"HS2 Back on Track" - front page of Sunday Express - private sector plan to build Birmingham to Manchester

[daodao]

The fastest way to Liverpool will be via Manchester Airport, therefore the fastest route to Manchester Airport is also the fastest route to Liverpool. NPR has made sure of that.
Ditto, the distance you save by not going over to Crewe almost gets you to Golborne or similar near Wigan access point to the WCML Northbound.

A route from London/Birmingham to Liverpool via Manchester Airport (or even High Legh) is a roundabout dog-leg.
Crewe is not far off a direct "as the crow flies" line from Colwich to Wigan, so no significant distance is saved by bypassing it.

Since I'm proposing to use the same track the project is proposing to build from the airport to Manchester city centre I'm not sure why this is an attack against what I am proposing?

One of the main reasons that HS2 phase 2 was cancelled was the massive expense in tunnelling under South Manchester. Such a tunnel is not affordable or appropriate for NPR alone, at least for the next 20-30 years. The demand on the western end of NPR can be catered for the foreseeable future by running 2 tph non-stop 8+ carriage trains from Liverpool Lime Street non-stop via the historic Chat Moss line to Manchester Victoria (and onwards to Leeds via the TRU line). Trains from the south to Manchester Piccadilly will have to make do with existing tracks.

 

[Nottingham59]

Crewe is not far off a direct "as the crow flies" line from Colwich to Wigan, so no significant distance is saved by bypassing it.

The "as the crow flies" line from Handsacre to Wigan passes to the East of Stoke. And anyway, Wigan is not the destination. Manchester is the main source of traffic to London; the straight line from Manchester to Handsacre passes through Leek and Macclesfield.

 

[daodao]

The "as the crow flies" line from Handsacre to Wigan passes to the East of Stoke. And anyway, Wigan is not the destination. Manchester is the main source of traffic to London; the straight line from Manchester to Handsacre passes through Leek and Macclesfield.

Manchester might be the biggest single destination in terms of traffic via the WCML north of the Black Country, but this line also serves North Wales, the whole of NW England and the West of Scotland, and overall Manchester accounts for well under 50% of the traffic. The other destination would be inconvenienced significantly by a line as far east as Leek/Macclesfield, which in any case would require traversing hilly countryside at vast expense. The proposed and authorised HS2 phase 2a alignment is the best route to provide a high speed service into NW England.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The current size of various conurbations might be relevant to the immediate business case but if you're designing a railway for the next 100 years, then you need to think about what things can change and what things are not going to change. In general, existing railway lines are going to continue existing, and development naturally gravitates to places which have good connections already. So, if it's otherwise largely a toss-up, you may as well pick the routing option which enables the most connectivity over the long term.

A real thought I've been having is about whether ECML HS2 trains would actually stick around forever. Once you've built one high speed line it's easier to build the second one. For all the political battles today, I don't think HS2 will be the last north-south high speed line ever built. If another is built further east, essentially as a southern ECML bypass to Cambridge/Peterborough, then it fairly significantly reduces the pathing pressure on HS2. If the full 10 or 11 platforms are built at Euston then you can run 18tph, of which a good chunk were allocated to eastern arm services. These paths are where you'd get your future Chester/North Wales or similar services, and they would be quite reliant on good connectivity between HS2 and the existing rail network. Again, that's not necessarily about what happens in 2040 or 2050 but 2100 and onwards. HS2 will be around practically forever, just as the WCML shows no sign of disappearing almost 200 years after the London & Birmingham Railway started it.

Going back to the MSG report, they had free reign to pick route options that met the original brief. That original brief was deliberately open to options - it didn't even mandate intermediate stations like the one at Manchester Airport. When that brief included options for serving Liverpool, it doesn't really seem to me that they were blocked from considering an "NPR-first" routing based around this Airport tunnel and a Fiddler's Ferry route from it to Liverpool.

Also, if you did want to go east of Crewe and you were willing to do fairly major civil engineering, why wouldn't you go via Stoke-on-Trent instead? It's a fairly major urban area and it would provide more passengers than Crewe would alone.

