought up but a couple of weeks ago the government published the economic assessment of removing the Golborne link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1084080/hs2-phase-2b-western-leg-crewe-to-manchester-supplement-to-the-update-on-the-strategic-outline-business-case.pdf

The below figures are solely for the Golborne stretch if it was a wholly separate scheme including services to Scotland operating on it that would not otherwise exist due to lack of capacity, they did some light modelling of using the one spare Manchester path created by axing Scotland HS2 services for a London-Manchester via Birmingham Curzon service (the iTSS option), they think this would generate £100m net revenue and have £600-800m of economic benefits at zero change in capital cost for some reason.

Net Transport benefits: £4.7bn
Including WEI: £6.5bn
Capital Cost (including more trains and depot being large enough to stable Scotland trains as well as signaling improvements on WCML and a turnback siding at Preston): £4bn
Operating cost: £3.7bn
Renewal cost: £0.4bn
Operating Revenue: £3.4bn
BCR 1.0 and including Wider Economic Impacts 1.4


Phase 2B alone without Golborne being built BCR 0.5 including WEI 0.7
Phase 2B with Golborne included BCR 0.7 including WEI 0.9
Phase 1+2A BCR 1.0 including WEI 1.3
Phase 1+2A+2B excluding Golborne BCR 0.9 including WEI 1.1
Phase 1+2A+2B+Golborne (my own calculation using the figures provided as they dont calculate this figure)
Transport Benefits £40.2bn, WEI £53.7bn, Total Costs £67.4bn, Net Cost to Government £45.7bn, BCR 0.88, including WEI 1.18

This ultimately means the Golborne stretch improves the benefits/cost ratio of the whole HS2 scheme by 0.08 (7%) and of the 3B stretch in isolation by 0.2 (40%) & WEI 0.2 (28%)!
Essentially they would be stupid not to build it unless they can create a scheme that costs the same or less and produces more benefit, if none of the alternatives they come up with are better they will have to build Golborne unless they are economically insane.

 

[Bald Rick]

Dont think this has been brought up but a couple of weeks ago the government published the economic assessment of removing the Golborne link:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1084080/hs2-phase-2b-western-leg-crewe-to-manchester-supplement-to-the-update-on-the-strategic-outline-business-case.pdf

The below figures are solely for the Golborne stretch if it was a wholly separate scheme including services to Scotland operating on it that would not otherwise exist due to lack of capacity, they did some light modelling of using the one spare Manchester path created by axing Scotland HS2 services for a London-Manchester via Birmingham Curzon service (the iTSS option), they think this would generate £100m net revenue and have £600-800m of economic benefits at zero change in capital cost for some reason.

Net Transport benefits: £4.7bn
Including WEI: £6.5bn
Capital Cost (including more trains and depot being large enough to stable Scotland trains as well as signaling improvements on WCML and a turnback siding at Preston): £4bn
Operating cost: £3.7bn
Renewal cost: £0.4bn
Operating Revenue: £3.4bn
BCR 1.0 and including Wider Economic Impacts 1.4


Phase 2B alone without Golborne being built BCR 0.5 including WEI 0.7
Phase 2B with Golborne included BCR 0.7 including WEI 0.9
Phase 1+2A BCR 1.0 including WEI 1.3
Phase 1+2A+2B excluding Golborne BCR 0.9 including WEI 1.1
Phase 1+2A+2B+Golborne (my own calculation using the figures provided as they dont calculate this figure)
Transport Benefits £40.2bn, WEI £53.7bn, Total Costs £67.4bn, Net Cost to Government £45.7bn, BCR 0.88, including WEI 1.18

This ultimately means the Golborne stretch improves the benefits/cost ratio of the whole HS2 scheme by 0.08 (7%) and of the 3B stretch in isolation by 0.2 (40%) & WEI 0.2 (28%)!
Essentially they would be stupid not to build it unless they can create a scheme that costs the same or less and produces more benefit, if none of the alternatives they come up with are better they will have to build Golborne unless they are economically insane.

indeed. Politics of the worst kind.

perhaps something better will be developed.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

There are two key points in the economic assessment:
The first is:

2.27 Removing the Golborne Link from the Phase 2b Western Leg scheme results in a reduced interdependency between HS2 and the planned ECML upgrades. The ECML upgrades have the potential to reduce the journey time from London to Edinburgh and bring it into line with the journey time that could be delivered via HS2 (with the Golborne Link)

And the second is that whatever replaces the Golborne link must be within the IRP ceiling of £96 billion.

It's now a battle between West Coast and East Coast for the Edinburgh traffic, and I think the momentum is now with the ECML (until they discover the timetable is unworkable).
Unless an alternative WCML scheme is established quickly, the cost pressures will kill a new West Coast link.

But who knows how the current political chaos will turn out.
The first priority is to keep the Crewe-Manchester Bill (minus Golborne) alive through the Committee stage.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's now a battle between West Coast and East Coast for the Edinburgh traffic, and I think the momentum is now with the ECML (until they discover the timetable is unworkable).

