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

[SynthD]

In order for people to believe the benefits will be delivered, they have to be an integral part of the scheme that the funder is proposing. As they were with Crossrail.

The Heathrow and Canary Wharf/Abbey Wood branches were added, and the Aylesbury branch was removed from Crossrail. The core varied too, a recent Jago Hazard video showed stops at Marble Arch, Covent Garden and Blackfriars. What is integral?

 

[Peter Sarf]

The problem with these projected benefits is that they are detached from the scheme being pushed.
The cynical public will come to the conclusion that these projects will be quietly axed once HS2 gets what it wants.
Which turns out to be exactly what happened.

It is a hard truth that most of the UK population are not interested in something until it is happening now and right under their noses. So a long term project that is for the national benefit is of no perceived direct use whatsoever to most of the people actually inconvenienced by it. In fact most of the UK population are not interested in HS2 one way or another - that was its main chance of survival !.

In order for people to believe the benefits will be delivered, they have to be an integral part of the scheme that the funder is proposing. As they were with Crossrail.

That is the difference unfortunately.

Well they would get stations too, if we follow the HS1 type of model.
A high speed train from London to Birmingham could stop at Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry and still beat the WCML handily.

Also, does it matter if the trains stop multiple times if they are still faster than the alternative? A line that continued on that basis through Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York would still beat the classic railway for essentially all journey combinations other than London-York, and even then it will get close.
The classic railway is pretty slow by modern HSR standards.

That really shows how hopeless out classic railway network is !.
I would not want to get dragged into adding everywhere on the way to a capacity relieving long distance line.

The places you list really remind me that the "Y" shape was not much good. I think a decent line linking Manchester to Leeds needs to happen and building on it by linking to HS2 to the South and eventually pulling in Liverpool and York.

Perhaps a high speed link from Manchester to Leeds would get more buy in. It feels a bit more like CrossRail maybe. Even though I would not ant too many (if any) intermediate stations.

If only we still had the Great Central. That was the best mainline we had. That was mainly because it was the newest and so built to better standards. Back in 1899 they probably had a lot less politics and objections to get through.

Unfortunately, given the collapse of the scheme, most of this capacity that has been provided will not be used.
That is another lesson - a scheme that defers the bulk of its benefits to the end of the scheme runs a serious risk of being cancelled before it can be realised.

Realistically a project is hard pushed to deliver benefits early on unless it is a piecemeal upgrade of an existing route. That would have inferred a West Coast Route Modernisation - which was the last thing wanted as the last attempt at that had been expensive for not much benefit.

It really was time to start from scratch and build the best possible route. But no one has the stamina for such big projects plus of course building costs in the UK seem to be above average and not just for rail projects.

 

[jfowkes]

Also, does it matter if the trains stop multiple times if they are still faster than the alternative? A line that continued on that basis through Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York would still beat the classic railway for essentially all journey combinations other than London-York, and even then it will get close.

Would such a line not have cost a lot more, and/or hit a lot more opposition, simply by having to smash through, or tunnel under, a lot of urban centres? And because you're building new (or upgrading existing) stations.

As compared to the released capacity in those places that HS2-in-full would have provided anyway, I'm not seeing the benefits honestly.

 

[A S Leib]

Why do the LGVs between Paris and Rennes and Bordeaux have connections to existing lines for Laval and Angouleme despite them only having ~50,000 people each? Population density / the distances involved between larger settlements (close to 100 miles between Rennes and Le Mans) is the first one I can think of; is there anything else which means that's happened in France but is unlikely to in the UK? Stronger lobbying for high-speed rail links rather than against new infrastructure being built?

 

[HSTEd]

Would such a line not have cost a lot more, and/or hit a lot more opposition, simply by having to smash through, or tunnel under, a lot of urban centres? And because you're building new (or upgrading existing) stations.

The people who would have been impacted in those urban centres would have been provided with a station for a serice that they would use - they would share in the huge benefits that high speed rail can provide.
Just like Crossrail.