 

[Peter Sarf]

IF it were not for all the financial and emotional investments and disengagements in getting to wherever it is we've not got to, or not yet ...
there would be, and still is, much to recommend the development of a 'new town' (whether or not so designated) at Crewe and/or a 'mid-Cheshire' location- a sort of Liverpool-Manchester crossing a newly aligned WCML somewhere between the current WCML and Manchester, perhaps a Manchester Parkway? There must be much market that could be served by such an accessible station even without a 'new town'. People need to live and work somewhere. Runcorn and Skem were part of a previous 'generation' of new towns. It's much the same as East-West rail Oxford-Cambridge NEEDS new-townish developments developments in between to support it and bring 'new' traffic for a 4tph 'turn up and go service'.
Maybe a Crewe New Town AND a Mid-Cheshire New Town (maybe a 7th town of Stoke-on-Trent?) could gain support?

Additionally (?) perhaps one could imagine a new Piccadilly Line, Victoria Line and Central Line(etc?) for 'Network North'?

One of the points of High Speed rail was to take the longer distance expresses off the WCML. So many of the towns being talked about would continue to be served by the older routes. Do Stafford, Stoke, Macclesfield, Runcorn, Skem and suchlike warrant a HS2 train stopping at them ?.

Far better to build the new housing near to existing stations, or existing lines where a new station could be built. For the Cambrige biomedical campus that means places like Shepreth, Whittlesford Parkway, Shelford, Fulbourn rather than Cambourne.

And neither should HS2 be slowed down by new intermediate stations.

Crewe is a bit tricky. How many connections are made there ?. Would North Wales be better served by supplementing the existing services (in length and frequency) from Birmingham, Liverpool and even Manchester ?.

Connectivity with NPR trumps things if it gives a good route to Liverpool, Manchester and Beyond Manchester across the Pennines. It also hitches a ride on the costs of getting into/through Manchester. That is the only thing that puts me off Crewe slightly. but Crewe is tempting because its nearer to shovel ready.

Must not forget future connectivity to the WCML for services beyond Warrington (Scotland etc). Not sure how well connected Preston Northwards would be without the Golborne link if missing Crewe. Crewe could be the end of HS2 Phase2a BUT bypassed later when a link to NPR becomes appropriate leaving Crewe to be the link to the WCML instead of Golborne.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Considering this is a "speculative forum" thread, I am most impressed at the number of well-thought out detailed postings that have been made upon it.

 

[Bald Rick]

One of the main reasons that HS2 phase 2 was cancelled was the massive expense in tunnelling under South Manchester. Such a tunnel is not affordable or appropriate for NPR alone, at least for the next 20-30 years.

And yet that is the section most likely to be built…

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And yet that is the section most likely to be built…

Any idea what the referred-to tunnelling under South Manchester would cost at today's construction prices?

 

[daodao]

And yet that is the section most likely to be built…

Please explain why? It is by no means the cheapest alignment from Liverpool to Manchester if a new line is built between these 2 cities as part of NPR, and it is an extremely roundabout route that would produce minimal savings in journey times even at high speed. I am not even convinced of the demand for increasing services between Liverpool and Manchester, which were recently reduced.

 

[Arkeeos]

Any idea what the referred-to tunnelling under South Manchester would cost at today's construction prices?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61e6996fd3bf7f054798bca5/M11.pdf

From the cost estimates(in 2019 prices) 3.5bil for stations, assuming some minor descoping is possible you would be looking at 3bil.

Tunnels and viaducts are at 4.3bil, most of that will be the tunnel, so 3.5bil or so, probably being generous there.

Ignoring gas mains and all that boring stuff it would be 6.5bil in 2019 cost, so about 8bil in 2023 cost not accounting for construction inflation specifically, or the inevitable budget overruns.

So probably 10bil to run 3/4tph.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In historical time, it would appear that the London and North Western Railway, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and the Cheshire Lines Committee all ran opposing services between Liverpool and Manchester.

 

[daodao]

In historical time, it would appear that the London and North Western Railway, the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway and the Cheshire Lines Committee all ran opposing services between Liverpool and Manchester.

