High Speed Rail Group calls for affordable plan for HS2 phase 2a and Euston

[Nottingham59]

I see the High Speed Rail Group has published their proposals for continuing HS2 phase 2a.

High Speed Rail Group calls for new, affordable and realistic HS2 plan – High-Speed Rail Group

The High Speed Rail Group has made a submission to the HM Treasury Spending Review consultation that identifies and advocates for a cost efficient and deliverable path forward for HS2. The focus is on maximising HS2’s concession value at minimum viable scope and cost, which will maximise the project’s economic benefits within a constrained budget, accelerate delivery, and ensure a substantial financial return to the Treasury, while recognising current fiscal constraints. Our submission urges the Government to:

1. Re-scope HS2 to a “Euston-Crewe core”. Delivering this would act as a key driver of the Government’s economic growth ambitions, while providing additional and urgently needed national transport capacity between London, the West Midlands and the North West.
   As laid out in the submission, all of the strictly necessary HS2 infrastructure is now funded, with two exceptions that HSRG argue are of critical importance to HS2, and therefore should be funded at minimum cost without further delay:
2. ‘Un-freeze’ the planned connection from the West Midlands to Crewe; without which HS2 will not relieve pressure on the West Coast Main Line at its biggest pinch-point. This can be delivered at a much lower cost per mile than the original HS2 Phase 2a scheme.
3. Fund and deliver a scaled-back, cost-effective Euston Station with a simple functional design that can be delivered ahead of the wider regeneration ambition for the area. HSRG is advocating for a 6 platform design, with the option for future expansion retained.
   The necessary parliamentary powers are already in place to deliver these two projects, and HSRG firmly believes they can be delivered at a significantly lower cost. The Group estimates that costs could be reduced by 35%, unlocking potential savings of £3 – £4 billion compared to previous estimates.
4. Government should undertake a preliminary market assessment to explore financial payback options for HS2 infrastructure investment, taking learnings from the HS1 concession model.
   HSRG estimates that a concession let for a London–Birmingham & Crewe railway line could generate between £7.5 billion and £10 billion, a significant return for taxpayers. However, without Euston station and the connection from the West Midlands to Crewe, the value of a HS2 concession to HM Treasury would likely be halved.
5. To make this work, HSRG is asking Government to extend the safeguarding and complete outstanding land acquisition for HS2 Phase 2a between the West Midlands and Crewe without delay.
6. While HSRG acknowledges that broader ambitions should be set aside for now, the Government should nonetheless develop a long-term vision for the national rail network. ....

166. We ask HM Government to instruct HS2 Ltd to extend safeguarding/land acquisition
of HS2 Phase 2a without delay; and to instigate a rapid review of the scope for cost
saving identified here, including by shortening the route; and to agree a respecification of what’s needed to deliver a line towards Crewe from Fradley with a reduced top line-speed

167. We ask HM Treasury to provide the funding needed to complete the Euston HS2 6-
platform station, having extracted it from the wider development opportunity in the
area and ensured its design is simplified to a plain vanilla approach

168. We ask HM Treasury and the Department for Transport to undertake a preliminary
examination of market interest in whatever approach it wants to take to achieve a
financial payback from its major public investment in HS2 infrastructure, learning
whatever lessons are available from the earlier HS1 concession.

 

[SynthD]

Some of this seems like the governments implied position, ie the full plan minus the specific parts cancelled. But 3/167 are in danger of adding to the cost by meddling yet again, and 4/168 are not saying what’s wrong with the current plan. 6 needs expanding on (but it’s not in that document), because that just says whatever the reader wants to hear.

116 stresses they recommend towards Crewe, implying they don’t want to build dedicated platforms there? To that, I’d quote their 118 - the work is needed to unlock the benefit to the north.

156 begins to answer an important question. At Euston, can HS2 reach its full ability by extending east, taking over WCML platforms in the future?

 

[MatthewHutton]

The other question is whether given you aren’t running many 400m trains given you are using the legacy network at the other end whether you need quite so many extra platforms at Euston. I would certainly have thought 6 or even 4 new 400m platforms would be enough to be honest - and the rest of the trains can use the existing platforms.

As per St Pancras it is possible to run 6 long distance trains an hour on 4 platforms.

And certainly the extension from Handsacre to Crewe should be deliverable for standard European costs (i.e. a maximum of £50m/km in todays money) as it doesn’t go into any big cities like the European high speed lines.

