Why hasn't Crossrail led to more support for HS2?

[A S Leib]

Given the relative success of Crossrail, why hasn't there been more support for getting HS2 built? Crossrail's cut journey times and increased capacity (e.g. with Shenfield local services going from 6 tph to Liverpool Street to 8 tph to Paddington and beyond), which HS2 would do / would have done at a larger scale.

Of course, they're not analogous. I think the difference between the initial and final Crossrail cost was ~20% (£16 bn vs £19 bn) whilst the 2009 estimate of £38 bn for HS2 (£59 bn in 2024 GBP), with that potentially having doubled by the early 2020s. I also don't think there was much debate about the route of the Crossrail core section once Paddington – Liverpool Street was agreed on, whilst HS2's had issues over serving East Midlands and South Yorkshire vs Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield City centres, and how much new infrastructure Manchester and Liverpool should get for it. Crossrail was also lucky in having been largely built pre-Covid.

On the other hand, Crossrail's a – perhaps the most, since the turn of the millennium – visible sign of government investment in London when per capita transport spending in England, at least in 2018, was lowest in the East Midlands, Yorkshire & Humber and North East, and lower in the West Midlands than the four southern regions. I know that WCML capacity's probably worst on the southern sections, but at least starting on the northern sections first, or giving Birmingham – Leeds legislative approval at the same time as London – West Midlands, would have made it seem as if investment in transport between the Midlands and North was happening beyond things like MML electrification.

 

[43066]

Given the relative success of Crossrail, why hasn't there been more support for getting HS2 built? Crossrail's cut journey times and increased capacity (e.g. with Shenfield local services going from 6 tph to Liverpool Street to 8 tph to Paddington and beyond), which HS2 would do / would have done at a larger scale.

Of course, they're not analogous. I think the difference between the initial and final Crossrail cost was ~20% (£16 bn vs £19 bn) whilst the 2009 estimate of £38 bn for HS2 (£59 bn in 2024 GBP), with that potentially having doubled by the early 2020s. I also don't think there was much debate about the route of the Crossrail core section once Paddington – Liverpool Street was agreed on, whilst HS2's had issues over serving East Midlands and South Yorkshire vs Derby, Nottingham and Sheffield City centres, and how much new infrastructure Manchester and Liverpool should get for it. Crossrail was also lucky in having been largely built pre-Covid.

On the other hand, Crossrail's a – perhaps the most, since the turn of the millennium – visible sign of government investment in London when per capita transport spending in England, at least in 2018, was lowest in the East Midlands, Yorkshire & Humber and North East, and lower in the West Midlands than the four southern regions. I know that WCML capacity's probably worst on the southern sections, but at least starting on the northern sections first, or giving Birmingham – Leeds legislative approval at the same time as London – West Midlands, would have made it seem as if investment in transport between the Midlands and North was happening beyond things like MML electrification.

Crossrail was very obviously needed, and indeed part of the reason for its huge success is that it was actually long overdue, although Covid somewhat lessened the impact of the delay.

HS2 is much larger, more expensive and more controversial, being built partly on green belt land, and requiring peoples’ houses to be knocked down etc. The benefits are probably also less obvious to the “average” person, especially with descoping taking away many of the impressive headline speed improvements over the classic network, and there’s less scope for rapid repayment of costs.

 

[Horizon22]

Because most people think HS2 is just a way to get business types between London and Birmingham slightly quicker for +£40bn. The wider benefits have been woefully badly explained, with all the negatives trumped up.

We are incredibly bad at building infrastructure in this country and everything takes longer, is more costly and often subject to delays and descoping. Crossrail / Elizabeth line has been a big success but was already overdue and - although in the grand scheme of things will be forgotten and recoup this cost - over-budget and delayed 3.5 years.

The UK (and particularly the Treasury) has a very narrow view of infrastructure investment, looking at the cost now and the lack of short-term benefit, when the cost of doing nothing should also be included as well as the overall long-term benefit. This has been a mindset for many decades and I doubt will change any time soon.

 

[Harpo]

Given the relative success of Crossrail, why hasn't there been more support for getting HS2 built?

Politics!

The toxic combination of short-termism and politicians succumbing to parochial career-limiting pressures.

At a micro level, it’s the same crap that stops house building and drove HS2’s stupidly expensive mitigations such as tunnels.

