HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[Peter Sarf]

Has this ever happened before, could be unprecedented.

Like I said they would have to sell it at a discount to get any takers, but that would be such blatant politicking that they probably won’t try and pull that stunt.

I remember the estate where I lived as a child. After I moved to the smoke a number of houses by the M2 were bought up as the M2 was being widened and HS1 was going in some distance away on the other side. No houses were demolished. It was a nice estate and when the development was finished most residents rushed to buy said houses for their children. Some bargain houses went to people who, shall we say, did not appreciate the niceties of the estate. So I wonder if the same sort of thing will happen - cash buyers ?.

EDIT :-

Brainstorming/Question. Is this North Wales coast electrification ironic as South Wales is not getting electrified all the way to Swansea ?. Just because South Wales is not associated with HS2 ?. Is it a sensible move to use up Pendolinos that could be replaced by new 250mph trains for London to Curzon Street ?. Is the North Wales electrification an indication of a genuine desire to keep a rolling program of electrification going ?.

 

[greyman42]

They can try and sell them, but who is going to buy it when the government has compulsory powers still?

You can sell just about any property/land providing the price is right.

 

[The Planner]

Manchester and the North West has lost a future main line which would have provided relief and capacity to existing main line services.

In my opinion, to partially offset this, Manchester's other main line to London via Bakewell should be reopened and the entire Midland main line electrified and upgraded.

Which would cost as much as Phase 2a and part of b.

 

[Peter Sarf]

You can sell just about any property/land providing the price is right.

Could be bought very cheaply by investors hoping for the property to be bought later at a higher price when HS2 is back on !.

 

[Arkeeos]

Which would cost as much as Phase 2a and part of b.

Also imagine the vote loser that destroying the monsal trail would be.

 

[yorksrob]

I like that. With the trains from St Pancras ending at the very place (lovely roof) where Rishi let us know trains are out of fashion.

That would be nice

Which would cost as much as Phase 2a and part of b.

Well, what remains of the Midland Mainline will be around for a while yet, so you could reopen the closed section first, then upgrade and electrify the rest bit by bit (given it will need renewal/modernisation at some stage anyway).

 

[Meerkat]

Are CPO powers in the Act and only Parliament can revoke them, or could the government just cancel them?

 

[TheBigD]

Manchester and the North West has lost a future main line which would have provided relief and capacity to existing main line services.

In my opinion, to partially offset this, Manchester's other main line to London via Bakewell should be reopened and the entire Midland main line electrified and upgraded.

And where are you putting these trains once you get to St Pancras?
St Pancras' 4 MML platforms are already full with the current 6tph EMR service.

 

[Winthorpe]

To be fair, I don't think such changes originate from the PM. The reality of such projects is as the analysis stage progresses decision points will be reached, where you have to pick 'A', 'B' or 'C' (sometimes many more options as well). In reality most of the changes get driven from another piece of analysis being completed, which then triggers the next set of decisions which need to be made. Yes, some of that decision making is done with a political view overlaying it, but politicians, and PMs especially, don't spend every working day looking at the detail of a huge project like HS2 - instead they'll be presented with options from which a decision needs to be taken (along with a indicative costs and benefits.)

For ‘PM’ insert ‘government’.

 

[yorksrob]

And where are you putting these trains once you get to St Pancras?
St Pancras' 4 MML platforms are already full with the current 6tph EMR service.

I'd reconfigure platform 5 for MML services. The international section is half empty all the time.

 

[Arkeeos]

Is the North Wales electrification an indication of a genuine desire to keep a rolling program of electrification going ?.

It is a genuine desire to divide wales for political gain, north wales electrification will not happen under network north, not least because of all the 1bn cost they cite in the document is fiction, as per the Welsh transport minister.

 

[JonathanH]

It is a genuine desire to divide wales for political gain, north wales electrification will not happen under network north, not least because of all the 1bn cost they cite in the document is fiction, as per the Welsh transport minister.

No, it was just the first project they thought of when someone raised the issue of Barnett consequential funding.

 

[Peter Sarf]

No, it was just the first project they thought of when someone raised the issue of Barnett consequential funding.

