Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
On Newsnight tonight it was reported that Rachel Reeves will say on Wednesday that HS2a to Crewe won't go ahead. The reasons given being 1. The Chiltern tunnels spent all the money and 2. The land has been sold. Not sure either of these is exactly true, but it's what Nick Robinson said she told a meeting of Labour MPs.
Apologies - I don't have a link. In any event the actual speech is in 2 days.
They have no problem with pointing the finger at the previous government, so just say while building to Manchester is still too expensive, Crewe is a relatively affordable no brainer which is key to getting phase 1 to work and rishi sunak cancelled it without doing research or understanding how it actually works, for short term political reasons
They have no problem with pointing the finger at the previous government, so just say while building to Manchester is still too expensive, Crewe is a relatively affordable no brainer which is key to getting phase 1 to work and rishi sunak cancelled it without doing research or understanding how it actually works, for short term political reasons
They have no problem with pointing the finger at the previous government, so just say while building to Manchester is still too expensive, Crewe is a relatively affordable no brainer which is key to getting phase 1 to work
This is what seems so illogical. The hard work of building huge brand new stations in London and Birmingham is done; building tunnels under London, Chilterns and Birmingham is done; making arrangements to buy all the necessary land is done. Just build another 50-odd miles of track!
They have no problem with pointing the finger at the previous government, so just say while building to Manchester is still too expensive, Crewe is a relatively affordable no brainer which is key to getting phase 1 to work and rishi sunak cancelled it without doing research or understanding how it actually works, for short term political reasons
Because before cancellation, even HS2 admitted to a cost of up to £7bn, it will be above £10bn by the time it is built now. And that's if we assume HS2's costings are generally accurate, and I doubt there is much faith in that in government.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So it easily wins versus the classic train.
If you look at the ODM data it is clear that you have to go very far down the destination list for York before you get a station south west of Birmingham. I haven't tried it for the other stations beyond York but I can't imagine it will be much different.
Calling at York, Leeds and Manchester would eat up an awful lot of XC's existing classic traffic.
You'll need to add 400m platforms in Leeds and this will require a new approach into Leeds, which will add considerable expense to NPR just as did HS2, you'll need the line Leeds- York, all of which was to be build by HS2.
Well you wouldn't necessarily need 400m platforms in Leeds.
You could operate ~325m (< 340m) trainsets into two platforms at Leeds, two at York and one in Newcastle.
Once you account for the loss of around a carriage to interior cabs in the 2x200m configuration, capacity wouldn't be that far reduced compared to a 400m double-set formation.
And HS2's proposal didn't provide a line from Leeds to York in any meaningful sense.
It functionally provided a line from Toton to York, bypassing Leeds.
EDIT:
Edited to make it in an order more comparable to the original posts.
I entirely understand not starting 2a now. But there's a big difference between completely cancelling something, and just pushing it back a few years. It would be stupidity to do anything now which prevented such a scheme going ahead in the future.
On Newsnight tonight it was reported that Rachel Reeves will say on Wednesday that HS2a to Crewe won't go ahead. The reasons given being 1. The Chiltern tunnels spent all the money and 2. The land has been sold. Not sure either of these is exactly true, but it's what Nick Robinson said she told a meeting of Labour MPs.
Apologies - I don't have a link. In any event the actual speech is in 2 days.
Not particularly surprising, the speech was about growth, not mothballing infrastructure projects. It sounds like the meeting with Labour MPs has had significant paraphrasing.
Current expectation is that 2a will not happen till after phase 1 to allow for lessons to be learnt, and probably because the Treasury doesn’t want both bills at the same time.
I entirely understand not starting 2a now. But there's a big difference between completely cancelling something, and just pushing it back a few years. It would be stupidity to do anything now which prevented such a scheme going ahead in the future.
Not particularly surprising, the speech was about growth, not mothballing infrastructure projects. It sounds like the meeting with Labour MPs has had significant paraphrasing.
Current expectation is that 2a will not happen till after phase 1 to allow for lessons to be learnt, and probably because the Treasury doesn’t want both bills at the same time.
We can debate costs and benefits until the cows come home. However, instead these posts helped me to think about the politics of it all.
Look at what's happened with Crossrail - i.e. outperforming expectations and everybody basically saying "can't imagine life without it".
There's clearly a decent chance that people will really take to HS2 in the way that many have to HS1/Eurostar and the Liz Line (and most other new rail infrastructure).
At that point the capacity issues around Handsacre/Colwich/Shugborough become real, rather than imagined/modelled.
Rachel Reeves will be expecting it to happen sometime in what she hopes will be a 2nd Labour Government, when she probably also hopes to still be Chancellor or PM.
But if she cancels, she's set a trap for herself in - say 2032. Her 2025 decision to irrevocably cancel Ph2 re-emerges as a political issue, years after the actual cancellation. It would be a proof-point around an attack line that she/Labour know the cost of everything/value of nothing - i.e. she's an over-promoted accountant, not a strategic leader.
