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

[43066]

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.)

The “new” bit of Crossrail was underground in central London, though, where not that many people live. Most of it was just massively upgrading existing lines in the suburbs, with obvious intermediate benefits, for example when the 345s began running on the GEML and GWML years before the core opened.

The benefits of HS2 will remain entirely theoretical in most peoples’ minds, until it actually opens.

 

[Mikey C]

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?

HS1 in its short length has two physical connections to the classic network, one at Ebbsfleet for Gravesend and the Medway Towns etc, the other at Ashford, with both through trains towards Canterbury or Folkestone and connecting trains towards Rye. It benefits a lot of people, all across Kent.

 

[Krokodil]

Population of Kent: 1.6m (many of whom aren't in the HS1 catchment).

Population of people in the catchment area of services which will use HS2 phase 1 as part or all of their route (excluding London): 10.5m.

 

[HSTEd]

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.

But HS2 isn't going to Edinburgh via Glasgow.
Even if the entire system as depicted has been built, no part of it would be more than about 180 miles from London in a straight line.

The first phase, which is the one that has doomed the project, is only about 110 miles from London to Birmingham and a bit more to Handsacre.

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.

HS1 was built to either be in tunnel or close to a dual carriageway/motorway over virtually its entire length.
This mitigated issues like those HS2 has brought upon itself by attempting to push through an AONB.

And as noted, the intermediate stations and classic rail connections increased the possibility that someone near the line might see tangible benefits.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2024 ==

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.

Even ignoring the now defunct Phase 1 connection, HS1 has two.
Ashford and Ebbsfleet, surely?

It has three intermediate stations (Stratford, Ebbsfleet and Ashford).

And it does all this in 70 miles.

(Also HS2 in full would have three, Church Fenton, Golborne and Handsacre)

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

Once you scale by scale of project, I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

Three intermediate stations and two connections to the classic railways, in 70 miles.
That gets HS2 to about Banbury.

 

[growse]

This mitigated issues like those HS2 has brought upon itself by attempting to push through an AONB

What's the alternative route that's cheaper?

And as noted, the intermediate stations and classic rail connections increased the possibility that someone near the line might see tangible benefits.

Maybe, but I wonder what significant areas that HS2 passes through that aren't served by the WCML/Chiltern/etc. lines?

Once you scale by scale of project, I don't see how you could argue otherwise.

Depends if you're defining amount of connectedness by literal number of connections or people served by the connection.

 

[xotGD]

The primary purpose of Crossrail is to provide additional capacity for south east commuters.

The primary purpose of HS2 is to provide additional capacity for south east commuters - by freeing up capacity on existing lines.

So why should anyone other than south east commuters support the project?

I do not see a clamour from folk in Leeds and Manchester for a faster journey to London.

And in response to the suggestion that it will provide additional long distance capacity, well how about just operating every existing service at maximum length, rather than 5 car trains on the ECML and 4 and 5 car Voyagers on cross country.

And then we see brand new trains introduced in the north dumped in sidings while the service is reduced across the Pennines. But they might be coming back -
to provide additional capacity for south east commuters!

 

[growse]

So why should anyone other than south east commuters support the project?

What's the current rail cost of shipping a container from Felixstowe up to Trafford Park?

 

[Grimsby town]

And in response to the suggestion that it will provide additional long distance capacity, well how about just operating every existing service at maximum length, rather than 5 car trains on the ECML and 4 and 5 car Voyagers on cross country.

And then we see brand new trains introduced in the north dumped in sidings while the service is reduced across the Pennines. But they might be coming back -
to provide additional capacity for south east commuters!

Sure run less short trains but that's tinkering around the edges. It doesn't provide the service uplift neccesary to get people out of cars. The WCML is at the limit of what it can achieve so the only realistic way to improve the number of services is to make services worse for other flows. The future of the WCML without HS2 is one of slower intercity journeys as linespeeds are reduced to increase capacity and more stops are inserted for places like Milton Keynes.

This is one of the reasons HS2 is unpopular. Its not been properly explained. The vast majority of the public aren't away of Network Rail documents that set out both the potential trade offs for more capacity and the potential benefits to the existing network.

HS2 is also incredibly complex. Nobody understands it properly because nobody can be an expert in everything that it entails. I've done a bit of work in business cases and demand modelling so can understand some of what is talked about but I don't have a clue when it comes ecology for example.