What aspect of it is unworkable? After all, it's what runs now.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What aspect of it is unworkable? After all, it's what runs now.

Well, it's the wider idea of upgrades to replace the HS2 East leg with increased capacity/reduced journey times to Leeds/Newcastle etc.
There has been plenty of analysis on why this won't work (affecting intermediate flows).
Adding increased Edinburgh traffic (that planned for the Golborne route) only complicates things further.
But incremental upgrades on the ECML are easier to sell/deliver than a big bang new route on the WCML - indeed the initial ETCS upgrade on the ECML has just started and a power supply upgrade is in progress.

 

[snowball]

And the second is that whatever replaces the Golborne link must be within the IRP ceiling of £96 billion.

I think this was stated already in the initial announcement of the dropping of the Golborne link.

 

[HSTEd]

I think this was stated already in the initial announcement of the dropping of the Golborne link.

Doesn't that just mean nothing will be built when inevitable ballooning of IRP costs swallows up the ceiling?

 

[Sonik]

Doesn't that just mean nothing will be built when inevitable ballooning of IRP costs swallows up the ceiling?

Well perhaps the intention is to keep HS2 and their contractors on their toes, and/or the Scottish nationalists.

But the revised economic assessment is a fudge however you slice it, because the previous version showed that the Manchester leg had a negative BCR without the Golbourne link.

No point trying to predict the future IMO - the financial limit in the IRP is only an arbitrary figure set by the current administration so both could change before any final decisions are made about a northern link. What will happen will be whatever is politically expedient when the time comes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2022 ==

It's now a battle between West Coast and East Coast for the Edinburgh traffic, and I think the momentum is now with the ECML (until they discover the timetable is unworkable).
Unless an alternative WCML scheme is established quickly, the cost pressures will kill a new West Coast link.

What's interesting there is that Golbourne is very important to release capacity for Anglo-Scottish freight, which is one of the most sensible flows to promote for modal shift, both economically and for decarbonation benefits. Not sure how useful ECML is here in terms of Southampton (which is important for food and exports) or the Golden Triangle (for domestic intermodal distribution). There is a reason that WCML is full and ECML less so.

 

[The Planner]

Well perhaps the intention is to keep HS2 and their contractors on their toes, and/or the Scottish nationalists.

But the revised economic assessment is a fudge however you slice it, because the previous version showed that the Manchester leg had a negative BCR without the Golbourne link.

No point trying to predict the future IMO - the financial limit in the IRP is only an arbitrary figure set by the current administration so both could change before any final decisions are made about a northern link. What will happen will be whatever is politically expedient when the time comes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2022 ==


What's interesting there is that Golbourne is very important to release capacity for Anglo-Scottish freight, which is one of the most sensible flows to promote for modal shift, both economically and for decarbonation benefits. Not sure how useful ECML is here in terms of Southampton (which is important for food and exports) or the Golden Triangle (for domestic intermodal distribution). There is a reason that WCML is full and ECML less so.

North of Preston is the issue for freight.

 

[snowball]

By the way, Golborne is a non-U place.

 

[Halish Railway]

North of Preston is the issue for freight.

And passenger workings in the Lancaster area. The number of flat junctions as well as the long headways required for the limited stop Edinburgh/Glasgow to London services are really detrimental to capacity and will probably prevent an increase in frequency on Lancaster to Morecambe, Barrow, Windermere and Leeds services.

Really those limited stop services ought to bypass Lancaster and Carnforth.

 

[Sonik]

North of Preston is the issue for freight.

That is the main issue for Scotland yes, but if Golbourne (or some equivalent) doesn't get built, it impacts everything north of Crewe, which includes flows to/from Trafford park, Runcorn, Liverpool area etc. which is a lot of traffic. Putting HS2 trains back on the classic network at Crewe will make this area more congested, not less.

But my main point as above is that ECML can't provide an alternate solution for any of this, the geography doesn't work. At best it can remove a couple of trains to Edinburgh.

 

[Roast Veg]

indeed. Politics of the worst kind.

perhaps something better will be developed.

Got any suggestions? Perhaps something a little longer?

 

[Bletchleyite]

And passenger workings in the Lancaster area. The number of flat junctions as well as the long headways required for the limited stop Edinburgh/Glasgow to London services are really detrimental to capacity and will probably prevent an increase in frequency on Lancaster to Morecambe, Barrow, Windermere and Leeds services.

Really those limited stop services ought to bypass Lancaster and Carnforth.

I am not sure those services need frequency increases. What they do need is more regularised timetables, and the cause of them not being is freight, not fast Scottish trains.

 

[Austriantrain]

I am not sure those services need frequency increases. What they do need is more regularised timetables, and the cause of them not being is freight, not fast Scottish trains.

Well, the Swiss do a „freight Takt“, so why wouldn’t that work in the UK?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

North of Preston is the issue for freight.