 

[MerlinRail 804]

In my view, HS2 didn’t go wrong in the concept, but in the design. The concept was right - more capacity for all sorts of services, but they went wrong in the design. They got hooked on the the idea of it being the one of the fastest railways in the world at 400km/h, forcing it to be a pretty much straight line and using a different type of track, mainly making it more expensive. Everyone, especially media, caught on to the speed thing, and no one that people listen to talked about the real reasoning.

With HS2, people think that “we’re spending billions to cut ten minutes off a journey which no one makes”, whereas with Crossrail, it’s fairly obvious what it was for (though I’m sure some people were still against it!)

Of course, building HS2 is more disruptive than Crossrail was, but what infrastructure project isn’t? After all, it would be so much worse if they were building a brand new six lane motorway.

 

[HSTEd]

Crossrail only directly inconvenienced a relatively small number of people, and the majority of the people impacted by the construction works ended up right next to a highly effective transport system that they can and will use regularly.

By contrast, HS2 is routed through open countryside, occupied by people who receive essentially no benefit from the project.
Additionally, instead of the tunnel with point disruption at shafts Crossrail route, HS2 is a linear cut through the landscape - much of which will never be erased.

Beyond that, Crossrail wasn't stupid enough to propose a surface route through an AONB.
Finally, there has been a lot more more press reporting of alleged serious governance issues at HS2 than I recall for Crossrail.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Dec 2024 ==

but at least starting on the northern sections first, or giving Birmingham – Leeds legislative approval at the same time as London – West Midlands, would have made it seem as if investment in transport between the Midlands and North was happening beyond things like MML electrification.

The problem is, if you do that, you risk exhausting your political support on getting the least valuable part of the project through.
You still fundamentally run through all the issues of construction in very rural areas that will not significantly benefit from the project.

EDIT:
Do you really want to end up with a repeat of California HSR's "Initial Operating Segment" which is a segment of railway isolated from everything and of little transport use?
The northern end of HS2 might be more useful than that alone, but not by a huge margin.

 

[SynthD]

Calling the Elizabeth line a success would mean saying the London mayor did a good job - whatever his role in it was. This is a step too far for half the papers.

Is this an entirely political question? Only the politicians have agency to link different projects.

 

[A S Leib]

Calling the Elizabeth line a success would mean saying the London mayor did a good job - whatever his role in it was. This is a step too far for half the papers.

Given that the bill got royal assent under Brown when Johnson was mayor and construction went through his and Khan's mayoralties and Cameron's, May's and his premierships, I think Labour and Conservatives could at least claim some level of recognition for the success. That's harder for HS2 when Labour wasn't in a position to really affect it between 2010 and 2024* and the Conservative position was protesting against it (I think Leadsom, with a constituency on / near phase 1, was quite vocally against it?) and, since Covid, cutting various bits

*Which isn't to say that I, and I suspect Burnham and Parker, aren't hoping that Labour commit to phase 2 at some point.

 

[Taunton]

Calling the Elizabeth line a success would mean saying the London mayor did a good job - whatever his role in it was. This is a step too far for half the papers.

Given that the original source of the money was principally from central government, with additions from various extra charges placed on London residents and businesses, generally at government behest, it's not surprising that well-informed media does not see much praise for the London Mayor - of whatever political hue.

 

[eldomtom2]

Do you really want to end up with a repeat of California HSR's "Initial Operating Segment" which is a segment of railway isolated from everything and of little transport use?

Minor correction - CAHSR will make timed connections with Amtrak trains at its northern end?

 

[Dryce]

The UK (and particularly the Treasury) has a very narrow view of infrastructure investment, looking at the cost now and the lack of short-term benefit, when the cost of doing nothing should also be included as well as the overall long-term benefit. This has been a mindset for many decades and I doubt will change any time soon.

There is the 'cost of doing nothing' works both ways - but arguably if you have such huge sums as the cost of HS2 there is also the question as to how that money might have been spent on other projects. The cost of HS2 spread across multiple projects in the UK would potentially deliver greater benefits to more people.

There was point in the Edinburgh Trams debacle where it seemed like the project had become a life form in its own right - determined to justify itself and stay alive while at the same time requiring more resources and delivering less. HS2 seems to have followed a similar path but on a significantly larger scale.

