HS2 phase 2 cancellation : what could/should happen now?

[The Planner]

Fair cop, those are technically the enabling works, carrying the track into the station and providing the slab for the main station to be built on. The main station construction has not started yet. Realistically, either way, it’s too late to substantially change it now.

Interesting view of enabling works!

 

[Peter Sarf]

Being an optimist, this government will hopefully be gone in a year. What are the odds that a Network Rail, under a Labour government, when faced with the issues presented by Handsacre, present to the DFT a proposal for fixing the worst bottlenecks around Colwich in order to enable more trains to run off HS2 Handsacre, and given the high BCR of this, it is approved?

Also, unless the government actively repeal the hybrid bill for phase 2a, it remains on the statue books and the land acquisition powers remain until 2026. Therefore, this part of HS2 Phase 2 could be relatively easily be re-instated. Given the much lower cost of 2a versus 2b, I'm still cautiously optimistic for the medium term.

Well I will stay optimistic then.

I feel that it is fairly high odds, there's no reason Labour would continue with these rogue, unworkable plans. The remaining phases of HS2 all have good BCRs, so once you have built the hardest and most expensive part, there's no reason why you wouldn't continue, especially since the remaining phases of HS2 are popular.

You will have to pay for new contracts, buy back the land, maybe Phase 2a would need royal assent again, but that should be relatively easy. All of that would have to happen for *any* future infrastructure project anyway, unless they aren't planning on building new infrastructure, completing HS2 will be a preferable option.

There's still a chance that the repeal of HS2 phase 2a doesn't pass the vote as well.

Yes, good example is phase 2a which is an easy win to improve on phase 1. Lets face it there must have been a reason for dividing phase 2 into 2a and 2b. But then again that is water under the bridge now. Judging by what is left and the persuasion required to keep Euston it feels like we should be thankful that HS2 was not just abandoned.

Will the legal treacle that slowed down HS2 help slow down any decay in the plans and aspirations.

I do feel as though a Labour government has little to offer as they are not really nailing their colours to the mast. It feels like a grim time politically regardless of the railways. Out in the big wide world there are two wars going on and China must be more tempted tan usual by taking Taiwan. Does any administration have time and money for a railway ?.

EDIT :-

---

Questions

Re Slab track vs Ballast :-
How much cheaper (%) is Ballasted track compared to Slab track ?.
How easy and how far into the future would the ballast be eligible for replacing with slab ?.

Speeds :-
How much (%) is saved by reducing speed to to 320km/h ?.
How easy to upgrade in the future ?.
I am thing Overhead Line Equipment but what other factors (tunnel size - don't go there !).

 

[HSTEd]

How easy and how far into the future would the ballast be eligible for replacing with slab ?.

It will be essentially impossible to replace without a prolonged closure or a decade or two of massive disruption.
If ballasted track is ordered that will be that, although I doubt the tunnel designs would tolerate the addition of ballast given how value engineered they are in cross section terms.

How much (%) is saved by reducing speed to to 320km/h ?.

At this point? Nothing.
The infrastructure is already committed. The relevant design choices were made years ago and any savings from selecting a different route or equipmen will be wiped out by the redesign cost.

How easy to upgrade in the future ?.

As easy as any other main line, which means not easy at all.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Re Slab track vs Ballast :-
How much cheaper (%) is Ballasted track compared to Slab track ?.
How easy and how far into the future would the ballast be eligible for replacing with slab ?.

For the spec required for new high speed lines, construction cost of slab is about twice the cost of ballasted track.

Whole life cost can be cheaper for slab. Ballast requires more maintenance (tamping) and it will need renewal after 15-20 years. The program for renewals on HS1, which is ballasted, is already underway. The factors which govern the choice between ballasted and slab track are i) speed and ii) gross annual tonnage. The lower annual tonnage, with fewer and shorter trains than originally planned, and potentially a lower speed on HS2, could tilt the decision back towards ballasted track.