It would have cost more in cash terms, but it would not have involved a hugely politically expensive battle to try and force the line through the AONB on the surface - which combined with awful management has doomed the scheme.

As compared to the released capacity in those places that HS2-in-full would have provided anyway, I'm not seeing the benefits honestly.

Released capacity that has many more uses and of which there is no real guarantee will be provided to local passenger operations.

And which, in any case, will not meaningfully benefit the lives of the people who are being disrupted by the as built scheme - who don't even live particularly near the WCML.

And speaking for myself, being able to reduce the WCML between MKC and Coventry to essentially a freight line (the only classic only stations left would be Wolverton and Long Buckby) would have major benefits for the rail industry itself in the long run. Let alone being able to dedicate an entire pair of tracks to freight operations all the way down to Camden Bank.

 

[Grimsby town]

Why do the LGVs between Paris and Rennes and Bordeaux have connections to existing lines for Laval and Angouleme despite them only having ~50,000 people each? Population density / the distances involved between larger settlements (close to 100 miles between Rennes and Le Mans) is the first one I can think of; is there anything else which means that's happened in France but is unlikely to in the UK? Stronger lobbying for high-speed rail links rather than against new infrastructure being built?

Yes it was essentially down to local areas demanding stations and building those stations being seen as a way to appease NIMBYs. SNCF advised HS2 not to build intermediate stations as they start to massively limit capacity. The reason Birmingham International works is because services split off there so don't need to be routed back on to the mainline. If you put a stop ona loop at Calvert (or wherever) then you need to leave a path free for that train to join back on to the mainline.

 

[FMerrymon]

That's assuming that XC still runs south of Reading, if the XC paths south of Reading get used to create direct trains to OOC then it's a single point of change and reduces the journey time even more.

On the full scheme, journey times to Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle etc would have been around 90 mins quicker than current from Reading. Even with the reduced state, its will still be an hour quicker to Manchester and likely Liverpool too - haven't done the calculations to Glasgow. Not only that, more frequent and more seats and relieving the cross country service. If Heathrow Southern were to go ahead, a better route to OOC would be the extend the Heathrow express down to Southampton/Bournemouth.

Very few people realise these connections will be possible - a lot of "why would I want to go to Old Oak Common?". You will do, you will

 

[eldomtom2]

Yes it was essentially down to local areas demanding stations and building those stations being seen as a way to appease NIMBYs. SNCF advised HS2 not to build intermediate stations as they start to massively limit capacity.

Of course if the Japanese were building HS2 Phase 1 would probably have about seven intermediate stations...

 

[Peter Sarf]

On the full scheme, journey times to Manchester, Leeds, Newcastle etc would have been around 90 mins quicker than current from Reading. Even with the reduced state, its will still be an hour quicker to Manchester and likely Liverpool too - haven't done the calculations to Glasgow. Not only that, more frequent and more seats and relieving the cross country service. If Heathrow Southern were to go ahead, a better route to OOC would be the extend the Heathrow express down to Southampton/Bournemouth.

Very few people realise these connections will be possible - a lot of "why would I want to go to Old Oak Common?". You will do, you will

Now there is a parallel with CrossRail that is worth boasting. I would never have thought of Croydon to Farringdon by ThamesLink for most of my trips to/via London. But since CrossRail (sorry Elizabeth line) has opened I now hardly ever go via Victoria (except for the CHEAP coach to/from Cardiff). Farringdon has become my principal London node for onward travel.

 

[FMerrymon]

The problem with these projected benefits is that they are detached from the scheme being pushed.
The cynical public will come to the conclusion that these projects will be quietly axed once HS2 gets what it wants.
Which turns out to be exactly what happened.

In order for people to believe the benefits will be delivered, they have to be an integral part of the scheme that the funder is proposing. As they were with Crossrail.