It's not just the cost of HS2 but the loss of opportunity because there is also 'the cost of doing nothing' in other areas has consumed so much resource.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

HS2 is the first infrastructure project I've had a problem with going the whole hog at having the fastest speed etc. it was undeliverable from the start as the need for a super fast line is questionable, 150mph would have done and been a better balance between cost and speed. For most people the need to travel between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool is served by the WCML already and line capacity is not something the average passenger or tax payer thinks about. There were no new major destinations being served.

Cross rail on the other hand was a clear need for capacity and then you're limited in decisions from there on in. Also there was the benefit of both Kent and Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk commuter's having a practical commute to jobs in west London and Slough, Reading and Maidenhead having commutes to the City and east London without having to change trains numerous times.

 

[growse]

150mph would have done and been a better balance between cost and speed.

How much would have been saved by limiting it to 150mph?

but arguably if you have such huge sums as the cost of HS2 there is also the question as to how that money might have been spent on other projects.

My understanding was that the business case for the budget came from balancing the up front costs Vs the economic benefits. Effectively HS2 is funded by borrowing from the future. It's not like there's a big pot of £100b in cash that we could choose to spend on trams instead.

 

[Brooke]

As a fan of infrastructure investment generally, I have three major problems with the communications strategy of HS2:

1) It has never been clear, even today, that this is a capacity project. That is exacerbated because no one communicated that there even IS a capacity problem - you can see traffic jams on the M6, Londoners can see sewerage pouring into the Thames, you can see the queue of planes at Heathrow. But to an average Joe like me, I can’t see the capacity issue & no one has told me it exists (except this forum!)

2) Putting it down as one massive project with lines to Scotland and Leeds etc was a huge error. It created expectation around the country that has not been met, and now it is scaled back, just perpetuates a sense that rich Londoners get the bit they benefit from, while everyone else can go hang. It also meant the massive price tag had to be communicated, where it could have been done in small slices over the next 30-50 years

3) Only the costs, inconvenience and environmental impact have been communicated. A more adept communications operation would have invested far more time in talking about the benefits in a way people relate to. That still goes on today: HS2 takes journalists to see a big, expensive machine doing expensive things. It never takes journalists to go and show the benefits in action (eg a new industrial estate being built because of investor confidence in Birmingham’s future connectivity, or whatever)

All of which should have been completely foreseeable and addressable, if some of the massive budget had been invested in listening to decent PR advice, in my humble opinion.

 

[YorkshireBear]

In my view, HS2 didn’t go wrong in the concept, but in the design. The concept was right - more capacity for all sorts of services, but they went wrong in the design. They got hooked on the the idea of it being the one of the fastest railways in the world at 400km/h, forcing it to be a pretty much straight line and using a different type of track, mainly making it more expensive. Everyone, especially media, caught on to the speed thing, and no one that people listen to talked about the real reasoning.

With HS2, people think that “we’re spending billions to cut ten minutes off a journey which no one makes”, whereas with Crossrail, it’s fairly obvious what it was for (though I’m sure some people were still against it!)

Of course, building HS2 is more disruptive than Crossrail was, but what infrastructure project isn’t? After all, it would be so much worse if they were building a brand new six lane motorway.

This has been debunked by the former chief engineer. Green signals podcast episode number 6 for details.

They created an alignment that was the best at missing villages, and other areas of concern and it happened to be capable of 400kmh so the incremental costs were negligible. There is more details in the podcast but the speed has not contributed to the huge costs.

 

[Krokodil]

This has been debunked by the former chief engineer. Green signals podcast episode number 6 for details.

They created an alignment that was the best at missing villages, and other areas of concern and it happened to be capable of 400kmh so the incremental costs were negligible. There is more details in the podcast but the speed has not contributed to the huge costs.

Indeed, and while the initial cost of slab track is higher, the ongoing maintenance costs are much lower, not to mention the revenue that would have been lost during engineering closures.

 

[Route115?]

I suspect that for many the benefits of HS2 are seen as marginal. Yes we need more capacity (and why weren't all pendolinos extended) but for those not travelling between city centres the benefits aren't that great. (We can get into a discussion about the benefits for intermediate journets from released capacity but thats another discussion. I'm not sure that peopIe who would use intermediate stations have been convinced of major benefits.) It may have been better to upgrade the existing system - much harder for operators, and for engineers its been compared to undertaking open heart surgery, but thats their problem to solve.

By comparison a lot of people saw the benefits of Crossrail - we are talking about people travelling several times a week, not a year, both in terms of reduced congestion and quicker journey times.