There's no good argument that I can envisage for installing ballasted track with a view to replacing it with slab at a future date. Even with precast panels it would require extensive closures of the line. If slab is the best choice you should do it when you have a construction site, not a live railway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It will be essentially impossible to replace without a prolonged closure or a decade or two of massive disruption.
If ballasted track is ordered that will be that, although I doubt the tunnel designs would tolerate the addition of ballast given how value engineered they are in cross section terms.


At this point? Nothing.
The infrastructure is already committed. The relevant design choices were made years ago and any savings from selecting a different route or equipmen will be wiped out by the redesign cost.


As easy as any other main line, which means not easy at all.

+

For the spec required for new high speed lines, construction cost of slab is about twice the cost of ballasted track.

Whole life cost can be cheaper for slab. Ballast requires more maintenance (tamping) and it will need renewal after 15-20 years. The program for renewals on HS1, which is ballasted, is already underway. The factors which govern the choice between ballasted and slab track are i) speed and ii) gross annual tonnage. The lower annual tonnage, with fewer and shorter trains than originally planned, and potentially a lower speed on HS2, could tilt the decision back towards ballasted track.

There's no good argument that I can envisage for installing ballasted track with a view to replacing it with slab at a future date. Even with precast panels it would require extensive closures of the line. If slab is the best choice you should do it when you have a construction site, not a live railway.

Thankyou for those replies. So as I thought it is simply these are not something that could be a save now and pay a bit more later when demand dictates it scenario. More or less need to get it done at the start otherwise it is impossible disruption and/or cost later.

 

[philosopher]

Is there any realistic prospect of the windier and steeper gradient sections of the WCML north of Oxenholme being bypassed, such as new alignments or tunnels around Shap and Beattock. If these were built it should allow HS2 trains to travel at faster speeds (e.g 155 mph) on these new alignments, reducing travel times between England and Scotland. In addition it would increase capacity as freight trains would no longer be slowed down by having to climb up steep gradients.

 

[snowball]

Is there any realistic prospect of the windier and steeper gradient sections of the WCML north of Oxenholme being bypassed, such as new alignments or tunnels around Shap and Beattock. If these were built it should allow HS2 trains to travel at faster speeds (e.g 155 mph) on these new alignments, reducing travel times between England and Scotland. In addition it would increase capacity as freight trains would no longer be slowed down by having to climb up steep gradients.

This was talked about a lot 5-10 years ago but the financial position has got worse since then. If it were to come up again then I imagine it will be a considerable number of years before work could start on the ground. It would probably have to compete for funds with projects in more populous areas, made necessary by the dropping of most of HS2.

 

[philosopher]

This was talked about a lot 5-10 years ago but the financial position has got worse since then. If it were to come up again then I imagine it will be a considerable number of years before work could start on the ground. It would probably have to compete for funds with projects in more populous areas, made necessary by the dropping of most of HS2.

I too remember this sort of thing being discussed a few years ago, hence why I bought up. Given the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2, it seems like an alternative measure that still results in a meaningful reduction in England to Scotland travel times after HS2 opens, hence could it be looked at again.

While tunnelling is expensive, it does not require too much land take and and is likely to occur much less opposition than any new surface routes.

 

[chris2]

There's still a chance that the repeal of HS2 phase 2a doesn't pass the vote as well.

Is there to be a vote on this? Previous posters on this issue have stated that basically the govt doesn’t have to repeal the hybrid bill in order to not build Phase 2A. They needed legislation to build it, but the legislation doesn’t compel them to do so. They can just not do it.

However this conversation was before the government announced its intention to sell the safeguarded land.

So perhaps the bill does need repealing in order to do this? Or at least, in order to do this in advance of the timescales in the legislation (I’ve heard 2026 mentioned in relation to this).

Anyone got any insight?

 

[JonathanH]

Given the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2, it seems like an alternative measure that still results in a meaningful reduction in England to Scotland travel times after HS2 opens, hence could it be looked at again.