So if she/Labour *are* the strategic leaders they claim to be, then the political problem might actually be the reverse. They can see that Ph2a actually is a pretty good idea, but it's politically hard to say so, given the prevailing view in the country that Ph1 is a bit of a dog's breakfast.
If you look at the ODM data it is clear that you have to go very far down the destination list for York before you get a station south west of Birmingham.
I'm not surprised, Bristol to York is 4 hours wedged in a Voyager with XC's extortionate fares. Quite a lot of the passengers will be on split tickets so even those who are making the full journey will not appear in the statistics (instead appearing as two separate short journeys). Lengthening formations, cutting fares and cutting journey times would change this dramatically.
Well you wouldn't necessarily need 400m platforms in Leeds.
You could operate ~325m (< 340m) trainsets into two platforms at Leeds, two at York and one in Newcastle.
Where are you getting 325m trainsets from? The HS2 sets will be 200m, with the option of running doubled up to form 400m trains where platform length allows.
The trains can't be redesigned to be longer than 200m because they are constrained by the size of the depot, which can only accommodate 200m trains, and to change that at this stage in the programme would be reeeeally expensive.
Not particularly surprising, the speech was about growth, not mothballing infrastructure projects. It sounds like the meeting with Labour MPs has had significant paraphrasing.
Current expectation is that 2a will not happen till after phase 1 to allow for lessons to be learnt, and probably because the Treasury doesn’t want both bills at the same time.
Where are you getting 325m trainsets from? The HS2 sets will be 200m, with the option of running doubled up to form 400m trains where platform length allows.
The trains can't be redesigned to be longer than 200m because they are constrained by the size of the depot, which can only accommodate 200m trains, and to change that at this stage in the programme would be reeeeally expensive.
More expensive than building the tens to hundreds of miles of high speed rail line necessary to make the 325m length relevant?
The cost of a depot is negligible next to that.
The cost of such a new depot, that would be needed regardless for such a large expansion of high speed rail operation, would be smaller than the cost of rebuilding Leeds station with 400m platforms alone.
Functionally new depots are regularly constructed for train orders that are a small fraction of the value, in total, of the project being proposed implicitly in this thread.
Functionally new depots are regularly constructed for train orders that are a small fraction of the value, in total, of the project being proposed implicitly in this thread.
Exactly.. the choice is vary the contract to adjust rolling stock length and depot length to match the need, or (a) use short 200m stock and provide lower capacity than currently - wasting everything, or (b) reconstruct railway throats in city centres to extend the inextensible..
More expensive than building the tens to hundreds of miles of high speed rail line necessary to make the 325m length relevant?
The cost of a depot is negligible next to that.
The cost of such a new depot, that would be needed regardless for such a large expansion of high speed rail operation, would be smaller than the cost of rebuilding Leeds station with 400m platforms alone.
Functionally new depots are regularly constructed for train orders that are a small fraction of the value, in total, of the project being proposed implicitly in this thread.
Given that (at least partly) we're talking about competing with XC (which has most of their fleet at 100m to 125m units) a 200m unit will provide capacity uplift compared to a 2*4 coach train and quite possibly give a 2*5 coach train a run for is money if it doesn't beet it.
As to running London services via HS2, there could be a case for running 400m trains on the new lines and then splitting to serve two locations on the existing network.
As to running London services via HS2, there could be a case for running 400m trains on the new lines and then splitting to serve two locations on the existing network.
With the limitations as ooc and at handsacre/colwich, I think that's very likely they will need to split at Crewe. 8 trains an hour limitation at ooc, gives 5 going north of Birmingham. Will make for a potentially less reliable journey though.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
If you look at the ODM data it is clear that you have to go very far down the destination list for York before you get a station south west of Birmingham. I haven't tried it for the other stations beyond York but I can't imagine it will be much different.
York is a major interchange for other destinations and we are talking about the entire South West, rather than specific stations on that line. Newcastle also, there's a reason express services on ecml call at these two stations. Just looking at specific york-somewhereSW isn't going to show you the demand.
Well you wouldn't necessarily need 400m platforms in Leeds.
You could operate ~325m (< 340m) trainsets into two platforms at Leeds, two at York and one in Newcastle
Its not the length of the platforms that's the primary concern. Leeds is full, requires new platforms and the current configuration is constrained. The benefit of hs2 was to create new platforms at a T to the current station, which added capacity for through services. If you're building new 325m platforms, might as well go ahead and build new 400m platforms. Whatever happens, Leeds needs expansion especially if you're building a new line across the pennines.