 

[Sorcerer]

Building to Crewe would be a much better long-term result compared to just stopping at Birmingham, although I'm not quite so sure about Euston HS2 only having six platforms even if there is provisions for future expansion. To match the current level of long distance services out of Euston you'd be cutting it quite close with that kind of number even during off peak hours. Still, at least it's better than just a final six platform design with no room for adding more as I would have previously expected from the previous lot making short-sighted decisions about the project.

 

[HSTEd]

Government should undertake a preliminary market assessment to explore financial payback options for HS2 infrastructure investment, taking learnings from the HS1 concession model.
HSRG estimates that a concession let for a London–Birmingham & Crewe railway line could generate between £7.5 billion and £10 billion, a significant return for taxpayers. However, without Euston station and the connection from the West Midlands to Crewe, the value of a HS2 concession to HM Treasury would likely be halved.

So building Euston and Handsacre-Crewe is supposed to increase the value of a concession by ~£3.75-5bn.

Given the last HS2 budget estimate for HS2 Phase 2a (before cancellation) had an upper projection of £7bn, and the constant cost increases at Euston - I don't think this extension can be really justified on this basis.

I've also not seen much evidence that meaningful cost reductions on Phase 2a are possible, given the small impacts on things proposed (such as ballast track).

Personally, the lesson of the HS1 concession scheme is that concessions are not a good way to recover value from high speed rail development. Even then the concession was only a fraction of the cost of construction.

 

[The Planner]

The other question is whether given you aren’t running many 400m trains given you are using the legacy network at the other end whether you need quite so many extra platforms at Euston. I would certainly have thought 6 or even 4 new 400m platforms would be enough to be honest - and the rest of the trains can use the existing platforms.

How does that work when the stations aren't connected?

 

[MatthewHutton]

How does that work when the stations aren't connected?

So if you have 4 new platforms transfer over the 4 260m platforms next to HS2 over to be connected to the HS2 tunnels. Given HS2 there will be many fewer services on the classic lines and those that run will also be more reliable that should be fine.

The sleeper could terminate at Old Oak Common if needed, perhaps travelling via the Chiltern Mainline.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2025 ==

So building Euston and Handsacre-Crewe is supposed to increase the value of a concession by ~£3.75-5bn.

Given the last HS2 budget estimate for HS2 Phase 2a (before cancellation) had an upper projection of £7bn, and the constant cost increases at Euston - I don't think this extension can be really justified on this basis.

I've also not seen much evidence that meaningful cost reductions on Phase 2a are possible, given the small impacts on things proposed (such as ballast track).

Personally, the lesson of the HS1 concession scheme is that concessions are not a good way to recover value from high speed rail development. Even then the concession was only a fraction of the cost of construction.

Crewe to Handsacre is what, 35 miles or 56km? So at European standard costs building a high speed line between them should cost at most £3bn and likely less if the industry puts a bit of effort in?

In terms of stations Crewe has tonnes of capacity as is with 4 platforms that are essentially unused, plus perhaps one intermediate “Stoke Parkway” station, albeit one that could be ultra simple although perhaps needing platform edge doors. Certainly it’s tough to argue it should cost more than Yunlin in Taiwan in PPP adjusted for inflation - https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/01/14/2003552497

 

[The Planner]

So if you have 4 new platforms transfer over the 4 260m platforms next to HS2 over to be connected to the HS2 tunnels. Given HS2 there will be many fewer services on the classic lines and those that run will also be more reliable that should be fine.

The sleeper could terminate at Old Oak Common if needed, perhaps travelling via the Chiltern Mainline.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Mar 2025 ==


Crewe to Handsacre is what, 35 miles or 56km? So at European standard costs building a high speed line between them should cost at most £3bn and likely less if the industry puts a bit of effort in?

In terms of stations Crewe has tonnes of capacity as is with 4 platforms that are essentially unused, plus perhaps one intermediate “Stoke Parkway” station, albeit one that could be ultra simple although perhaps needing platform edge doors. Certainly it’s tough to argue it should cost more than Yunlin in Taiwan in PPP adjusted for inflation - https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/taiwan/archives/2013/01/14/2003552497

HS2 is several metres below the existing Euston throat. Why will there be less services on the classic lines, the whole point would be that is backfilled? The sleeper will always end up at Euston, politics will determine that.