If there isn't money to pay for lines where there are six, maybe seven, trains an hour, the prospects for one which would be useful for two trains an hour aren't great.

Unfortunately it has been deemed that this sort of infrastructure spending is unaffordable no matter where it is.

 

[snowball]

Is there to be a vote on this? Previous posters on this issue have stated that basically the govt doesn’t have to repeal the hybrid bill in order to not build Phase 2A. They needed legislation to build it, but the legislation doesn’t compel them to do so. They can just not do it.

However this conversation was before the government announced its intention to sell the safeguarded land.

So perhaps the bill does need repealing in order to do this? Or at least, in order to do this in advance of the timescales in the legislation (I’ve heard 2026 mentioned in relation to this).

Anyone got any insight?

I think the suggestion is that the government can sell off the land, but if they don't first repeal the Act, they will get worse prices for it, because buyers may fear a future government might revive the project.

 

[Krokodil]

If there isn't money to pay for lines where there are six, maybe seven, trains an hour, the prospects for one which would be useful for two trains an hour aren't great.

Unfortunately it has been deemed that this sort of infrastructure spending is unaffordable no matter where it is.

If we were Swiss we'd have built the aforementioned Shap Base Tunnel years ago.

But we're not Swiss and struggle to build so much as a short branch line.

 

[Matt P]

Is there any realistic prospect of the windier and steeper gradient sections of the WCML north of Oxenholme being bypassed, such as new alignments or tunnels around Shap and Beattock. If these were built it should allow HS2 trains to travel at faster speeds (e.g 155 mph) on these new alignments, reducing travel times between England and Scotland. In addition it would increase capacity as freight trains would no longer be slowed down by having to climb up steep gradients.

Build new lines, even cut offs of sections of existing lines have no prospect of happening for a long time. HS2 has poisoned the well for a generation.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Is there any realistic prospect of the windier and steeper gradient sections of the WCML north of Oxenholme being bypassed, such as new alignments or tunnels around Shap and Beattock. If these were built it should allow HS2 trains to travel at faster speeds (e.g 155 mph) on these new alignments, reducing travel times between England and Scotland. In addition it would increase capacity as freight trains would no longer be slowed down by having to climb up steep gradients.

Unlikely as the first parts of the West Coast Mainline to be replaced or even improved are always going to be at the busier end. That way more trains and people benefit. The improvements to that busier end will include improving things for those at the non busy end assuming a lot of them travel to the extreme other (busy end). If we cannot even get as far as Manchester let alone Leeds then forget about as far as Glasgow and Edinburgh !.

I too remember this sort of thing being discussed a few years ago, hence why I bought up. Given the cancellation of phase 2 of HS2, it seems like an alternative measure that still results in a meaningful reduction in England to Scotland travel times after HS2 opens, hence could it be looked at again.

While tunnelling is expensive, it does not require too much land take and and is likely to occur much less opposition than any new surface routes.

I think all of HS2s tunnelling is through clay and/or chalk and that has got to be a lot easier than tunnelling through harder stuff like granite.

If there isn't money to pay for lines where there are six, maybe seven, trains an hour, the prospects for one which would be useful for two trains an hour aren't great.

Unfortunately it has been deemed that this sort of infrastructure spending is unaffordable no matter where it is.

Agree. It is in future going to be harder than it ever was before.

If we were Swiss we'd have built the aforementioned Shap Base Tunnel years ago.

But we're not Swiss and struggle to build so much as a short branch line.

Thing about the Swiss is the bits improved are arguably in the middle of routes that are possible busiest in that middle. Surely a lot more freight and passengers than the Norther reaches of the West Coast Main Line.

Build new lines, even cut offs of sections of existing lines have no prospect of happening for a long time. HS2 has poisoned the well for a generation.

Afraid so. We are going to see the expertise and experience thrown away so we will not even benefit from the currently built up experience. It is rather similar to the lack of a rolling program of electrification that afflicts the UK over and over again.

