Despite the government's announcement, should HS2 be cancelled?

[tomuk]

The other thing to note, is that rarely are people traveling from airport to airport. Now given that rail allows travel from much closer to home to much closer to where they are going to it is likely that the associated travel emissions for rail are lower.

Take for example someone living in Winchester and going to Manchester, if they go by train they can join at Winchester Station and travel to the city centre in Manchester. If they are flying they would have to travel to Southampton or one of the London airports (which could even be Luton or Stansted) and then from Manchester Airport to the city centre, which could add a fair amount of carbon emissions depending on how they travel. It's not unlikely that such emissions (potentially not in this case, but generally so) could be car based, so the switch from flying to train would likely reduce car emissions as well as aviation emissions.

An odd argument and an odd destination pair to choose.

The options for your suggested trip are

Car - About four hours. Fuel cost about £70.
Train - Again about four hours plus time to get from and to the station at each end. Train tickets £297 peak £127 off peak
Plane - 1hr 10 min flying time plus travel to airport only two flights a day on a 72 seat ATR. Ticket £211

So I would suggest 9/10 people, and freight for that matter, drive. Your suggestion that someone would travel from Winchester to Luton or Stansted to get a plane to Manchester is not realistic it a completely doglegged journey.

On an emissions basis I would suggest an ICE car wins then the ATR 72 and last the mainly Voyager rail journey.

As regards transport to the airport if its city centre most would use a train and in most cases these would be electric other local destinations I would guess car or taxi possibly bus. But the effect on emissions of the short connecting legs is again minimal.

The relevance of HS2 I suppose it could attract custom on the Winchester - Manchester route but it would involve either a cross London change from Waterloo to Euston or one at Reading so not as convenient as XC so a marginal benefit. Meanwhile more of the ICE are becoming electric.

Out of interest what car do you currently drive?

 

[Wolfie]

Crossrail, as it then was, should never have been cancelled in 1994.

It would have been up and running by the early 2000s, and ultimately for lower overall cost than today's Elizabeth Line.

Of course the money for the Elizabeth Line could have been spent on regional tram networks for cities such as Leeds, Liverpool or Bristol, but that is a political decision for the government about where the money is better spent.

If the money had been spent elsewhere instead of Crossrail, then the problems of capacity in Central London would still be there, and eventually the government of the day would have to address them,

If HS2 is cancelled or significantly reduced in scope now, this will fuel resentment in the North of England, who will see the newly opened Elizabeth Line and wonder why they can't have something similar.

A big chunk (the majority l believe) of the funding for Crossrail was raised in London. There is no way that could have been spent elsewhere.

 

[Nottingham59]

A big chunk (the majority l believe) of the funding for Crossrail was raised in London. There is no way that could have been spent elsewhere.

According to https://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding , about half of the cost has come from national public sources (DfT, NR) and a fair chunk of the rest are loans from the government to London bodies (GLA, TfL). "London" sources include Busines Rate Supplement, various Infrastructure Levies, Heathrow, sale of Land, GLA. And TfL, which is publicly subsidised.

A sizeable chunk of national government tax revenue comes from London.

 

[Sonik]

There are major capacity constraints at Leeds and Sheffield stations. Without new build NPR and HS2B East how are these meant to be addressed ?

There was an interesting comment about Leeds station from Rail Minister Andrew Stephenson to the Transport select committee inquiry on the IRP:

'With stations, I would say the biggest challenge remaining is how we address the capacity challenges at Leeds. That is exactly why we have commissioned the study, to do some more work on that and look at whether we can gain more capacity through the existing station. It must be said that in Manchester the introduction of the Metrolink released significant additional capacity at Manchester Piccadilly. A West Yorkshire mass transit system could do the same at Leeds. I say “could”; that is what the study needs to look at.'

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/10000/html/

 

[yorksrob]

There was an interesting comment about Leeds station from Rail Minister Andrew Stephenson to the Transport select committee inquiry on the IRP:

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/10000/html/

That is an interesting development !

I must admit, to my mind, passengers seem to flow quite easily around Leeds, but perhaps that's just because I'm used to it.

 

[Backroom_boy]

That is an interesting development !

I must admit, to my mind, passengers seem to flow quite easily around Leeds, but perhaps that's just because I'm used to it.

It's more about capacity for train services using at the station not passenger flow on platforms or concourse.

 

[Mikey C]

According to https://www.crossrail.co.uk/about-us/funding , about half of the cost has come from national public sources (DfT, NR) and a fair chunk of the rest are loans from the government to London bodies (GLA, TfL). "London" sources include Busines Rate Supplement, various Infrastructure Levies, Heathrow, sale of Land, GLA. And TfL, which is publicly subsidised.