What is more, the journey times and frequencies between Liverpool and Manchester in 1910 were broadly comparable with those on offer today:

• LYR provided an essentially hourly service between Liverpool Exchange and Manchester Victoria, taking 40 minutes; this service no longer exists.
• LNWR provided an hourly service between Liverpool Lime Street and Manchester Exchange, taking 40 minutes; the current service (to Manchester Victoria) is hourly and takes 36 minutes.
• CLC provided an hourly service between Liverpool Central and Manchester Central, taking 45 minutes, with occasional non-stop extras (bypassing Warrington Central) taking 40 minutes; the current service (from Liverpool Lime Street to Manchester Oxford Road) is half-hourly, but takes 46-48 minutes, with more stops.

However, this is digressing from the thread topic, which is not even about NPR, but building a high speed line north of Birmingham. This is entirely separate from NPR and is desirable to improve journey times and rail capacity from London and Birmingham to North-West England (of which Manchester is only a small part) and beyond. A new line is really only needed as far as Crewe, because the routes fan out there into 4 spokes, none of which merit replacing or supplementing by a new high speed line. It was the attempt to serve Manchester by such a high speed extension (HS2 phase 2b) that scuppered the whole of HS2 phase 2, because of the high and disproportionate cost of phase 2b, for only limited benefit.

 

[Bantamzen]

Considering this is a "speculative forum" thread, I am most impressed at the number of well-thought out detailed postings that have been made upon it.

Sadly all of it will be in vain. Because right now it is election season, and so the regional mayors need to be seen to be doing something for their respective parties. So in the Midlands and Manchester the mayors have found a magic money tree to shake to reinstate HS2 between them, in South Yorkshire another magic money tree has been found to turn a dead airport to the south east of Doncaster into a new Manchester Airport, and in my own county our esteemed mayor promises a country wide mass transit system with West Yorkshire's own magic money tree. So I'm looking forward to be able to travel at high speeds between Birmingham and Manchester, then travel West Yorkshire's mass transit system before flying to exotic destinations from Doncaster International...

There seems to be a theme with regional mayor and grandiose plans...

(Please note: This post may contain sarcasm)

 

[daodao]

Sadly all of it will be in vain.

Really?! I have been trying to pour cold water on the grandiose visions of luftmenschen such as @HSTEd et al. I agree that Burnham and his fellow metro mayors in the North of England are just posturing.

 

[HSTEd]

Really?! I have been trying to pour cold water on the grandiose visions of luftmenschen such as @HSTEd et al. I agree that Burnham and his fellow metro mayors in the North of England are just posturing.

I also agree that they are posturing, this will all come to nothing.

Noone in the private sector is going to provide tens of billions in capital to build this line on terms that are remotely acceptable to the government.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I also agree that they are posturing, this will all come to nothing.

Noone in the private sector is going to provide tens of billions in capital to build this line on terms that are remotely acceptable to the government.

"The government" meaning the current government in particular, however.
The new government after the next election could well offer tax incentives for the private sector to invest in a resurrected HS2 Phase 2a, especially given the corporate tax environment is likely to be significantly less friendly than under the current government.

 

[D365]

If we pay civil engineers to do a job, then they will do it.

The perils of consulting engineers!

 

[HSTEd]

"The government" meaning the current government in particular, however.
The new government after the next election could well offer tax incentives for the private sector to invest in a resurrected HS2 Phase 2a, especially given the corporate tax environment is likely to be significantly less friendly than under the current government.

I doubt it, given the cost of Phase 2A was already at ~£5-7bn before cancellation, it'd be something like a billion pounds a year in perpetuity to PFI it, even before inevitable further cost growth.

 

[The Ham]

I doubt it, given the cost of Phase 2A was already at ~£5-7bn before cancellation, it'd be something like a billion pounds a year in perpetuity to PFI it, even before inevitable further cost growth.

The issue with HS2 specifications are that they tend to be too cautious, with almost zero risk on the government. If I was funding something myself, I may not specify it to be quite so robust.

For example, if I know that I've designed something to have a design life of 40 years before major works that's probably good enough as those works will be the responsibility of a successor. Therefore it doesn't impact on the profits that could be earned (and potentially pay out to me through bonuses/share options), conversely government may well want that to be 60 years. As whilst it's not necessary their problem now (nor in 40 year or 60 years, as that's far too far into the future) they are going to be aware that there's enough experts to say, well this is going to cost us far more in the long term that it's probably worth a small uplift in the budget to do it "right".