My only hope for the future is that phase 2a gets resurrected in time to use the experienced people we currently have.

I think it more likely we will be reduced to smaller piecemeal improvements of existing routes. Costing more in total than one single replacement route but more palatable to the decision makers.

If I can be ambitious then as one project finishes then another project is ready to exploit the equipment and experience built up.

However in the UK technical experience at any level is not considered a valuable asset.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The chairman of the Transport Select Committee Ian Stewart challenged Harper earlier when he made his statement over HS2 to HoC.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...911349BDB0/Zero-EmissionVehiclesDriversAndHS2

Today, however, let me focus on one issue regarding HS2. One advantage of the project was that it would release capacity on the west coast main line, not just between London and Birmingham, but right up the line. As it is stopping at Handsacre junction, there will be a severe capacity constraint on that part of the line; there will not be space for extra inter-regional services and freight services. The high-speed trains will be in a very congested part of the network, unless further upgrade work is done. I urge him to look at that capacity constraint; if HS2 is not happening on that part of the project, what additional measures might be put in place?

Didn't reall expect Harper to have an answer but this was it

On his specific question, the first thing we have committed to doing is invest in remodelling Handsacre junction, so that those high-speed trains that go to Birmingham then get on to the west coast main line on the fast lines. The most congested part of the west coast main line is its southern part, which of course is having a significant capacity upgrade. However, I note carefully what he said and will bear that in mind. He should also note that we are investing in the upgraded connections east-west in the north of England, including from Liverpool to Manchester. One conversations I have already had was about the importance of making sure we are able to take freight traffic, including from the Port of Liverpool, and those are conversations we will take forward.

Is this a change of plan for Handsacre?

 

[Peter Sarf]

The chairman of the Transport Select Committee Ian Stewart challenged Harper earlier when he made his statement over HS2 to HoC.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...911349BDB0/Zero-EmissionVehiclesDriversAndHS2


Didn't reall expect Harper to have an answer but this was it


Is this a change of plan for Handsacre?

Does this make sense ?.
", the first thing we have committed to doing is invest in remodelling Handsacre junction, so that those high-speed trains that go to Birmingham then get on to the west coast main line on the fast lines. "

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Does this make sense ?

It says the junction at Handsacre will be redesigned to connect HS2 trains directly to/from the WCML fast lines. It was to have been the slow lines.

As far as it goes, that's a sensible redesign. However, having that answer ready neatly swerved dealing with the point about capacity.

 

[Krokodil]

Surely a lot more freight and passengers than the Norther reaches of the West Coast Main Line.

No, not really. The Gotthard Base Tunnel sees more or less the same number of trains as the number that pass over Shap, though there's a far greater proportion of freight. The Gotthard Base Tunnel has spare capacity so the number of trains reflects the true demand for the route. Shap on the other hand has virtually no spare capacity so there's plenty of potential for growth.

Not that a complete new alignment (let alone a base tunnel) is really needed for the northern WCML. It's easier to quadruple than a line in a built-up area (apart from the fact that some of the route was four-track in the past so the formation already exists), so you would just need to cut out a few of the corners. These corners will have been built by the Victorians for the benefit of steam locomotives that can't manage gradients as well as a modern electric train can so need a longer run. LGVs are built with much steeper gradients so the new fast lines can go more or less straight up the hill, rather than around it.

 

[Energy]

The chairman of the Transport Select Committee Ian Stewart challenged Harper earlier when he made his statement over HS2 to HoC.

Definitely an interesting read...

Mark Harper To help my right hon. Friend, phase 2a safeguarding will be formally lifted within weeks.

To remove the compulsory purchase rights they'd have to go through parliament.

The rest of the document is a standard PR spin.

Is this a change of plan for Handsacre?

I'm not really sure, I presumed Handsacre went to the fast lines already. Remodeling it would be rather impressive when Handsacre hasn't been built yet.