A sizeable chunk of national government tax revenue comes from London.

And Crossrail doesn't just benefit Londoners, but also parts of SE England, all paying taxes

Indeed that applies to most NR spending on London infrastructure

 

[MarkyT]

It's more about capacity for train services using at the station not passenger flow on platforms or concourse.

Indeed. Both sheer platform occupancy constraints and junction conflicts at the west end.

 

[Chester1]

Due to the distances involved it would need to be tram train (subject to South Wales Metro being a success). The obvious starting route would be Harrogate to Bradford Interchange via Leeds city centre. Transfering suburban services that are run by EMUs would be more politically fraught. Its certainly not the easiest metropolitan area to convert to light rail.

 

[The Ham]

And Crossrail doesn't just benefit Londoners, but also parts of SE England, all paying taxes

Indeed that applies to most NR spending on London infrastructure

Indeed, likewise in theory Crossrail 2 could allow on the SW side nearly every destination with 2tph to gain a third tph within the wider SWR area.

It is often the way, as the main reason that Exeter gained its semi fast service was due to spending at Reading (which whilst not London, is fairly close and certainly not the SW which also benefits).

It's a similar thing when it comes to the number of civil servants, everyone knows that the highest number per head of population is in London, however the area with the fewest is the South East. As such when you look at the national average each region (except those two) are broadly the same as the average. The reason that London has a higher level is that for most of the South East it's easier to get to London than other parts of the South East and so it makes sense to have the South East services within London.

 

[yorksrob]

It's more about capacity for train services using at the station not passenger flow on platforms or concourse.

Ah yes, the East has always been tricky.

 

[Pete_uk]

What if, once the main London - Birmingham - Manchester route is done, the eastern leg gets built but at, say only 150 mph standards?

 

[AndrewE]

What if, once the main London - Birmingham - Manchester route is done, the eastern leg gets built but at, say only 150 mph standards?

sounds thoroughly sensible to me...
see post #320

 

[Bald Rick]

What if, once the main London - Birmingham - Manchester route is done, the eastern leg gets built but at, say only 150 mph standards?

The route is safeguarded (except for the revised bit to East Mids Parkway) so the alignment is fit for the speeds published on the Government website. The difference in cost between, say, 150mph and 200mph is relatively small, and little difference in cost.

 

[AndrewE]

The route is safeguarded (except for the revised bit to East Mids Parkway) so the alignment is fit for the speeds published on the Government website. The difference in cost between, say, 150mph and 200mph is relatively small, and little difference in cost.

Really? No extra cost for cemented (unadjustable) ballast, or the prices that the contractors quote because they have to guarantee it for a long time?

 

[HSTEd]

What if, once the main London - Birmingham - Manchester route is done, the eastern leg gets built but at, say only 150 mph standards?

The alignment is already selected, so the saving from 150mph running (which was never large in the first place) will be negligible now.

You'd have to go back to the drawing board with an all new scheme to do much else - and that will require a boatload more political capital. And if you started from scratch, as I've said before, I'm not sure you'd build the Eastern leg anyway.

 

[Sonik]

Really? No extra cost for cemented (unadjustable) ballast, or the prices that the contractors quote because they have to guarantee it for a long time?

AIUI slab track has been specified for HS2 phase 1 (for lower maintenance cost) but it's not necessarily required for higher speed lines (e.g. the French LGV network and HS1 are mostly built with conventional ballast)

Still TBD if slab track will be used for later phases of HS2, but the additional cost is pretty marginal in the scheme of things.

 

[D365]

You'd have to go back to the drawing board with an all new scheme to do much else - and that will require a boatload more political capital. And if you started from scratch, as I've said before, I'm not sure you'd build the Eastern leg anyway.

17tph is far more than enough to serve all WCML destinations, no?

 

[Bald Rick]

Really? No extra cost for cemented (unadjustable) ballast, or the prices that the contractors quote because they have to guarantee it for a long time?

That’s not a factor for speed. Plenty of railways around the world at 200mph with regular ballasted track.

 

[Chester1]

17tph is far more than enough to serve all WCML destinations, no?

I think its:

To / from London:

3tph Birmingham
3tph Manchester
1tph Liverpool
1tph Preston
1tph Stoke
1tph Edinburgh/Glasgow

To / from Birmingham:

1tph Manchester
1tph Liverpool

Liverpool, Preston and Stoke will be single units so could split and join.

That is a maximum of 12tph north of Birmingham to Crewe. 10tph south of Birmingham. NPR would add Leeds - Birmingham.

Without the spur to East Midlands Parkway the line will be a waste of capacity.