 

[MatthewHutton]

HS2 is several metres below the existing Euston throat. Why will there be less services on the classic lines, the whole point would be that is backfilled? The sleeper will always end up at Euston, politics will determine that.

Ok so have a steep entrance track with a 4% grade so they are at the same height then. Doesn’t feel like an impossible problem to solve.

Also I thought there was going to be more freight on the classical line and only 4 long distance express services. So that would surely need fewer platforms than today?

With regards to the sleeper I like it too, but it only has 300k passengers a year so it isn’t worth spending a lot of money for it to terminate at Euston. Euston isn’t even particularly convenient for Westminster as it is.

 

[The Planner]

Ok so have a steep entrance track with a 4% grade so they are at the same height then. Doesn’t feel like an impossible problem to solve.

Also I thought there was going to be more freight on the classical line and only 4 long distance express services. So that would surely need fewer platforms than today?

With regards to the sleeper I like it too, but it only has 300k passengers a year so it isn’t worth spending a lot of money for it to terminate at Euston. Euston isn’t even particularly convenient for Westminster as it is.

You are not going to have a 1 in 25 gradient out of platform. You dont need to spend any money on the sleeper for it to terminate, you leave it as it is. I'm not sure how relevant Westminster is.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ok so have a steep entrance track with a 4% grade so they are at the same height then. Doesn’t feel like an impossible problem to solve.

You are not going to have a 1 in 25 gradient out of platform.

You are not going to have a 4% / 1:25 gradient anywhere. Maximum permitted is 3.5%.

 

[MatthewHutton]

You are not going to have a 1 in 25 gradient out of platform. You dont need to spend any money on the sleeper for it to terminate, you leave it as it is. I'm not sure how relevant Westminster is.

The sleeper needs two 400m platforms at Euston in the morning peak. That is very annoyingly limiting. Westminster matters because I believe the sleeper is very useful for Scottish MPs and their staff.

And OK maybe not 4% but EMUs can certainly do a pretty steep incline.

 

[The Planner]

The sleeper needs two 400m platforms at Euston in the morning peak.

Yes, and it has them.

 

[MatthewHutton]

Yes, and it has them.

If you want to build fewer additional platforms for HS2 to keep costs down, then you have a problem - because you need all the platforms you need for the full morning peak service on normal trains plus two for the sleeper.

And unlike a normal train which can probably in an emergency be turned around in 10-15 minutes you need a lot longer with the sleeper (as people could be undressed), so there isn’t really an option to limit it to one platform.

 

[The Planner]

If you want to build fewer additional platforms for HS2 to keep costs down, then you have a problem - because you need all the platforms you need for the full morning peak service on normal trains plus two for the sleeper.

And unlike a normal train which can probably in an emergency be turned around in 10-15 minutes you need a lot longer with the sleeper (as people could be undressed), so there isn’t really an option to limit it to one platform.

It can be done and has been in the past. Bear in mind a full recast would take place and a solution would be found. Without the significant amount of long distance services in the classic station, the platform occupation will reduce anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And unlike a normal train which can probably in an emergency be turned around in 10-15 minutes you need a lot longer with the sleeper (as people could be undressed), so there isn’t really an option to limit it to one platform.

You could fairly easily find somewhere to hold the Sleeper so its arrival at Euston was later and you just alighted immediately on arrival. Being able to stay on board for an extra hour is a UK thing, other countries don't do that, and there's anecdotal evidence that the staff hate it and sometimes pressure people to get off anyway.

 

[D365]

Aside from within the realms of the Speculative Discussion subforum, has there been any serious proposal to further reduce the quantity of Euston high speed platforms from six to four?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Aside from within the realms of the Speculative Discussion subforum, has there been any serious proposal to further reduce the quantity of Euston high speed platforms from six to four?

I mean I think in many ways that is a reflection of the lack of value engineering in the HS2 project.

Certainly using at least some of the existing Euston platforms should have at least been publicly considered by the HS2 project.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2025 ==

You could fairly easily find somewhere to hold the Sleeper so its arrival at Euston was later and you just alighted immediately on arrival. Being able to stay on board for an extra hour is a UK thing, other countries don't do that, and there's anecdotal evidence that the staff hate it and sometimes pressure people to get off anyway.

It doesn’t need to be a whole hour but you do need to give a reasonable amount of time for people to get ready and depart the train. And you probably need to allow at least half an hour for that.

I would be pretty surprised if the continental European sleeper trains left their terminus to go to the depot after less than half and hour or so.