 

[Peter Sarf]

It says the junction at Handsacre will be redesigned to connect HS2 trains directly to/from the WCML fast lines. It was to have been the slow lines.

As far as it goes, that's a sensible redesign. However, having that answer ready neatly swerved dealing with the point about capacity.

Thinking about it more is the answer referring to high speed trains between Birmingham and the North of Birmingham - if so how many are there expected to be ?.
And does this not improve the lot of HS trains from London as well ?.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Thinking about it more is the answer referring to high speed trains between Birmingham and the North of Birmingham

No. When the minister says "Birmingham", he's being geographically imprecise. He's referring to HS2 trains which will originate at Euston, call at Birmingham Interchange, then head for the WCML at Handsacre.

 

[snowball]

It's easier to quadruple than a line in a built-up area, so you would just need to cut out a few of the corners. These corners will have been built by the Victorians for the benefit of steam locomotives that can't manage gradients as well as a modern electric train can so need a longer run. LGVs are built with much steeper gradients so the new fast lines can go more or less straight up the hill, rather than around it.

There's the small matter of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks, and probably other such landscape and nature designations. On one stretch the railway and M6 run through a very narrow corridor between the two parks for several miles.

I presumed Handsacre went to the fast lines already. Remodeling it would be rather impressive when Handsacre hasn't been built yet.

I can't rememeber which tracks are which on the TV line near Handsacre, but the link from HS2 was originally planned to go into the middle, and then altered to save money by connecting with the outer tracks. So maybe now it's being altered back?

 

[Krokodil]

There's the small matter of the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales national parks, and probably other such landscape and nature designations. On one stretch the railway and M6 run through a very narrow corridor between the two parks for several miles.

That's the wiggly bit you'd most want to avoid, as the railway skirts around Bretherdale Head. Tunnelling through that section is probably the easiest approach, at its narrowest it's only around 7.5km.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I can't rememeber which tracks are which on the TV line near Handsacre, but the link from HS2 was originally planned to go into the middle, and then altered to save money by connecting with the outer tracks. So maybe now it's being altered back?

The fast lines are in the middle. I guess altered to cheaper option when phase 2a was intended to be hard on the heels of phase 1. Now that's not happening, altered back.

 

[The Planner]

The chairman of the Transport Select Committee Ian Stewart challenged Harper earlier when he made his statement over HS2 to HoC.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commo...911349BDB0/Zero-EmissionVehiclesDriversAndHS2


Didn't reall expect Harper to have an answer but this was it


Is this a change of plan for Handsacre?

Its going back to the original, more expensive, design which need the up lines slewing across.

 

[Greybeard33]

Its going back to the original, more expensive, design which need the up lines slewing across.

I have a bad feeling about this redesign of Handsacre Junction. It will simplify timetable planning and might slightly increase the overall capacity of the Trent Valley line north of Handsacre. On the other hand, there is no commitment to do anything about the pinch points of the flat Colwich Junction and the 2-track Shugborough tunnel, which will continue to constrain WCML capacity beyond Rugeley. And the Handsacre redesign will undoubtedly increase the cost of the junction and the WCML disruption during construction. The redesign and replanning of construction will further delay opening of the junction, which in itself will further increase costs and postpone benefits. The cost saving, relative to completing Phase 2a as designed, will therefore be reduced.

I fear that a future government, faced with escalating costs in a couple of years time, might be tempted to cancel the Handsacre Link completely, leaving HS2 as just London - Curzon Street as Sunak originally wanted.

 

[The Planner]

I have a bad feeling about this redesign of Handsacre Junction. It will simplify timetable planning and might slightly increase the overall capacity of the Trent Valley line north of Handsacre. On the other hand, there is no commitment to do anything about the pinch points of the flat Colwich Junction and the 2-track Shugborough tunnel, which will continue to constrain WCML capacity beyond Rugeley. And the Handsacre redesign will undoubtedly increase the cost of the junction and the WCML disruption during construction. The redesign and replanning of construction will further delay opening of the junction, which in itself will further increase costs and postpone benefits. The cost saving, relative to completing Phase 2a as designed, will therefore be reduced.

