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

[30907]

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.

He doesn't use the word passenger, I imagine deliberately.
"Birmingham and Manchester" targets the cities that are particularly dischuffed and relates quite accurately to the bits that have been cancelled.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

Thanks for that, totally fooled me.

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.

Given the cost of Phase 2a is so low I would scrap the connection at Handsacre to pass funds to building Phase 2a (so to Crewe) thus avoiding the bottle necks at Shugborough tunnel, Colwhich junction and Stafford. A big gain for little cost. The connection(s) at Handsacre could be added a lot later if, when and how desired. The connection at Handsacre seems to cost about £1bn which is a third of Phase 2a aiui, thats how cheap phase 2a is.

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

Thank goodness - common sense. Oh wait, oh dear !.

 

[Energy]

Given the cost of Phase 2a is so low I would scrap the connection at Handsacre to pass funds to building Phase 2a (so to Crewe) thus avoiding the bottle necks at Shugborough tunnel, Colwhich junction and Stafford. A big gain for little cost. The connection(s) at Handsacre could be added a lot later if, when and how desired. The connection at Handsacre seems to cost about £1bn which is a third of Phase 2a aiui, thats how cheap phase 2a is.

Agreed. IIRC 2a is about £5bn, of which £1bn+ (think the count has grown to £1.25bn) has already been spent. Handsacre at £1bn (and likely to creep up as there are changes to get it onto the WCML fasts rather than the slows) puts binning Handsacre and going to Crewe at >£2.75bn.

Phases 2a and 1 were often bundled together as you'd have to be stupid to build only phase 1... oh wait.

I'm not really sure what Rishi was intending, 2a is cheap and 2b is far beyond his time as PM so really isn't his problem. He could have escaped the criticism by leaving HS2 as is and just sorting the private funding for Euston (which he was offered as Chancellor...). He can still deliver his broken promises under Network North as well!

Thanks for that, totally fooled me.

Confused me as well, I thought Birmingham trains meant the originally planned Manchester to Curzon Street trains.

 

[Snow1964]

Given the cost of Phase 2a is so low I would scrap the connection at Handsacre to pass funds to building Phase 2a (so to Crewe) thus avoiding the bottle necks at Shugborough tunnel, Colwhich junction and Stafford. A big gain for little cost. The connection(s) at Handsacre could be added a lot later if, when and how desired. The connection at Handsacre seems to cost about £1bn which is a third of Phase 2a aiui, thats how cheap phase 2a is.

Yes, stopping just before the 2 track bottleneck on current route is madness.

Seems rather similar to LGV Est, phase 1 which for a while was proposed to be end at Vandieres (where there are both northbound and southbound spurs to existing line), but would have made it slow to reach a route to continue east so they added the section to Baudrecourt, a phase 1 add-on

The cost / benefit of the continuation section to south of Crewe must be huge as a stand alone project (excluding phase1 which is being build anyway). Hopefully common sense will add most of phase 2a, even if going north of an area somewhere near Baldwins Gate is canned.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Yes, stopping just before the 2 track bottleneck on current route is madness.

Seems rather similar to LGV Est, phase 1 which for a while was proposed to be end at Vandieres (where there are both northbound and southbound spurs to existing line), but would have made it slow to reach a route to continue east so they added the section to Baudrecourt, a phase 1 add-on

The cost / benefit of the continuation section to south of Crewe must be huge as a stand alone project (excluding phase1 which is being build anyway). Hopefully common sense will add most of phase 2a, even if going north of an area somewhere near Baldwins Gate is canned.

The govt wanted to make a statement but once the detail is worked on im pretty sure we will see targeted improvements to Trent Valley to maximise capacity.

 

[AndrewE]

The govt wanted to make a statement but once the detail is worked on im pretty sure we will see targeted improvements to Trent Valley to maximise capacity.