If the sleeper could terminate at Milton Keynes, Tring or Watford Junction and you could get off all the carriages at those that might well work too and allow a late running service to terminate early.

Fundamentally we don’t have to move the sleeper - and shouldn’t if we don’t have to - but it certainly isn’t worth spending £100m or more to avoid doing so.

 

[chris2]

Interesting to see their suggestion for a phase 2a route revision in this point...

129. And we suggest there is more. The route northwards can be shortened to connect with the West Coast Main Line some 10 miles to the south of Crewe rather than on the approaches to Crewe station itself. Avoiding this section of HS2 line (about 25% of Phase 2a route length) that was primarily to be built on structure yields the potential for a further substantial cost saving (although no estimate is currently available).

This is the proposed junction nr Whitmore / Baldwin's Gate, first proposed in the Alternatives document from 2015 (page 9) and discussed sometime ago on this forum. The WCML at this point is four tracks and the fasts are on the HS2 side so connection would be (relatively) easy. Plus you avoid having to build the Whitmore Heath and Madeley tunnels, as well as some pretty huge structures approaching Crewe, so cost savings do seem realistic.

I might have quoted this discussion on the value of 2a vs the shorter option from the Alternatives doc previously, but I think it's worth repeating...

With appropriate maintenance, Atkins do not consider the impact of running for 18km on the WCML to provide significant performance disbenefits to Phase 2a.

...the high cost option could offer some performance benefits to Phase 2a in respect to the way it connects the high speed alignment directly into the fast lines of the WCML well south of Crewe, whereas Phase 2a connects to the slow lines at Crewe. Having a connection to the WCML fast lines could avoid the need for high speed trains towards Manchester to cross the whole of the WCML at Crewe.

What do others think of this vs the 2a route, in the context of this probably being as far North as HS2 might possibly get for some time?

 

[MatthewHutton]

Interesting to see their suggestion for a phase 2a route revision in this point...



This is the proposed junction nr Whitmore / Baldwin's Gate, first proposed in the Alternatives document from 2015 (page 9) and discussed sometime ago on this forum. The WCML at this point is four tracks and the fasts are on the HS2 side so connection would be (relatively) easy. Plus you avoid having to build the Whitmore Heath and Madeley tunnels, as well as some pretty huge structures approaching Crewe, so cost savings do seem realistic.

I might have quoted this discussion on the value of 2a vs the shorter option from the Alternatives doc previously, but I think it's worth repeating...




What do others think of this vs the 2a route, in the context of this probably being as far North as HS2 might possibly get for some time?

I believe the main benefits of extending HS1 beyond phase 1 is to bypass the two track section just south of Stafford and Stafford station. This basically means you need to do at least the first half of phase 2a.

Beyond that it is only worth going further north if it’s cheap. So cutting over at 75% seems pretty sensible if that is cheaper than going further north.

Between Stafford and Crewe there are no stations currently so there is no particular issue with the fast and semi-fast services all sharing track.

 

[Snow1964]

I believe the main benefits of extending HS1 beyond phase 1 is to bypass the two track section just south of Stafford and Stafford station. This basically means you need to do at least the first half of phase 2a.

Beyond that it is only worth going further north if it’s cheap. So cutting over at 75% seems pretty sensible if that is cheaper than going further north.

Between Stafford and Crewe there are no stations currently so there is no particular issue with the fast and semi-fast services all sharing track.

That would seem the logical thing, bypassing the bottleneck.

You don't want to be spending money trying to tweak the 2 track bottleneck if you can bypass it and rejoin north of it, especially if it costs lot and gains in capacity are tiny.

Obviously continuing to somewhere near Baldwins Gate gives most of the congestion busting benefits, but without cost of going further.

It would be relatively easy to build a new southbound fast about 20-30m to side so the end of new line is between existing fast tracks. Of course could make provision to continue the new line further north avoiding the Baldwins Gate spur if and when funding ever materialises

 

[SynthD]

Certainly using at least some of the existing Euston platforms should have at least been publicly considered by the HS2 project.

They were considered. Two platforms have been demolished, and the ideas for the future include taking more to rebuild at the right level. But they weren’t going to reduce the ability of the whole station just to make it cheaper.

What do others think of this vs the 2a route, in the context of this probably being as far North as HS2 might possibly get for some time?