However it's not design life, it's things like how much the earth is permitted to move. This means that either you've got to lay down your material in thinner layers so the compaction works, or you've got to add weight to the final level and then take it away again after it's had time to settle.

Either of these means more time to construct, as we all know time is money, and so it adds a lot of cost.

The reality is that a "good enough" specification is likely to be much cheaper to build. Without having to build it to be so robust for limited benefit there's a good chance that the private sector could deliver the project for less money. Especially if they could take the risk by fixing out of specification issues during maintenance before a given date (for example a length of track drops 6mm over the first 15 years of service, however the tolerance is that it needs to be within 4mm in year 20 or within 7mm at any time, when they do some maintenance in that area they then lift the track by 9mm to +3mm knowing that even if it drops by another 6mm over the next 5 years that they'll still be within tolerance), by fixing those areas which need fixing rather than over engineering 100% of the track there's a fairly good chance that it'll be cheaper.

 

[Benjwri]

The reality is that a "good enough" specification is likely to be much cheaper to build. Without having to build it to be so robust for limited benefit there's a good chance that the private sector could deliver the project for less money. Especially if they could take the risk by fixing out of specification issues during maintenance before a given date (for example a length of track drops 6mm over the first 15 years of service, however the tolerance is that it needs to be within 4mm in year 20 or within 7mm at any time, when they do some maintenance in that area they then lift the track by 9mm to +3mm knowing that even if it drops by another 6mm over the next 5 years that they'll still be within tolerance), by fixing those areas which need fixing rather than over engineering 100% of the track there's a fairly good chance that it'll be cheaper.

The specification adds to the overengineering, however the reality is its down to a whole load of different standards, which have to be followed. There are many in the engineering community who say they over specify everything, and are too cautious, however there are many that say they are not. There are thousands of examples of why cutting corners on what seems inconsequential can end badly, and certainly I don't think track deflection is the limiting factor in the vast majority of areas of the project facing significant costs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The specification adds to the overengineering, however the reality is its down to a whole load of different standards, which have to be followed. There are many in the engineering community who say they over specify everything, and are too cautious, however there are many that say they are not. There are thousands of examples of why cutting corners on what seems inconsequential can end badly, and certainly I don't think track deflection is the limiting factor in the vast majority of areas of the project facing significant costs.

Am I correct in recalling that for the 400km/h spec it is all slab track? Is this costlier than traditional ballast? If so, could this offer a fair saving, even if it means having to reduce to a more sensible 300km/h spec for Phase 2A/B which would have been fine in the first place?

400km/h is not necessary in such a small country - sure, if it costs no more then by all means go for it, but there's seemingly plenty of evidence it has significantly added to costs, from the formation itself to the need for it to be as dead-straight as it is.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I doubt it, given the cost of Phase 2A was already at ~£5-7bn before cancellation, it'd be something like a billion pounds a year in perpetuity to PFI it, even before inevitable further cost growth.

I wasn't suggesting traditional PFI, I was suggesting the investors clawing back money through access charges with no government subsidy.

 

[joebassman]

Indeed, most people would take at face value that computers are inflatable - anyone who has an understanding that they're only at his as the people who wrote them are more likely to think that there's at least the possibility that there's a flaw and so want to understand more.

Save with the railways, many look at them and think "I drive why should I care about (or fund) public transport" Also public transport allows those unable to drive to get about without being limited to walking/cycling distance. That could well be the people who serve them in a shop, work at a hospital or many other places which the benefit from.

Its a shame, in my opinion, that so many people in society take such a self absorbed attitude by thinking that if a subject doesn't affect them or those close to them, then they don't care.

No wonder so many people are suffering mental health issues now.

The government keep running around spending money trying to find out why so many people are taking their own lives, when the answer is staring them right in the face.

 

[HSTEd]

I wasn't suggesting traditional PFI, I was suggesting the investors clawing back money through access charges with no government subsidy.

Given that essentially all train operators are tools of the state, sustained only by public largesse, that is just a PFI with extra steps.