On the other hand you've got anti-HS2 campaign groups that reduce everything to simplistic slogans that are attractive. Throw in a bit of blatant lying and lack of understanding by MPs who swallow the propaganda and you can see why it's not liked.

 

[Peter Sarf]

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.

HS2 is really about taking pressure of the WCML and to achieve that the easiest is a new fast line from London to as far North as possible.

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

Not much. It is a brand new route so starting with a blank sheet of paper means avoidance of bad outdated decisions (from 150+ years ago). The actual cost of building for faster than 150mph is not a significant part of the cost. Slab track is more expensive but pays for itself in reduced maintenance costs and disruption.

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.

Exactly. That money is not available for anything else - its a loan for a specific project.

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.

This really sums up where HS2 is going wrong.

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.)

Yes, for Crossrail most adversely affected by construction will benefit.

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.

Worse still has HS2 blown it (public opinion wise) for Crossrail 2 ?.

I agree HS1 has more similarities to HS2.

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

I agree except for splitting HS2 into smaller projects. There was nothing to achieve if Phase-1 was split into smaller projects. Even Phase-2a is a big essential to Phase-1.

Population of Kent: 1.6m (many of whom aren't in the HS1 catchment).

Population of people in the catchment area of services which will use HS2 phase 1 as part or all of their route (excluding London): 10.5m.

Yes, a very different kettle of fish. Furthermore it is not just a benefit for shorter journeys over a catchment 10 times more populous BUT additionally HS2 brings more people closer to London from further afield (West Midlands, North West and beyond) than HS1 etc brings Paris closer to London.

 

[HSTEd]

What's the alternative route that's cheaper?

Who said it has to be cheaper?
There are multiple schools of HS2 opposition.
Sure, there are some who oppose the project on cost grounds (although increasingly as a reuslt of the cost growth), but there are people who oppose the route in principle.

The problem here, even before HS2's budget started to grow due to overruns, was that the people who suffer gain very little from the project.

An alignment in the M1 corridor with intermediate stations, in the HS1 style, may or may not have cost more (although at this point it seems costs are basically determined by size of overrun!). But it would have been much easier to sell to the people affected by it, because they would get a lot of fast trains for journeys they might actually make regularly.

Maybe, but I wonder what significant areas that HS2 passes through that aren't served by the WCML/Chiltern/etc. lines?

People won't believe you when you talk about second order benefits.
Too many broken promises have been made for people to actually believe they will benefit from future services the powers that be are definitely going to fund after they get what they want.

(That leaves aside the questions of future subsidies to the bypassed sections of classic railway etc)

 

[Sad Sprinter]

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.

I think not connecting the line up with HS1, also leads to a loss of resonance in the public mind.

Plus, not running straight through to Scotland. That would 'make sense' for most people why we would need HSR.

 

[growse]

Who said it has to be cheaper?

If it's more expensive, then the business case is worse.

Spending even more money to appease the NIMBYs is not sustainable.

The problem here, even before HS2's budget started to grow due to overruns, was that the people who suffer gain very little from the project.

Correction, the people who are affected *think* they gain very little from it. Classic selfish nimbyism: "If I don't think there's anything in it for me then I'm against it."

Every major infrastructure suffers from this attitude. It should be mostly ignored.

 

[Grimsby town]

Who said it has to be cheaper?
There are multiple schools of HS2 opposition.
Sure, there are some who oppose the project on cost grounds (although increasingly as a reuslt of the cost growth), but there are people who oppose the route in principle.

The problem here, even before HS2's budget started to grow due to overruns, was that the people who suffer gain very little from the project.

An alignment in the M1 corridor with intermediate stations, in the HS1 style, may or may not have cost more (although at this point it seems costs are basically determined by size of overrun!). But it would have been much easier to sell to the people affected by it, because they would get a lot of fast trains for journeys they might actually make regularly.

The M1 alignment would impact far more people than the Chiltern alignment. There's not going to be stations everywhere and any stations that would be constructed would likely be away from existing centres and railway lines and would need associated development.

I really don't understand the logic behind such a line either. Yes it might be more acceptable but it's a fairly pointless piece of infrastructure that's going to have very little benefits to those places. Luton and Milton Keynes are the obvious M1 stops but both already have very quick London services. So you're trading a couple of parkway stations serving suburbs for longer journey times to the north making it a less attractive replacement for the WCML.

 

[xotGD]

It doesn't provide the service uplift neccesary to get people out of cars.

Which people making what journeys by car? Certainly not folk making business trips from the north to London. Only the most swivel-eyed rail-hater makes that journey by car.