It’s better to join the fast lines than the slow, but it’s better yet to not join either until north of Crewe. This is the second worst option, unless it’s cheaper to stick to the current (slow lines?) plan, and later build 2b+c.

 

[MatthewHutton]

They were considered. Two platforms have been demolished, and the ideas for the future include taking more to rebuild at the right level. But they weren’t going to reduce the ability of the whole station just to make it cheaper.

But this is really just because the whole HS2 project has been overly gold plated rather than working out what the absolute minimum you need is.

I agree that to start with somewhere beyond the minimum made sense. But at this point we need to work out what is cheap and will deliver a reasonable service.

Do not forget Tokyo does 13-14tph on 4 platforms. Now yes that is a limiting case, and yes the Japanese have full separation and lower levels of luggage, but running a dozen trains per hour on 8 platforms (which is done at St Pancras every day) is really not that bad.

Plus if half of those will run onto the classic network anyway then a 260m platform in the classic station is good enough.

 

[The Planner]

Interesting to see their suggestion for a phase 2a route revision in this point...



This is the proposed junction nr Whitmore / Baldwin's Gate, first proposed in the Alternatives document from 2015 (page 9) and discussed sometime ago on this forum. The WCML at this point is four tracks and the fasts are on the HS2 side so connection would be (relatively) easy. Plus you avoid having to build the Whitmore Heath and Madeley tunnels, as well as some pretty huge structures approaching Crewe, so cost savings do seem realistic.

I might have quoted this discussion on the value of 2a vs the shorter option from the Alternatives doc previously, but I think it's worth repeating...




What do others think of this vs the 2a route, in the context of this probably being as far North as HS2 might possibly get for some time?

That benefit quoted at Crewe is doing some really heavy lifting, as if you are stopping then you are in either 6 so crossing the job at Crewe or in 5 doing the same effectively twice.

 

[MatthewHutton]

That benefit quoted at Crewe is doing some really heavy lifting, as if you are stopping then you are in either 6 so crossing the job at Crewe or in 5 doing the same effectively twice.

The risk if the railway supporters/industry try and go for a north of Crewe option rather than a south of Crewe option which will obviously add lots of cost is that the politicians will just throw their hands up and say you have to make just phase one work.

 

[Verulamius]

That benefit quoted at Crewe is doing some really heavy lifting, as if you are stopping then you are in either 6 so crossing the job at Crewe or in 5 doing the same effectively twice.

How many HS2 services are expected to stop at Crewe?

London to Scotland would pass, Liverpool might pass - probably stop, Manchester (1) would pass.
Birmingham to Manchester would stop (x 2 ?)

So 3 stop, 2 pass?

 

[The Planner]

The risk if the railway supporters/industry try and go for a north of Crewe option rather than a south of Crewe option which will obviously add lots of cost is that the politicians will just throw their hands up and say you have to make just phase one work.

They won't, there is no benefit to it as you lose a load of connectivity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2025 ==

How many HS2 services are expected to stop at Crewe?

London to Scotland would pass, Liverpool might pass - probably stop, Manchester (1) would pass.
Birmingham to Manchester would stop (x 2 ?)

So 3 stop, 2 pass?

Birmingham to Manchester wouldn't go that way and you would have 2 or potentially 3 Manchesters that way. Even if they don't stop you are only losing the conflict with the down fast, you still have the up fast and platform line.

 

[MatthewHutton]

They won't, there is no benefit to it as you lose a load of connectivity.

There is significant benefit to the first 50-75% of phase 2a as you bypass Stafford and the two track section to the South of Stafford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2025 ==

Birmingham to Manchester wouldn't go that way and you would have 2 or potentially 3 Manchesters that way. Even if they don't stop you are only losing the conflict with the down fast, you still have the up fast and platform line.

So many fewer conflicts than Didcot east.

 

[Verulamius]

They won't, there is no benefit to it as you lose a load of connectivity.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 5 Mar 2025 ==


Birmingham to Manchester wouldn't go that way and you would have 2 or potentially 3 Manchesters that way. Even if they don't stop you are only losing the conflict with the down fast, you still have the up fast and platform line.

If there are no Birmingham services on a short HS2a just the London ones, then does the extension facilitate any additional services on HS2?

 

[MatthewHutton]

If there are no Birmingham services on a short HS2a just the London ones, then does the extension facilitate any additional services on HS2?

Yes because you are no longer limited by the two track section south of Stafford which is shared with all the trains including freight.

Certainly it makes your services more reliable at the very least.