I'm not surprised, Bristol to York is 4 hours wedged in a Voyager with XC's extortionate fares. Quite a lot of the passengers will be on split tickets so even those who are making the full journey will not appear in the statistics (instead appearing as two separate short journeys). Lengthening formations, cutting fares and cutting journey times would change this dramatically
Exactly and the modal share of journeys along that route is likely low for rail as a result. The M1 following that routes had to be widened due to demand. Midlands Connect often included modal comparisons in their proposals. On the attached, they show Leicester-Leeds compared to Newcastle-Leeds. It wouldn't just be Leicester, or Leeds, in that state either either, there's a cluster of towns and cities that would have benefited. EM-Yorks/NE has a poor connection, but as it's not a London flow, people don't care.
We shouldn't go off just the current demand, but the potential to grow.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
This group are/were quite active https://www.srcg.uk/. I believe they have contributed to Michael Byng's work, along with the original funders, and have appeared at the TSC as witnesses. I'd suggest filing under "blockers" in the Rachel Reeves definition of the word.
Its not the length of the platforms that's the primary concern. Leeds is full, requires new platforms and the current configuration is constrained. The benefit of hs2 was to create new platforms at a T to the current station, which added capacity for through services. If you're building new 325m platforms, might as well go ahead and build new 400m platforms. Whatever happens, Leeds needs expansion especially if you're building a new line across the pennines.
There's not going to be a new line across the pennines, the IRP truncated it to a silly stub to the west of Standedge which provided no benefit. We'll get TRU and a few bits extra tacked on imo.
But Leeds does need new platforms longer term, and just as importantly approach lines. The problem is the station and city are very constrained along the E-W axis; one of the consequences of HS2 planning. There's space for a couple of extra platforms at the north west of the station behind platform 0 but that leaves the station with little or no car parking, plus the issue of picking up and dropping off of passengers which is already a massive issue. However the other issue there's no space for masses of new approach lines to the station without some expensive and tricky purchasing and demolition of housing.
But Leeds does need new platforms longer term, and just as importantly approach lines. The problem is the station and city are very constrained along the E-W axis; one of the consequences of HS2 planning.
Would it have enough platforms if it was quadrupled to the East so more trains could be through services?
Unfortunately they are replacing the bridge which would be the difficult bit with another two track one.
Would it have enough platforms if it was quadrupled to the East so more trains could be through services?
Unfortunately they are replacing the bridge which would be the difficult bit with another two track one.
Nope - aside from quadrupling to the east is full of problems, both in the city centre but also further east. People keep bringing up four tracking through Garforth which is absurd when you consider the impact on the town and housing.
Additionally you're looking at ever increasing capacity from the midlands (which is needed) as well as to the west then that's not coming down Marsh Lane. At best you could put the LNER services via Hambleton but this causes connectivity issues for Wakefield which is a popular and profitable station.
Additionally it does nothing for the wider situation at the station which is the state of pick up/drop off and integration - which is network rail's responsibility.
There is but all of them have significant challenges both at the station plus the surrounding areas. There's no easy answers, HS2 and the station would have solved alot of them.
There's a short tunnel near Whitmore, and I would guess fewer bridges per km than Phase 1.
There's a lot of complicated junction work just south of Crewe to allow HS2 trains to join the WCML towards Crewe station, allowing the main HS2 line to continue at 360km/h down to the portal of the tunnel taking the mainline under Crewe itself. This won't be needed if they don't go ahead with phase 2b.
That's a pretty big ignore! You may also wish to ignore time as well?
I do though hope it is the start of a network, but cost control needs to get better. If that's going well in the next 2 or 3 years only then would I consider 2a to Crewe as giving a further opportunity to show they are getting better
That's a pretty big ignore! You may also wish to ignore time as well?
I do though hope it is the start of a network, but cost control needs to get better. If that's going well in the next 2 or 3 years only then would I consider 2a to Crewe as giving a further opportunity to show they are getting better
Its not entirely all their fault. Covid was said to have hit them with an additional 1.7bn in cost. The government's rescheduling in 2023 due to inflation was reported by the NAO as adding £3.1bn (2019) to the project. 3 designs of Euston and now on to a 4th - dictated by the government. They're now adding the cancellation costs for phase 2 on to the budget for a total programme cost. They've had to work through significant increases in cost of materials and battle the environment agency which can stop work on a whim. Consider that the difference between the target cost and budget was 4.3bn.
I'm certainly not saying it's run perfectly and there are issues with hs2ltd, but some things have been unavoidable.
The damage is done in the minds of the public, who have been rather misled by the reporting of costs, so even if the government wanted to continue, it also needs to demonstrate to the public
As a train nerd I love the concept of HS2, and there have been mitigating factors but they all seem to add 1bn here, 3-4bn there. The facts are that the cost has ballooned from around 40bn to 72-98bn (all 2019 prices), and that’s for less than half the original route. It’s not unreasonable to estimate that the ‘full’ thing would have been £150bn, almost x5 the original estimate. The original estimate was so poor it’s beyond comprehension.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