Agree, but the budgets should be separated so that the media doesn't go on about increased costs. Local MPs should have fought on this basis to ensure it would be politically difficult to cancel. There is money spent on passive provision such as earthworks for the Aylesbury connection and some of the track is being re-laid by Hs2 to the waste disposal facility at a higher spec - the infamous bat tunnel is more expensive due to it covering 4 lines for the Aylesbury connection too.

Well they would get stations too, if we follow the HS1 type of model.
A high speed train from London to Birmingham could stop at Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry and still beat the WCML handily.

Also, does it matter if the trains stop multiple times if they are still faster than the alternative? A line that continued on that basis through Wolverhampton, Stafford, Stoke, Manchester, Huddersfield, Leeds and York would still beat the classic railway for essentially all journey combinations other than London-York, and even then it will get close.
The classic railway is pretty slow by modern HSR standards.

Every one of those places, bar Huddersfield, stood to gain from released capacity. There'd be no point in stopping there at those intermediate stations, that is the job of the classic railway which will be able to serve them better. It would also reduce seat capacity for the long distance passengers.

The places you list really remind me that the "Y" shape was not much good. I think a decent line linking Manchester to Leeds needs to happen and building on it by linking to HS2 to the South and eventually pulling in Liverpool and York.

Perhaps a high speed link from Manchester to Leeds would get more buy in. It feels a bit more like CrossRail maybe. Even though I would not ant too many (if any) intermediate stations.

That had been the plan at IRP, the cancellation of Hs2 has effectively scuppered it as it.

A cross pennine high speed route is politically more popular and I'd say this is a good example of the original question in the thread. The eastern branch would have been transformational, but that may have been the least understood part of the project. When the Integrated Rail Plan was decided, it really swapped the eastern branch for the cross pennine route. My thoughts are those that wanted to cancel used the more politically popular northern route to convince ministers to drop the eastern branch. If you look at Network North's examination of the BCR of HS2 over time, it says that the BCR was dropping, yet the biggest fall after the budget reset in 2020 is the removal of the Eastern branch. Same person wrote Network North who advised on the IRP.

HS2 would have built large sections of the cross pennine route (again not included in its BCR) and, without it, the cost of that increases significantly with less value (it has great value just not as much as the full HS2).

 

[HSTEd]

Yes it was essentially down to local areas demanding stations and building those stations being seen as a way to appease NIMBYs. SNCF advised HS2 not to build intermediate stations as they start to massively limit capacity. The reason Birmingham International works is because services split off there so don't need to be routed back on to the mainline. If you put a stop ona loop at Calvert (or wherever) then you need to leave a path free for that train to join back on to the mainline.

Well yes, SNCF advised that because they don't actually want to serve their intermediate stations.
They end up built entirely in the middle of nowhere, given the very low population density of much of France. The distances between stops on the LGVs are long because there is virtually noone around to serve, Paris-Lyon is equivalent to London-Newcastle. Paris-Marseille gets you pretty much to Aberdeen.

The situation in the UK is rather different - the majority of trains on HS1 serve all stations that the trains pass through.

 

[Grimsby town]

Well yes, SNCF advised that because they don't actually want to serve their intermediate stations.
They end up built entirely in the middle of nowhere, given the very low population density of much of France. The distances between stops on the LGVs are long because there is virtually noone around to serve, Paris-Lyon is equivalent to London-Newcastle. Paris-Marseille gets you pretty much to Aberdeen.

The situation in the UK is rather different - the majority of trains on HS1 serve all stations that the trains pass through.

HS1 is a pretty unique circumstance though. Being international its more limited on traffic levels than a domestic intercity line would be. Ebbsfleet and Ashford are both located on junctions.

It only really solves one point against HS2 and exacerbates others. Plenty of arguments are based on duplicating lines that already exist and only 'saving 20 minutes'. Why wouldn't there be arguments we already have a railway to Luton or we don't need to save 5 minutes from Birmingham to London.

The demographics of HS2 opposition are massively skewed towards over 65s who are less likely to live in urban areas and less likely to take the train. I dount they'd welcome a more expensive alternative which they still wouldn't see as helping themselves.