So simples then !. Is North Wales shovel ready or capable of that when the electrification teams finish the MML ?.

 

[Meerkat]

Does it count for Barnett (as being on line to North Wales) if the electrify Chester to Runcorn, Warrington, and Crewe then run out of money?
That would still be a gain that shouldn’t be dismissed.

 

[yorksrob]

Well, one of the things that should have been announced was a rolling electrification programme,building up the carbon reductions in the network over time, however that would require strategic thought

 

[HSTEd]

A "rolling programme" won't deliver carbon emissions reductions in time to matter.

It is either done in the next 15 years or it won't matter either way.

Nevermind that Network Rail has repeatedly failed to deliver electrification at sustainable costs, despite being given literally billions of pounds by the taxpayer to do so.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Well, one of the things that should have been announced was a rolling electrification programme,building up the carbon reductions in the network over time, however that would require strategic thought

Yes I missed the rolling program of electrification announcement. I have been searching for clues. I put it down to car being king sadly !.

 

[yorksrob]

A "rolling programme" won't deliver carbon emissions reductions in time to matter.

It is either done in the next 15 years or it won't matter either way.

Nevermind that Network Rail has repeatedly failed to deliver electrification at sustainable costs, despite being given literally billions of pounds by the taxpayer to do so.

A rolling programme would get and keep the expertise and infrastructure in place, should a future government decide to step up the pace.

Better to start from somewhere than nowhere.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Oct 2023 ==

Yes I missed the rolling program of electrification announcement. I have been searching for clues. I put it down to car being king sadly !.

I very much believe that you are correct.

 

[21C101]

Whatever else they do they will have to do something about the two track section from Colwich to Stafford and Colwich grade separation sharpish, given that six tracks from London will converge on Colwich.

When the dust settles they might have to reverse ferret on section 2a or at least build half of it to get beyond Stafford.

However I think a new line leaving the existing one just south of Colwich and rejoining it just north of Norton Bridge with grade separation at both ends would be more useful.

As would a Crewe avoiding line feeding towards Wilmslow and Warrington at the north end, given the poor (passenger) grade separation at Crewe.

Slade Lane Grade Separtion would sort most of the capacity issues at Manchester in the London direction.

 

[MTR380A]

What I do not quite understand is why the government didn't learn from Japan or Hong Kong, which sell the rights to develop around stations and fund the rail construction with the proceeds. In Hong Kong, for example, the high speed rail line including 26km TBM tunnel costs around £8bn, but the development rights on top of the station returns £4bn. If you make the development zones around stations slightly larger, then HS2 can probably pay for itself.

 

[HSTEd]

What I do not quite understand is why the government didn't learn from Japan or Hong Kong, which sell the rights to develop around stations and fund the rail construction with the proceeds. In Hong Kong, for example, the high speed rail line including 26km TBM tunnel costs around £8bn, but the development rights on top of the station returns £4bn. If you make the development zones around stations slightly larger, then HS2 can probably pay for itself.

Development zones like that are an anathema in British politics though.

That would necessitate another, even worse, fight with the anti-development lobby.
They won't like it when a bunch of buildings the size of the Shard (appear) on and around the station complex.

 

[yorksrob]

Development zones like that are an anathema in British politics though.

That would necessitate another, even worse, fight with the anti-development lobby.
They won't like it when a bunch of buildings the size of the Shard on and around the station complex.

It might be doable somewhere like Euston, where even most of the 1960's station was built with overhead development in mind. Curzon Street is also largely a blank sheet, except the original building

 

[The Ham]

Development zones like that are an anathema in British politics though.

That would necessitate another, even worse, fight with the anti-development lobby.
They won't like it when a bunch of buildings the size of the Shard on and around the station complex.

Maybe not, but with the current plan to need to get around £10bn from Euston (about £9bn for the initial budget cost of Euston +£6.5bn through to about £11bn for the near £5bn Euston +£6.5bn) that's what they may end up with anyway.

I'm not sure that those who opposes development have quite realised this could what they end up with - yet.

Euston generating £10bn of a (say) £60bn phase one scheme (allowing some uplift for inflation) would put a sizable dent in the construction costs paid for by the government (which in turn would significantly reduce the interest payments).