How? Only 2 tracks at Shugborough, fed by trains emerging slowly from loops or slow lines either side... Maybe these "targeted improvements" (digital signalling?) will email freight trains from Lichfield to Stafford?

 

[Peter Sarf]

How? Only 2 tracks at Shugborough, fed by trains emerging slowly from loops or slow lines either side... Maybe these "targeted improvements" (digital signalling?) will email freight trains from Lichfield to Stafford?

WCML PUG 3 anybody, anybody, hello........

 

[The Planner]

The govt wanted to make a statement but once the detail is worked on im pretty sure we will see targeted improvements to Trent Valley to maximise capacity.

The only targeted improvement would be bypassing Colwich, which 2A did.

 

[Grumpy]

My fading recollection of the original HS2 business case was that the project was justified on the basis that
1. Passenger volumes will continue to grow at stations on the WCML ECML and Midland
2. Something will have to be done on these lines to cope with this growth
3. Building HS2 would solve the problems on these routes and would be cheaper/less disruptive than the necessary works to the existing lines
4. If you're building a totally new line you might as well make it suitable for high speed.

I realise that Covid and its aftermath have hit passenger volumes, but my understanding was that ECML carryings were back up to pre-Covid levels

I believe the "necessary" works to the ECML and claimed to be avoided in the business case included such as grade separation at Doncaster and a Welwyn avoiding line.

So the first question is have revised forecasts of future demand been made/published, how does this compare to the original case, and are we going to have the same problems on the ECML, albeit deferred, which will need action?
If yes then what works are being planned?
If yes but no works are considered necessary then why was Parliament told they were? And should there be some fraud prosecution of those who prepared/sponsored the original case?

 

[AndrewE]

My fading recollection of the original HS2 business case was that the project was justified on the basis that
1. Passenger volumes will continue to grow at stations on the WCML ECML and Midland
2. Something will have to be done on these lines to cope with this growth
3. Building HS2 would solve the problems on these routes and would be cheaper/less disruptive than the necessary works to the existing lines
4. If you're building a totally new line you might as well make it suitable for high speed.

I realise that Covid and its aftermath have hit passenger volumes, but my understanding was that ECML carryings were back up to pre-Covid levels

I believe the "necessary" works to the ECML and claimed to be avoided in the business case included such as grade separation at Doncaster and a Welwyn avoiding line.

So the first question is have revised forecasts of future demand been made/published, how does this compare to the original case, and are we going to have the same problems on the ECML, albeit deferred, which will need action?
If yes then what works are being planned?
If yes but no works are considered necessary then why was Parliament told they were? And should there be some fraud prosecution of those who prepared/sponsored the original case?

nothing about making more space for freight then?

 

[Peter Sarf]

My fading recollection of the original HS2 business case was that the project was justified on the basis that
1. Passenger volumes will continue to grow at stations on the WCML ECML and Midland
2. Something will have to be done on these lines to cope with this growth
3. Building HS2 would solve the problems on these routes and would be cheaper/less disruptive than the necessary works to the existing lines
4. If you're building a totally new line you might as well make it suitable for high speed.

I realise that Covid and its aftermath have hit passenger volumes, but my understanding was that ECML carryings were back up to pre-Covid levels

I believe the "necessary" works to the ECML and claimed to be avoided in the business case included such as grade separation at Doncaster and a Welwyn avoiding line.

So the first question is have revised forecasts of future demand been made/published, how does this compare to the original case, and are we going to have the same problems on the ECML, albeit deferred, which will need action?
If yes then what works are being planned?
If yes but no works are considered necessary then why was Parliament told they were? And should there be some fraud prosecution of those who prepared/sponsored the original case?

I fear nothing will be done because the UK is more broke than it was before Covid, we left the EU and the war over the other side of Europe.

 

[MPW]

WCML PUG 3 anybody, anybody, hello........

Ohh what's PUG 3?

 

[Energy]

Ohh what's PUG 3?

PUG 1 was WCML upgrade. PUG 2 would yave taken it up to 140mph, it never happened.