Going back to the last point the former chief engineer may be a very good engineer but he's not a planner. The first Bob Reid's sectorisation was all about specifing what we want the engineers - very important people let me say, they are the ones that deliver - to do, but HS2 become the reverse being engineering lead and overspecified. (The same can happen with architects.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I seem to remember that Crossrail was deeply unpopular during its construction phase, both because of the disruption in London near the access sites, and the heavy cost/time overruns before it eventually opened.
All that negative opinion evaporated quickly once the line was open, though there still seem to be frequent reliability problems outside the core (mostly to the west on the GW section), and there are now the OOC construction issues.
HS2 is still digging a hole for itself (literally!), which will only clear when the initial phase is open, but that is 5+ years away.

Cost and time overruns also affect other rail construction projects, by taking away funding and also political and technical time and energy.
In the widest sense, this will be the third time a WCML upgrade has starved the rest of the network from investment (1960s electrification, 1990/00s WCRM and now HS2).

 

[Railwaysceptic]

On the other hand, Crossrail's a – perhaps the most, since the turn of the millennium – visible sign of government investment in London when per capita transport spending in England, at least in 2018, was lowest in the East Midlands, Yorkshire & Humber and North East, and lower in the West Midlands than the four southern regions.

It should always be remembered that most of the finance for Crossrail came from London, not from the Treasury.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2024 ==

Given that the original source of the money was principally from central government, with additions from various extra charges placed on London residents and businesses, generally at government behest, it's not surprising that well-informed media does not see much praise for the London Mayor - of whatever political hue.

I note your use of original. How much of the total final cost came from central Government?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Dec 2024 ==

I seem to remember that Crossrail was deeply unpopular during its construction phase, both because of the disruption in London near the access sites, and the heavy cost/time overruns before it eventually opened.
All that negative opinion evaporated quickly once the line was opened now HS2).

My recollection is that most Londoners did not object because they were not adversely affected by the construction. Obviously no-one enjoys living near a major building site. There was no strong opposition to the project in general because most Londoners either recognised the benefits or had no opinion either way whereas many people do have very strong opinions about HS2.

 

[Foxhunter]

I suspect another factor is that a good proportion of the population of London and the commuter belt could realistically imagine using Crossrail when it was completed. HS2 not so much.

 

[Mikey C]

If any project was to benefit from the success of Crossrail, it would presumably be Crossrail 2, which looks years away from being started.

HS1 is perhaps a better "advert" for the benefits of high speed rail, though there are differences in that HS1 has more connections with the Classic network, making it more useful to more people near the route.

 

[Nottingham59]

HS1 is perhaps a better "advert" for the benefits of high speed rail, though there are differences in that HS1 has more connections with the Classic network, making it more useful to more people near the route.

That's the problem with HS2, as designed.

 

[MCR247]

HS2 has IMO always suffered from a marketing problem. They should’ve either chosen a different name or spent more time explaining that it isn’t about building a line which is really fast, it’s about adding much needed capacity to the railway. I think splitting it down into smaller sections and projects could’ve helped avoid the ‘HS2 rush’ of “you can’t bypass Stoke” and similar nonsense

 

[Sorcerer]

I think that the Elizabeth Line demonstrates why we need to grit our teeth and see HS2 through to the end. The project might've been faced with delays and bad management, but since opening it has arguably been a great success and is one of my favourite rail lines in the country. I don't think anyone can reasonably say London is worse off with the Elizabeth Line, and when finished I don't think the country will be able to say that it's worse off with HS2. Ultimately it's really just a case of HS2 being poorly managed and poorly sold to the public as just a faster express route for businessmen to get to London instead of a new trunk railway to relieve the existing network.

HS1 is perhaps a better "advert" for the benefits of high speed rail, though there are differences in that HS1 has more connections with the Classic network, making it more useful to more people near the route.

While HS1 and HS2 are comparable for being high speed rail lines in the UK, the Elizabeth Line/Crossrail is also very comparable to HS2 in that both routes provide a faster express rail link between hub stations and reliving capacity on an existing line (the WCML for HS2, and Central Line for Crossrail), only HS2 is at a much larger scale. To an extent HS1 was built for the same purpose as well.

 

[jfowkes]

HS1 is perhaps a better "advert" for the benefits of high speed rail, though there are differences in that HS1 has more connections with the Classic network, making it more useful to more people near the route.

That's the problem with HS2, as designed.