 

[Nottingham59]

What I do not quite understand is why the government didn't learn from Japan or Hong Kong, which sell the rights to develop around stations and fund the rail construction with the proceeds. In Hong Kong, for example, the high speed rail line including 26km TBM tunnel costs around £8bn, but the development rights on top of the station returns £4bn. If you make the development zones around stations slightly larger, then HS2 can probably pay for itself.

That's effectively now done, by handing over those air rights to private developers.

It only appears to save money because, as I understand it, the Treasury wouldn't let HS2 Ltd recognise those development rights over the station footprint, because they were "not sufficiently certain".

I now fully expect to see Sunak override objections from local councils trying to preserve lines of sight of St Paul's and Big Ben from Hampstead Heath etc., so that the chosen developers (who will be generous Tory party donors) can make more profit from the scheme.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c4/London_protected_views_map.svg

A major issue at Euston is the protected sight lines, which means that over site development is limited in height and location.

Both St Paul's and the Palace of Westminster. The sightlines to both pass over Euston, from Primrose Hill/Hampstead Heath. Wikipedia has a map

 

[The Planner]

Whatever else they do they will have to do something about the two track section from Colwich to Stafford and Colwich grade separation sharpish, given that six tracks from London will converge on Colwich.

When the dust settles they might have to reverse ferret on section 2a or at least build half of it to get beyond Stafford.

However I think a new line leaving the existing one just south of Colwich and rejoining it just north of Norton Bridge with grade separation at both ends would be more useful.

As would a Crewe avoiding line feeding towards Wilmslow and Warrington at the north end, given the poor (passenger) grade separation at Crewe.

Slade Lane Grade Separtion would sort most of the capacity issues at Manchester in the London direction.

2A would be massively more useful than digging up the Stafford bypass plans. The renewal plans for Crewe (now likely being put in the bin) didnt require that level of grade seperation.

 

[daodao]

2A would be have been massively more useful than digging up the Stafford bypass plans.

I agree, but edited as the scorched earth policy regarding HS2 phase 2a means that it is off the future agenda.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree, but edited as the scorched earth policy regarding HS2 phase 2a means that it is off the future agenda.

Restarting HS2 Phase 2A from scratch would still be better value that trying to persuade people to accept a Stafford bypass that is likely just as expensive for less gain.

It would be probably still be better to select an all new route for a high speed bypass of the area than try to proceed with the Stafford bypass.

 

[The Planner]

Restarting HS2 Phase 2A from scratch would still be better value that trying to persuade people to accept a Stafford bypass that is likely just as expensive for less gain.

It would be probably still be better to select an all new route for a high speed bypass of the area than try to proceed with the Stafford bypass.

2A sits on a chunk of the Stafford bypass as it is.

 

[Hey 3]

If Keir and Labour want to get back in power, they just need to commit to NPR and ALL of HS2, by which North and the Midlands will be pleased, and by Christmas 2024, Labour will be in power and hopefully shovels in the ground for Phase 2A. Rishi has dug a hole for himself which he has made it impossible to get out of due to a general election on the horizon.

 

[stephen rp]

First time on the forum since the announcement and I was looking for some serious commentary. The "network north" thread was wittering about electrifying the Settle and Carlisle and here people were wanting the money saved on HS2 in the North to go to adding village stations to HS2 in the Chilterns.

Serious questions.

1. Sunak said £12bn to build NPR as originally planned from Liverpool to Manchester. As he'd already gutted the original plan of new track from Liverpool to Leeds to just Warrington to Marsden he's a terrible liar, but does that include the tunnel under South Manchester that was in the HS2 budget? Plus crossing the Ship Canal, burrowing through the M6 embankment (or going over it)? (The station at Manchester Airport was already to be externally financed, supposedly). Hard to see a business case to spend £12bn on a new line for 20 miles with journey times from Liverpool to Manchester slower than via Chat Moss.

2. A new station for Bradford? Without its being on NPR? How on earth would that stack up? It was already cut from NPR by the Tories.

3. Is the Handacre connection still definitely included in Phase 1?

4. If so, when HS classic compatible trains get on the WCML will they be slower than Pendolinos because they don't tilt?