I doubt we'll see any WCML upgrades from this government. It's pretty clear that 2a would be cheap and more importantly less risk and less disruptive than signalling upgrade

 

[Peter Sarf]

PUG 1 was WCML upgrade. PUG 2 would yave taken it up to 140mph, it never happened.

I doubt we'll see any WCML upgrades from this government. It's pretty clear that 2a would be cheap and more importantly less risk and less disruptive than signalling upgrade

Yep. Totally agreed, lessons were learnt.

But I wonder if those lessons are getting forgotten and so we will go back to disruptively picking at things !.

 

[Energy]

Yep. Totally agreed, lessons were learnt.

But I wonder if those lessons are getting forgotten and so we will go back to disruptively picking at things !.

Lessons were learnt but Rishi and his team didn't consult NR so they didn't hear why just "upgrading the WCML" is a bad idea.

Amusingly digital signaling and moving block signalling is what the WCML route upgrade promised and failed to deliver.

 

[Krokodil]

Amusingly digital signaling and moving block signalling is what the WCML route upgrade promised and failed to deliver.

To be fair, the first technology has matured in the meantime.

 

[HSTEd]

Moving block signalling would probably require freight to have ECP brakes or similar train completeness assurance to yield significant improvements in performance

 

[hvshe]

just my step-by-step touch on revitalising phase 2a/2b

1. Stafford Bypass- entirely new 305km/h line between Wolseley Bridge and Norton Bridge, recycling HS2 section between Great Haywood and Yarlet
2. Upgrading/Hextupling WCML fast lines between Norton Bridge and Crewe to 305km/h
3. Building Line between Handscare and Great Haywood (original hs2 alignment), along with branch off to Stone
4. Upgrading Manchester-Stockport-Crewe to 200km/h+, along with bypassing platform at Sandbach(Northbound), Goostrey(Southbound x2), Chelford (Southbound x2) and Wilmslow (diamond crossing north of station connecting both branches, and 1 new terminating platform east of station)
5. Crewe station bypass tunnel

 

[Grimsby town]

just my step-by-step touch on revitalising phase 2a/2b

1. Stafford Bypass- entirely new 305km/h line between Wolseley Bridge and Norton Bridge, recycling HS2 section between Great Haywood and Yarlet
2. Upgrading/Hextupling WCML fast lines between Norton Bridge and Crewe to 305km/h
3. Building Line between Handscare and Great Haywood (original hs2 alignment), along with branch off to Stone
4. Upgrading Manchester-Stockport-Crewe to 200km/h+, along with bypassing platform at Sandbach(Northbound), Goostrey(Southbound x2), Chelford (Southbound x2) and Wilmslow (diamond crossing north of station connecting both branches, and 1 new terminating platform east of station)
5. Crewe station bypass tunnel

The problem is that doesn't solve the capacity issues around Stockport and into Piccadilly. I don't see a way of solving that without a tunnel out of Manchester to at least Wilmslow. Stockport is just too complicated to sort. There's too many conflicting movements with no obvious way of separating flows. There's also the conflict with the airport line flows to consider. If HS2 isn't happening then two extra tracks will be needed from Slade Lane to Piccadilly which isn't going to be cheap or easy.

 

[richard_S]

Now HS2 to Manchester is scrapped we need to upgrade the WCML to 4 tracks all the way to Warrington at least. This would remove the bottlenecks. That would free up paths for fast trains.

One question I have is what if HS2 to Birmingham runs at a loss???

 

[The Planner]

Now HS2 to Manchester is scrapped we need to upgrade the WCML to 4 tracks all the way to Warrington at least. This would remove the bottlenecks. That would free up paths for fast trains.

One question I have is what if HS2 to Birmingham runs at a loss???

Winsford Weaver will probably be dusted off to be looked at again. Much of the current rail system runs at a loss.