No train operator will be able to pay enough track access charges to make it worthwhile to build without colossal ongoing subsidies from the treasury. The result is a de-facto PFI even if the government attempts to hide that fact.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Feb 2024 ==

The reality is that a "good enough" specification is likely to be much cheaper to build.

Doing anything to the specification now will delay the project by years by sending the design and optimisation back to step 1.
You'd be effectively cancelling the project and creating a new one with similar objectives.

 

[Grimsby town]

Am I correct in recalling that for the 400km/h spec it is all slab track? Is this costlier than traditional ballast? If so, could this offer a fair saving, even if it means having to reduce to a more sensible 300km/h spec for Phase 2A/B which would have been fine in the first place?

400km/h is not necessary in such a small country - sure, if it costs no more then by all means go for it, but there's seemingly plenty of evidence it has significantly added to costs, from the formation itself to the need for it to be as dead-straight as it is.

I thought that slab track was more related due to the the high frequency of HS2 meaning it needed to be more durable and therefore going with slab track reduced the maintenance costs. While some of the alignment is built for 400km/hr, not all of it is and there's no plan to currently operate at that speed currently. With the trains being limited to 360km/hr its unlikely 400km/hr is happening before 2050.

I think the planned frequency north of Handsacre was about 10tph so it might be possible to go for a lower specification and save some money. The cost of EWR from Bedford to Cambridge suggests that speed isn't really the largest driver of cost though.

 

[The Planner]

Am I correct in recalling that for the 400km/h spec it is all slab track? Is this costlier than traditional ballast? If so, could this offer a fair saving, even if it means having to reduce to a more sensible 300km/h spec for Phase 2A/B which would have been fine in the first place?

400km/h is not necessary in such a small country - sure, if it costs no more then by all means go for it, but there's seemingly plenty of evidence it has significantly added to costs, from the formation itself to the need for it to be as dead-straight as it is.

You'll be replacing the ballast relatively quickly if you don't slab it. You don't do that in 6-7 hour white periods.

 

[JamesT]

Am I correct in recalling that for the 400km/h spec it is all slab track? Is this costlier than traditional ballast? If so, could this offer a fair saving, even if it means having to reduce to a more sensible 300km/h spec for Phase 2A/B which would have been fine in the first place?

400km/h is not necessary in such a small country - sure, if it costs no more then by all means go for it, but there's seemingly plenty of evidence it has significantly added to costs, from the formation itself to the need for it to be as dead-straight as it is.

I’ve seen it claimed that although ballast is cheaper to install, the whole life costs of slab track are less.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I thought that slab track was more related due to the the high frequency of HS2 meaning it needed to be more durable and therefore going with slab track reduced the maintenance costs. While some of the alignment is built for 400km/hr, not all of it is and there's no plan to currently operate at that speed currently. With the trains being limited to 360km/hr its unlikely 400km/hr is happening before 2050.

I think the planned frequency north of Handsacre was about 10tph so it might be possible to go for a lower specification and save some money. The cost of EWR from Bedford to Cambridge suggests that speed isn't really the largest driver of cost though.

Istr (@Bald Rick ?) pointing out that there was not much to be saved by reducing the line speed in the specification.

It would be so nice to get a little bit more of HS2 done and Phase 2a is a relatively cheap add-on that provides for a lot of benefits that are missing without it. I think relying on NPR for the Manchester (er and Liverpool) links is risky. Better to build something that is not interdependent and swallow the waste if 10-20 years later NPR is worth building a link to.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Given that essentially all train operators are tools of the state, sustained only by public largesse, that is just a PFI with extra steps.

No train operator will be able to pay enough track access charges to make it worthwhile to build without colossal ongoing subsidies from the treasury. The result is a de-facto PFI even if the government attempts to hide that fact.

Then how does E* manage it with the Channel Tunnel and HS1?

 

[HSTEd]

Then how does E* manage it with the Channel Tunnel and HS1?

By running a very small number of trains and ruthlessly cutting services that do not pay their way.

In addition, HS1 track access charges are not based upon full cost recovery of the cost of building the railway.
The HS1 concessionaire paid a small fraction of the actual cost of the railway when obtaining the concession.

EDIT: They paid £2.1bn out of a ~£6.8bn cost, with the latter roughly comparable to the cost of HS2 Phase 2A.