 

[The Planner]

A high speed train from London to Birmingham could stop at Luton, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Rugby and Coventry and still beat the WCML handily.

You need to show your workings there. How are all those stops going to be 81 minutes, especially considering the distance between them. You have lost 10 minutes to dwell times, 12 if you are stopping at Birmingham International.

 

[Grimsby town]

Of course if the Japanese were building HS2 Phase 1 would probably have about seven intermediate stations...

If it was Japanese then it would also include significant greenfield development around new stations and stations would be away from traditional city centres. Aa far as I'm aware, Japan didn't have a 125mph classic rail system serving intermediate locations when it built the Shinkansen.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Savings to the NHS of £9.5 billion by 2050 if we hit our transport decarbonisation targets

Yet HS2 will be a net contributor of carbon, even over the projected life span of the infrastructure.

Will HS2 really help cut the UK’s carbon footprint?

The high-speed rail project has become one of the most costly and controversial of the modern era – and may not even be good for the environment

www.theguardian.com

The government’s own calculations for HS2 suggest its carbon emissions could exceed potential savings, even over the railway’s projected 120-year lifetime.

HS2 will not cut carbon emissions. According to HS2’s own forecasts, even over 120 years, its overall construction and operation cause carbon emissions of 1.49m tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. This represents just 1.18% of Britain’s annual transport emissions, but critics say it is still an increase when emissions need to be falling rapidly to reach net zero.

This is the trouble with HS2: none of the supposed benefits of the infrastructure project can stand up to even the merest scrutiny.

 

[A S Leib]

none of the supposed benefits of the infrastructure project can stand up to even the merest scrutiny

Even if you see speed between major cities as the least important benefit, it is at least one which did stand up to scrutiny, especially (with phase 2) between Birmingham and Manchester, Leeds and York.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Capacity is the primary reason stated in the all the whitepapers released and business cases. A quick look at the HS2 website also confirms capacity is the first benefit mentioned.

In the original business plan the supposed largest benefit was increased speeds.

The HS2 website now says all sorts of things it didn't say before.

They have not spent double the original budget and there is very visibly infrastructure in the course of being delivered.

The original budget was £37M. What are we up to now? And how many miles of operational railway do we have to show for it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2025 ==

it is at least one which did stand up to scrutiny, especially (with phase 2) between Birmingham and Manchester, Leeds and York.

Yet it was phase two that was the first to get binned off when they ran out of other people's money.

 

[A S Leib]

when they ran out of other people's money.

I thought the funding plan was mostly borrowing from the future?

 

[Peter Sarf]

In the original business plan the supposed largest benefit was increased speeds.

The HS2 website now says all sorts of things it didn't say before.


The original budget was £37M. What are we up to now? And how many miles of operational railway do we have to show for it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2025 ==


Yet it was phase two that was the first to get binned off when they ran out of other people's money.

It is being paid for by a loan.

But don't forget loans have to be paid back - hopefully afforded by the benefits of using HS2.

HS2 is an investment.
How does that compare with CrossRail ?.

 

[jfowkes]

Yet HS2 will be a net contributor of carbon, even over the projected life span of the infrastructure.

But as the article you linked points out:

But carbon modelling – predicting a new infrastructure’s carbon emissions – is, like all future-gazing, imprecise and dependent on computer modelling.

Some analysts argue that HS2 has presented an overly pessimistic carbon-saving forecast because it is obliged by law to give worst-case scenarios.


The HSRILG report points out HS2’s forecasts of 4% and 1% are based on assuming that driving and flying become more affordable while rail fares increase above inflation.

In practice, the European average for high speed rail modal shift is 15% from cars and 30% from planes. Furthermore, HS2’s forecasts do not include carbon-saving from increased use of local passenger rail, with HS2 freeing up lines such as the west coast mainline to provide better local services.