I fear that a future government, faced with escalating costs in a couple of years time, might be tempted to cancel the Handsacre Link completely, leaving HS2 as just London - Curzon Street as Sunak originally wanted.

It won't add monumental costs to it, as they will already have had a previous cost assumption on the hybrid bill design. The benefits aren't massive in my opinion, likely just moves pathing time approaching Handsacre to Colwich instead.

 

[Snow1964]

The BBC is reporting the Government big projects advisor is saying should be 3 year pause before land sale

The government should pause its sale of land acquired for phase 2 of HS2 for up to three years, its independent adviser on infrastructure has told BBC News.
Sir John Armitt warned there was a "real risk" that its plans would make rail travel between Birmingham and Manchester "even more congested".
Rishi Sunak recently announced he was axing the HS2 link to Manchester and selling off properties purchased.
The government said it was delivering "transport that matters most".
The opposition has accused the government of "salting the earth" and "sabotage" of a project that had enjoyed a decade-and-a-half of cross-party support.

• The facts have changed, says PM, as he scraps HS2 leg
• Labour attacks 'back of fag packet' transport plan

In its recent announcement on HS2, the government revealed a plan to quickly sell off properties that had been purchased to make way for the extended line.
Sir John, who is the chair of the National Infrastructure Commission, said that the decision to sell property was a "mistake" and that options should be kept open.
"I think it's a mistake. I think that the land should be kept for at least two or three years to give the opportunity for people to revisit that and look at what can be done within that space and find a more cost-effective solution, not write it off today," he said.
"I am disappointed because I think it's what we often describe as a sort of knee-jerk, snap reaction."
He urged the government to "pause" on that and have "a proper consideration about how best we can connect Birmingham and Manchester and give us that improved capacity that we still need".
Specifically, Sir John said that a full evaluation of the government's proposal - known as Network North - to spend the funding on a range of alternative local projects should be made, as the government no longer had a proper integrated rail plan.
"We had an integrated plan a few weeks ago, we've now lost that. There are a number of projects, some of which already existed, some new ones. Let's get those properly turned into a well-thought-through, integrated plan for the future," he said.
Earlier this month, the Department for Transport permanent secretary wrote to MPs saying that the benefit-cost ratio of HS2 was now "significantly below" one.
This means the £45bn plus of public money spent on Pphase 1 will generate significantly less in economic benefits. It will effectively lose money for every pound spent.
There is no way that the project as it has now crystallised, a stump of a line between London and Birmingham, would have been commissioned.
The project has delivered the most expensive bits - tunnels and viaducts in straight lines through parts of London and the South - and failed to deliver the actual benefits, of extra capacity and connections to and within the North.

Pause HS2 land sale, says government big projects adviser

Sir John Armitt tells the BBC the decision to sell the property is a "mistake".

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Matt P]

The BBC is reporting the Government big projects advisor is saying should be 3 year pause before land sale

Pause HS2 land sale, says government big projects adviser

Sir John Armitt tells the BBC the decision to sell the property is a "mistake".

www.bbc.co.uk

It would certainly be the sensible approach. However with an election on the horizon I suspect the government will pursue its fire sale though. This is very much this government's 1966 Defence Paper and HS2 its CVA01 or TSR2.

 

[AndrewE]

It must be a scorched earth policy - to stop the next government getting credit for doing something that was obviously necessary.

It's a pity that Armitt still leads on the need for more passenger capacity between Bham and Manc, when the real driver that should be highlighted is the extra freight capacity between the south and the north, and the conversion to a much higher proportion of electric haulage. He did mention the freight capacity on the radio this morning, but only as an afterthought , and I think didn't mention decarbonisation [of transport] at all.