 

[SynthD]

I think not connecting the line up with HS1, also leads to a loss of resonance in the public mind.

If we tell them how few people would use the link, they’ll be satisfied. The public aren’t us, seeking neatness on a diagram.

Which people making what journeys by car?

If you accept that HS1 not stopping until Birmingham benefits the people south of Birmingham, then all of them. It’ll be easier to get a seat at Milton Keynes heading north or south.

 

[Horizon22]

I think not connecting the line up with HS1, also leads to a loss of resonance in the public mind.

I really think you are overstimating the general public's knowledge of railway geography!

 

[Grimsby town]

Which people making what journeys by car? Certainly not folk making business trips from the north to London. Only the most swivel-eyed rail-hater makes that journey by car.

That level of information isn't freely available. Granted business travel into Central London will have a huge rail modal share but other journeys such as leisure journeys don't. I know from anecdotal evidence of living across the north that a lot of people drive to the edge of London and get the tube in. First mentioned in their open access application for Sheffield that 75% of journeys to London are by car. So there's clearly a market to target.

My point was more on the freed up capacity on the existing network. Journeys to Milton Keynes from most places that aren't London are relatively poor. Only hourly fast services from Birmingham and Manchester for example. HS2 allows more services for the intermediate destinations which has never been properly sold to the general public.

 

[HSTEd]

The M1 alignment would impact far more people than the Chiltern alignment. There's not going to be stations everywhere and any stations that would be constructed would likely be away from existing centres and railway lines and would need associated development.

Well its rather difficult to do this without actually going and designing an alternate scheme, but HS1 demonstrates that urban centres can be served directly with high speed stations if desired.
ie. see Ashford International.

I really don't understand the logic behind such a line either. Yes it might be more acceptable but it's a fairly pointless piece of infrastructure that's going to have very little benefits to those places. Luton and Milton Keynes are the obvious M1 stops but both already have very quick London services. So you're trading a couple of parkway stations serving suburbs for longer journey times to the north making it a less attractive replacement for the WCML.

The current WCML services (or the post HS2 residuals) all consume a rather large sum of money to operate, substantially more than would be consumed by a modern high speed railway line with less complicated infrastructure and higher speed trains. If you actually build a WCML replacement, many of those costs can be dispensed with. (This number gets especially scary when you include an appropriate fraction of the grant to Network Rail).

Again, hard to be certain without actually designing an alternative scheme from scratch, but it is worth noting that based on the HS1 practice, there would be a hell of a lot more than a "a couple" of intermediate stations.

HS1 has 3 in 70 miles, its about 110 miles to Birmingham on the current alignment, suggesting something more like 5.
It's also worth noting that a modern high speed train could leave Euston, stop at Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby, Coventry and arrive at Birmingham before the fast classic trains can get to Birmingham on the WCML.

Again rather off topic, and I'd be happy to take it up in another speculative thread if anyone is interested. A little pointless now as HS2 has been committed and there is no going back but there we are.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2024 ==

If it's more expensive, then the business case is worse.

Spending even more money to appease the NIMBYs is not sustainable.

Well the alternative is that you burn all your political capital and we end up where we are.
Major rail development is now off the table for a very long time.

 

[A S Leib]

Journeys to Milton Keynes from most places that aren't London are relatively poor.

Although from the non-London south of Milton Keynes, I don't know what would really help for Watford or Hemel beyond massively improving last-mile public transport (not everything / everybody in towns is or lives in the town centre, but a large portion is / does), and Bedford and Luton – Milton Keynes by train should hopefully be more attractive once East West Rail's done with the Marston Vale line.

Would HS2('s public reception) have gone better if it had been actively, directly linked to capacity increases to begin with? "We will increase capacity" sounds vague; "there will be two extra trains per hour to Leeds every hour" less so.

 

[FMerrymon]

A clarification on the original post, but crossrail was originally estimated to be £10bn in 2002 prices. By 2005, it was estimated to be £15-16bn in 2005 prices https://www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2005-10-25c.20803.h

For comparison, Crossrail 2 was estimated at 41bn in 2019 prices https://www.cityam.com/crossrail-2-costs-surge-over-40bn/, similar to the target cost of hs2 phase 1 up until 2023.

I agree with the comments that crossrail more obviously benefitted those affected by construction, reducing vocal opposition. HS2 shares much more in common with HS1, which had huge protests against it at the time which have now been forgotten (as have the delays and cost rise on Hs1 for some reason).