You say HS2 will be a net contributor of carbon - no. HS2 might be a net contributor of carbon. HS2's carbon performance is highly dependent on government policy. And not just transport policy - housing, energy, economic, health and social policy at least.
If we want HS2 to be carbon-negative, it can be. We need to attract people and freight off planes/roads and onto trains and HS2 can massively help to do that, if the right policies are in place.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It is being paid for by a loan.

The government website says it is funded by a grant.

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited is the company responsible for developing and promoting the UK’s new high speed rail network. It is funded by grant-in-aid from the government. HS2 Ltd is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Transport .

www.gov.uk

High Speed Two (HS2) Limited is the company responsible for developing and promoting the UK’s new high speed rail network. It is funded by grant-in-aid from the government.

You say HS2 will be a net contributor of carbon - no. HS2 might be a net contributor of carbon.

Fair point; it probably is all waving a damp finger in the air. But those are the government predictions.

But the poster I quoted was arguing that £9.5bn savings could be attributed due to reduced carbon. It can't be both £9.5bn of savings and just all waving a damp finger in the air.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

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.

I absolutely agree. In my paper for my Masters degree in Corrosion Engineering, I had to do a week long course module on Economics and law. I got marked down (6/10) for not considering the cost of doing nothing!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Yes it was essentially down to local areas demanding stations and building those stations being seen as a way to appease NIMBYs.

No, it was to allow SNCF to gain access to EU regional development funds and it was to strengthen the business case for the construction. That's why you ended up with pointless stations like TGV Haute-Picardie; things they could add into the business case but also things they never had any intention of serving properly.

 

[FMerrymon]

In the original business plan the supposed largest benefit was increased speeds.

The HS2 website now says all sorts of things it didn't say before.

Its the dft green book for assessing transport projects. All projects assessed in the same way.

On the hs2 website, I shall repeat what I said above:

From the hs2.org.uk website in January 2013: https://web.archive.org/web/20130125235929/http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2 first mention in "about hs2" is "releasing space on crowded lines".

Attached the 2009 and 2010 whitepapers. Capacity key point

The original budget was £37M. What are we up to now? And how many miles of operational railway do we have to show for it?

Original budget was 50.1bn at 2011 prices set in 2013. That would be > 75bn in today's prices.

37.5bn was an early estimate at 2009 prices from the 2011 economic case. It is based on the same base cost as the 50.1bn budget.

Even on the original timescale, you wouldn't have an operational railway right now. There's plenty to show for its progress.

 

[HSTEd]

You need to show your workings there. How are all those stops going to be 81 minutes, especially considering the distance between them. You have lost 10 minutes to dwell times, 12 if you are stopping at Birmingham International.

Right, so my (admittedly crude) methodology is to estimate the track distances between stations on a proposed route, and then compare them to pairs of adjacent stations on high speed lines in Japan that are at the same distance. I can then use timetabled journey times between those pairs to estimate the journey times between the stations on the proposed route.

So, I estimate track distances by taking the straight line distances, padding them by 10% to represent a fairly direct but not straight alignment. I then use pairs of stations which are exclusively further apart than this distance to build in a bit of redundancy. THis will give me a set of journey times stop-to-stop, and we can then add in a dwell time, in this case I will use 2 minutes, to get an estimate of an approximate journey time overall.

Station A	Station B	Straight Line (km)	Padded (km)	Exemplar A	Exemplar B	Ex. Dist (km)	Time (min)
London Euston	Luton	43.7	48.1	Shin-Yokohama	Odawara	51.2	14
Luton	Milton Keynes	30.1	33.1	Sendai (Kagoshima)	Kagoshima-Chūō	35.3	11
Milton Keynes	Northampton	24.4	26.8	Kakegawa	Hamamatsu	27.6	10
Northampton	Rugby	28.1	30.9	Sendai (Kagoshima)	Kagoshima-Chūō	35.3	11
Rugby	Coventry	18.2	20.0	Shin-Tamana	Kumamoto	21.9	9
Coventry	Birmingham New Street	27.5	30.3	Sendai (Kagoshima)	Kagoshima-Chūō	35.3	11

That totals 66 minutes rolling, if we take your suggestion of two minute dwell times, that takes us to around 76 minutes.
Now obviously this methodology has serious limits, but I can't see many superior methods that don't actually require designing a route. Especially considering this project will empathically not happen, so would seem rather pointless!