 

[AndrewE]

One question I have is what if HS2 to Birmingham runs at a loss???

What does it matter if it does? It is part of a network, and part of its value is to allow a more useful set of semi-fast services on the WCML that it parallels. It will also allow more freight on the WCML (or it would if built to Crewe and on further north.)
If you think that transferring both passenger and freight traffic from road to rail is a Good Thing then you have to progressively iron out the pinch points in the network, which means investing in rail, not road.
Are you prepared to accept that HS2 should be credited with some of the decarbonisation benefits of more electric freight?

 

[MTR380A]

Now that Cameron is back, any chance for HS2 Phase 2 to become salvable?

 

[Peter Sarf]

Now that Cameron is back, any chance for HS2 Phase 2 to become salvable?

I would be less ambitious and just hope for Phase 2a. That then makes HS2 a lot more use which would then be a better springboard for any more distant future ambitions.

 

[MTR380A]

I would be less ambitious and just hope for Phase 2a. That then makes HS2 a lot more use which would then be a better springboard for any more distant future ambitions.

I'd be happy enough if they cancel the plan to sell off the lands.

 

[778]

It may seem very far fetched but is there a chance that a person will set foot on mars before any of HS2 opens?

 

[Peter Sarf]

It may seem very far fetched but is there a chance that a person will set foot on mars before any of HS2 opens?

Neither in my lifetime - oh dear.

 

[richard_S]

It may seem very far fetched but is there a chance that a person will set foot on mars before any of HS2 opens?

My money is on Mars!

 

[Sonik]

I'd be happy enough if they cancel the plan to sell off the lands.

Nothing substantive is going to happen on that front before the general election.

 

[cinders&ashes]

I don't see why a climate conscious and non populist Labour party that appears to be thinking about the future, and is aiming for at least 2 terms, would keep with what is essentially no long term plan for transportation in England.
I could be wrong, and like all of politics everything turns out to be lies. But I do not see Labour sticking with these new transport "plans" and if they want to draw up new plans, then HS2 would logically be included.
If "Network North" was an actual plan and not something hastily drawn together in a week, then I could see Labour sticking with the cancellation, but it isn't.

Network North in terms of the programme won't survive a change of govt if it even lasts until then, but most of the rail projects will. There's 3 main elements.

1. New stations (Cullompton, Wellington, Haxby, Ferryhill, Waverley & Meir). Haxby is part of New Stations Fund 3 with timebound funding conditions which heavily influenced the choice of location to permit delivery in time; whilst the others were part of RYR ideas funds 1 or 2, I'd expect these would be delivered early (within 18mths) and all have SOBCs.
2. Reopened lines proposals. Ivanhoe to Coalville had similar funding/time conditions which was why the council went for Derby-Coalville instead of Leicester as originally hoped for, so I think this was to be funded by RYR anyway. The others (Barrow Hill, Don Valley, Stoke-Leek, Oswestry-Gobowen, Plymouth-Tavistock) all has SOBCs via the RYR programme but there would never have been funding in a £500m budget to cover all those and so are gobbling up freed HS2 cash. Nonetheless, they all have business cases and some deliver improved connectivity in the north and could be claimed as part of Northern Powerhouse. RYR has been a good programme and I expect Labour might include a follow-on if they get in.
3. Line upgrade proposals - a lot of line electrification/upgrades that deliver huge part of NPR (Hull-Sheffield, Hull-Leeds, Sheffield-Leeds, Sheffield-MCR plus Penistone and Calder Valley lines announced outside of NN). Also the North Wales line electrification/upgrade. Labour have committed to a programme of rolling electrifications so these would likely constitute that with MML & TRU as the ongoing programmes.

What I can see Labour doing is binning some of the road schemes and safeguarding the 2a/2b routes - if we're really lucky then a Euston design permitting scaling beyond 6 platforms in future and possibly phase 2a given the marginal cost versus what is already sunk and the Handsacre Jn/WCML improvement costs.