 

[The Planner]

I think its:

To / from London:

3tph Birmingham
3tph Manchester
1tph Liverpool
1tph Preston
1tph Stoke
1tph Edinburgh/Glasgow

To / from Birmingham:

1tph Manchester
1tph Liverpool

Liverpool, Preston and Stoke will be single units so could split and join.

That is a maximum of 12tph north of Birmingham to Crewe. 10tph south of Birmingham. NPR would add Leeds - Birmingham.

Without the spur to East Midlands Parkway the line will be a waste of capacity.

Replace Preston with Lancaster and Stoke with Macclesfield.

 

[Xavi]

That’s not a factor for speed. Plenty of railways around the world at 200mph with regular ballasted track.

Additional construction costs for slab track are negligible, though there are considerable whole-life cost savings with minimal maintenance.

 

[D365]

… That is a maximum of 12tph north of Birmingham to Crewe. 10tph south of Birmingham. NPR would add Leeds - Birmingham.

Without the spur to East Midlands Parkway the line will be a waste of capacity.

Exactly my thoughts. Even if it’s not the ’final’ solution, the EMD spur (platform extensions notwithstanding) is a quick win for the East Midlands.

 

[AL1]

I thought Liverpool was 2 tph. One train was a split with a Lancaster service at Crewe?

 

[HSTEd]

17tph is far more than enough to serve all WCML destinations, no?

Yes, but with NPR to Marsden I am far from convinced going to Leeds via Nottingham is the best option.

The line from Manchester to Marsden will never be full with TPE traffic and it gets you within 25 miles of Leeds.

 

[SynthD]

17tph is far more than enough to serve all WCML destinations, no?

Is that destinations currently reached by direct WCML services, or all destinations that could be reached through the WCML? There are threads about North Wales, one about a high speed service to a port for the ferry to Ireland.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I thought Liverpool was 2 tph. One train was a split with a Lancaster service at Crewe?

Yes, 2 to Liverpool, and yes, one is the north WCML stopper, which has been cited as either Preston or Lancaster depending who you ask, though I personally would go for Carlisle.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, 2 to Liverpool, and yes, one is the north WCML stopper, which has been cited as either Preston or Lancaster depending who you ask, though I personally would go for Carlisle.

Lancaster is where it is expected to end up as it wasn't wanted hanging around in Preston clogging up a platform in dead time. Though once any costs of sorting Lancaster out to deal with it are looked at, it will probably end back up at Preston. And before any suggestions of it shunting out the way, Preston will be looked at with a rationalisation hat on soon enough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Lancaster is where it is expected to end up as it wasn't wanted hanging around in Preston clogging up a platform in dead time. Though once any costs of sorting Lancaster out to deal with it are looked at, it will probably end back up at Preston. And before any suggestions of it shunting out the way, Preston will be looked at with a rationalisation hat on soon enough.

There is also fairly large uproar about the potential of Lancaster losing its London service entirely, other than possibly a very slow one via Birmingham. It's not a big place, but has a lot of students, many of whom are from the South East, and the London services are always well used there.

With regard to Preston, at almost any given time either P5 or P6 is unused, often both, and P7 is totally disused and could be reinstated and extended slightly (there appears to be room either or both ways), so that's an easy one to deal with. Unless the rationalisation would be looking to remove the nuisance south end bays which would probably mean the Ormskirk and Colne needing one or the other to reverse in.

What would need sorting at Lancaster? P5 could be extended pretty cheaply to stick it in, there is space to the south. In fact it would probably already fit a 200m unit, the northern end is the same length as 4 which fits a 265m Pendolino while the missing bit at the south end isn't 65m long.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think its:

To / from London:

3tph Birmingham
3tph Manchester
1tph Liverpool
1tph Preston
1tph Stoke
1tph Edinburgh/Glasgow

To / from Birmingham:

1tph Manchester
1tph Liverpool

Liverpool, Preston and Stoke will be single units so could split and join.

That is a maximum of 12tph north of Birmingham to Crewe. 10tph south of Birmingham. NPR would add Leeds - Birmingham.

Without the spur to East Midlands Parkway the line will be a waste of capacity.

I would hope that Scotland quite quickly goes 2tph due to attracting air passengers.

Yes, but with NPR to Marsden I am far from convinced going to Leeds via Nottingham is the best option.

The line from Manchester to Marsden will never be full with TPE traffic and it gets you within 25 miles of Leeds.

It makes sense to me to build High Speed between Manchester and Leeds (or as much as possible) as an extension of HS2 to Manchester. The need for an Eastern leg from near Birmingham is unlikely to gain much * and will not be needed until HS2 Birmingham - Northwards is full. And then it will be a case of a new High Speed line starting back from London. So all a LONG way off.

*= The likes of Derby and Sheffield might lose out but I think Leeds Northwards will be the main traffic generator.