In the end, the Pendolinos running the route today are much higher performance than the loco hauled sets they replaced, but compared to the pinacle of high speed multiple unit design seen in Japan, they are slow to accelerate.
A 9-car Pendolino has 12 powered axles out of 36 for 5,100kW. An 8-car N700S set has 32 powered axles out of 32 for 9,760kW.

EDIT:
I chose Birmingham New Street because I just wanted an arbitrary point and it was the fastest one to click on, not because I was making any kind of statement about Birmingham stations.

 

[FMerrymon]

Yet HS2 will be a net contributor of carbon, even over the projected life span of the infrastructure.

This is one of the many myths and a good point to raise. The 120 year figure comes from people misreading the initial carbon report.

Its just phase 1 - phase 2 would be where you get the capacity and journey times for modal shift from air.

Its a worst case scenario.

Its use is as a base for Hs2's own carbon reduction plan.

The only released capacity service included is one additional freight path, a massive underestimate.

The Oakervee review assessed the full scheme and said it can get back all the carbon spent, whether a decent released capacity assessment was included, I don't know.

The relevance to the original question in the thread is that these myths have arisen and have been blindly repeated by journalists who don't understand the cost calculations, environmental impacts and never understood the benefits.

This is the trouble with HS2: none of the supposed benefits of the infrastructure project can stand up to even the merest scrutiny.

The trouble with hs2 is there has been a lot of myths, misinterpretations and misconceptions spread. I cna point to two public figures who have done a lot of that. It has been damaging to public perception.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 13 Jan 2025 ==

Yet it was phase two that was the first to get binned off when they ran out of other people's money

It was not binned because of running out of money. The government said they were spending the "savings" on other projects.

It wasn't entirely binned either. Phase 2b hybrid bill was kept and has been retained by this govt too. We could have certainly have afforded phase 2a, which was the easiest, cheapest section and shovel ready. Interesting then that it was the only bit that had safeguarding removed and an attempt to sell of property as soon as possible. The word sabotage comes to mind.

 

[Palmerston]

The eastern branch would have been transformational, but that may have been the least understood part of the project. When the Integrated Rail Plan was decided, it really swapped the eastern branch for the cross pennine route.

I think this is often overlooked. Birmingham to Leeds would have reduced from 118 to 49 mins. Under the IRP, Birmingham to Nottingham went from 74 to 26 mins (I can't recall why this was quicker than the original HS2 plan).

 

[A S Leib]

Under the IRP, Birmingham to Nottingham went from 74 to 26 mins (I can't recall why this was quicker than the original HS2 plan).

The need to get between Nottingham and Toton under the original HS2 plan, to Derby's benefit (or less disadvantage)?

 

[Nottingham59]

Under the IRP, Birmingham to Nottingham went from 74 to 26 mins (I can't recall why this was quicker than the original HS2 plan).

Maybe they were measuringfrom Curzon St to East Midlands Parkway which is two or three miles less than to Toton.

 

[FMerrymon]

Maybe they were measuringfrom Curzon St to East Midlands Parkway which is two or three miles less than to Toton.

There are quite a few mistakes in the IRP, but I think it was Birmingham to Nottingham direct, there was some speculation as to whether that would have possible. Could not have included a stop at EMP either.

Prior to IRP, midland connect proposed a Birmingham-Nottingham direct via Toton and calculated 33mins.

Under the IRP, Birmingham to Nottingham went from 74 to 26 mins (I can't recall why this was quicker than the original HS2 plan).

Without a direct, would likely have been around 43-48mins with a change - 74 is what it is now.