Could this be solved (at relatively low cost) by building passing loops or increasing the length of existing loops?

 

[The Planner]

Could this be solved (at relatively low cost) by building passing loops or increasing the length of existing loops?

There have been more studies into it than I care to remember, none of it is low cost. Dynamic loops, loops, three or four tracking you name it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2022 ==

And passenger workings in the Lancaster area. The number of flat junctions as well as the long headways required for the limited stop Edinburgh/Glasgow to London services are really detrimental to capacity and will probably prevent an increase in frequency on Lancaster to Morecambe, Barrow, Windermere and Leeds services.

Really those limited stop services ought to bypass Lancaster and Carnforth.

You will have to define headways as I expect your interpretation is different to mine.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2022 ==

That is the main issue for Scotland yes, but if Golbourne (or some equivalent) doesn't get built, it impacts everything north of Crewe, which includes flows to/from Trafford park, Runcorn, Liverpool area etc. which is a lot of traffic. Putting HS2 trains back on the classic network at Crewe will make this area more congested, not less.

But my main point as above is that ECML can't provide an alternate solution for any of this, the geography doesn't work. At best it can remove a couple of trains to Edinburgh.

Trafford Park?

 

[Bald Rick]

Got any suggestions? Perhaps something a little longer?

That would be an economical matter

(but yes)

Could this be solved (at relatively low cost) by building passing loops or increasing the length of existing loops?

Not really. However the new bimode locos that GBRF are buying will almost certainly help. @The Planner will confirm, but I imagine they will take a good 20-30 minutes out of any Preston - Scotland freight on which they are deployed, and that must help. Overnight we might even need to loop the sleeper to get out of the way of the freight!

 

[HSTEd]

The reality is diesel freight over Shap is always going to destroy the timetable unless they double or treble the assigned traction power. Which none of the operators will do.

 

[The Planner]

Not really. However the new bimode locos that GBRF are buying will almost certainly help. @The Planner will confirm, but I imagine they will take a good 20-30 minutes out of any Preston - Scotland freight on which they are deployed, and that must help. Overnight we might even need to loop the sleeper to get out of the way of the freight!

The 99s do sound impressive from when I was speaking to them recently

 

[Bald Rick]

The 99s do sound impressive from when I was speaking to them recently

one hopes they haven’t just assumed there’s enough power in the system…

 

[Sonik]

Trafford Park?

Yes I think so, albeit the interactions there are a little more complex/less obvious WRT to HS2, NPR and Golbourne.

HS2 2b isn't going to fix the Manchester congestion issues on it's own.

 

[Shrop]

That would be an economical matter

I actually believe that Father Ted would have been capable of delivering HS2 in a way that is no worse than how much of it is going. He would have blundered through and at least avoided the incredible farce of spending fortunes to employ consultants, whose expertise is writing lengthy reports with the necessary skill to distract from the main priority, but whose knowledge of and enthusiasm for that main priority (ie levelling up and best serving the UK) is coincidental at best

 

[D821]

I actually believe that Father Ted would have been capable of delivering HS2 in a way that is no worse than how much of it is going. He would have blundered through and at least avoided the incredible farce of spending fortunes to employ consultants, whose expertise is writing lengthy reports with the necessary skill to distract from the main priority, but whose knowledge of and enthusiasm for that main priority (ie levelling up and best serving the UK) is coincidental at best

In the meantime, he could keep the HS2 money resting in his account...

 

[Watershed]

Well, the Swiss do a „freight Takt“, so why wouldn’t that work in the UK?

Because freight varies hugely in terms of its length (which limits the loops it can fit into) and its speed as well as weight.

If everything were standardised into, for example, an hourly class 4 and hourly class 6 path, you would either have to cater to the lowest common denominator (meaning the paths would be rubbish and a lot slower than many schedules currently are) or shorten freight services (meaning that some flows would become uneconomical by rail and switch to road).

Personally I think that if the Golborne spur is to be scrapped without replacement, the DfT needs to empower the ORR and Network Rail to impose a change to the rules so that FOCs can't use underpowered single diesel locos on 2400 tonne freights. But equally, for everything to switch over to electric haulage (double headed where required) there would need to be significant power supply upgrades and infill wiring would be necessary to avoid costly and time consuming loco changes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Personally I think that if the Golborne spur is to be scrapped without replacement, the DfT needs to empower the ORR and Network Rail to impose a change to the rules so that FOCs can't use underpowered single diesel locos on 2400 tonne freights. But equally, for everything to switch over to electric haulage (double headed where required) there would need to be significant power supply upgrades and infill wiring would be necessary to avoid costly and time consuming loco changes.

Or FOCs need to buy bi-mode locos or put one of each on their train.

If freight is indeed eating paths because it's underpowered, then this absolutely does need dealing with urgently. It isn't an acceptable reason for the mess that is the north WCML timetable. For now, stick two diesels on. This would be hugely cheaper to solve than many other issues.