The opposition groups have been well funded and managed to get certain misinformation out into the public conscious, which, coupled with media misunderstandings of HS2's benefits and costs, has contributed to negative sentiment.

 

[Grimsby town]

Well its rather difficult to do this without actually going and designing an alternate scheme, but HS1 demonstrates that urban centres can be served directly with high speed stations if desired.
ie. see Ashford International.

It's interesting to theorise about how it could be done differently but building a new line with a lot of stations is a terrible idea. In a UK city you're either demolishing part of the existing station or you're building very expensive underground stations. I don't see either of those would be popular. See the reaction to Old Oak Common for example

That brings me to another issue that HS2 has faced that didn't apply to Crossrail. There were multiple original alignments considered for HS2. This has allowed those against to claim that all of the other alignments were better in basically every way. Additionally, wealthy oponents and councils on the route have created their own proposals which largely play up all the benefits and ignore any potential drawbacks. I'm quite happy to bet that any other scheme would be having very similar issues to HS2.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Dec 2024 ==

Would HS2('s public reception) have gone better if it had been actively, directly linked to capacity increases to begin with? "We will increase capacity" sounds vague; "there will be two extra trains per hour to Leeds every hour" less so.

I think it would have helped but it'd have been difficult to do in 2009 for a service expected to run 2026 especially with the franchise system model. It probably needed a national transport strategy or similar to produce a proper narrative and link together some of the regional aspirations for new services.

 

[GST 2024]

The “new” bit of Crossrail was underground in central London, though, where not that many people live. Most of it was just massively upgrading existing lines in the suburbs, with obvious intermediate benefits, for example when the 345s began running on the GEML and GWML years before the core opened.

The benefits of HS2 will remain entirely theoretical in most peoples’ minds, until it actually opens.

I also think that the fact that it has gone horribly over budget that people think it’s a waste of money but I am still a firm believer in such a project and people should definitely support it

 

[MCR247]

I agree except for splitting HS2 into smaller projects. There was nothing to achieve if Phase-1 was split into smaller projects. Even Phase-2a is a big essential to Phase-1.

I see what you’re saying, I more mean that it got too ahead of itself with discussions about what route ‘HS2’ would take around Sheffield/Doncaster and whether places like Stoke would get a stop

 

[xotGD]

"there will be two extra trains per hour to Leeds every hour"

"...and unless your employer is covering the cost, they'll be too expensive to travel on."

 

[growse]

"...and unless your employer is covering the cost, they'll be too expensive to travel on."

How expensive is "too expensive"?

 

[A S Leib]

"...and unless your employer is covering the cost, they'll be too expensive to travel on."

But HS2 being communicated better would mean that these trains would be from Micklefield or Dewsbury, so not too expensive.

 

[Krokodil]

Who said it has to be cheaper?

The Treasury. Any other objectors to HS2 are just noise, the Treasury is the one with real influence.

 

[HSTEd]

The Treasury. Any other objectors to HS2 are just noise, the Treasury is the one with real influence.

A better deal for the treasury and cheaper in terms of up front cost are not necesarily synonomous.

The classic franchises that dominate the WCML (the Avanti/ICWC and WMT/LNWR franchises) have an operational expenditure of around £1.7bn per year, even ignoring the Network Grant. (EDIT: If you attempt to parcel out the network grant you can quite easily get a figure of £3bn per year).

There is plenty of room for a scheme that is more expensive up front to end up as a better deal for the treasury, if it can more strongly bear down on these figures than the envisaged scheme.
I will probably create a thread to discuss an example of what I mean in Speculative Ideas, and I think just park it here for now.

 

[Krokodil]

A better deal for the treasury and cheaper in terms of up front cost are not necesarily synonomous.

Do you want to tell the Treasury that? You make the mistake of assuming that they are businesslike in how they make their decisions.

HMT are quite clear that if you ask for £1, offering a return of £2, they'd just prefer that you didn’t spend the £1. That's what TOC management have been up against since 2020, that's why we haven't seen attempts to cut fares even when it could be profitable to do so.

 

[growse]

A better deal for the treasury and cheaper in terms of up front cost are not necesarily synonomous.

Of course not. The cheapest thing to do is nothing at all. This is not The Best Deal.

But if you're going to propose something more expensive, then unless you also show how that reliably results in a multiple of that extra investment coming back, you'll be ignored.

I seem to remember your original assertion was about the route being "more HS1-like" (following motorways etc.). The point is this'd be more expensive for no real gain.