I don't really get this. If we're talking physical infrastructure, HS1 has a single, physical connection to the classic network (for passenger service use). HS2 in full would have had two. If we're talking service patterns and destinations, HS1 services currently serve Ramsgate/Faversham, Folkestone/Dover/Sandwich, and Canterbury. HS2 would have served Chesterfield and Sheffield (via MML) Macclesfield (via Stafford/Stoke), Glasgow (via WCML), York and Edinburgh (via ECML).

On that basis it seems hard to argue that HS2 would have been less connected to the classic network than HS1?

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't really get this. If we're talking physical infrastructure, HS1 has a single, physical connection to the classic network (for passenger service use). HS2 in full would have had two. If we're talking service patterns and destinations, HS1 services currently serve Ramsgate/Faversham, Folkestone/Dover/Sandwich, and Canterbury. HS2 would have served Chesterfield and Sheffield (via MML) Macclesfield (via Stafford/Stoke), Glasgow (via WCML), York and Edinburgh (via ECML).

On that basis it seems hard to argue that HS2 would have been less connected to the classic network than HS1?

Yes, but HS1 serves Ebbsfleet International, Gravesend, Strood etc. which are just 20 miles or so from London. Even Ashford is just 50 miles away.

If HS2 were to provide similar connections, then it would have served the likes of Aylesbury (35 miles from St Pancras), Bicester (45 miles), Banbury etc. The propect of easy fast commuting to central London from those places would have made a very different story to tell, and counteracted local opposition to the new line.

[And I know that local stations would make it impossible to run 16tph non-stop on the main HS2 trunk, which is why HS2 should have been four tracks between Ruislip and Wendover, with two tracks going on to Old Oak, and two direct to Euston. The civil engineering cost would have been less than £1 billion. And they should have built the "slow" tracks first, with space left between them for the fast lines to be added later. But's that's a discussion for another thread.]

 

[Jim the Jim]

Crossrail only directly inconvenienced a relatively small number of people, and the majority of the people impacted by the construction works ended up right next to a highly effective transport system that they can and will use regularly.

By contrast, HS2 is routed through open countryside, occupied by people who receive essentially no benefit from the project.
Additionally, instead of the tunnel with point disruption at shafts Crossrail route, HS2 is a linear cut through the landscape - much of which will never be erased.

Crossrail though runs through a dense urban area, so lots and lots of people were living very close to the works. HS2, by virtue of being mostly in the open countryside, doesn't actually pass that close to many people's homes.

(I wouldn't be surprised if there were actually more people living within 500m of the Elizabeth line than within 500m of the London-Birmingham HS2 route. And HS2 is itself underground for much of the more densely populated parts of its route.)

 

[HSTEd]

Crossrail though runs through a dense urban area, so lots and lots of people were living very close to the works. HS2, by virtue of being mostly in the open countryside, doesn't actually pass that close to many people's homes.


(I wouldn't be surprised if there were actually more people living within 500m of the Elizabeth line than within 500m of the London-Birmingham HS2 route. And HS2 is itself underground for much of the more densely populated parts of its route.)

A very large fraction of people who are close to the disruptive works will gain enormous benefits, by virtue of now living next to a Crossrail station. A station that they will likely use regularly during the future.

Someone next to the HS2 works likely won't gain anything at all.

 

[JonathanH]

The propect of easy fast commuting to central London from those places would have made a very different story to tell, and counteracted local opposition to the new line.

It would have potentially caused more opposition if it also came with proposals for additional house building, roads and car parks at the localities of the stations for fast commuting.

 

[SynthD]

I’ll clarify. While a lot of politicians deserve credit for making it happen, the current mayor would have been the leading current politician who stands to gain from publicising Crossrail as a success.

Yes, but HS1 serves Ebbsfleet International, Gravesend, Strood etc. which are just 20 miles or so from London. Even Ashford is just 50 miles away.

If HS2 were to provide similar connections, then it would have served the likes of Aylesbury (35 miles from St Pancras), Bicester (45 miles), Banbury etc. The propect of easy fast commuting to central London from those places would have made a very different story to tell, and counteracted local opposition to the new line.

HS1 only has so many opportunities to serve passengers before it runs out of country. London to Edinburgh via Glasgow is about the same distance as London to Geneva via Paris. HS2 needs to serve the north to justify itself.

Would it have really counteracted local opposition? Those towns are still connected through significant green spaces, which is one objection I’ve seen often on this forum.