Restarting HS2a

[Topological]

The full HS2 programme would have reduced Birmingham-Manchester by over 30 minutes to 50 minutes, driving up demand. What you are proposing might save half that if you are extremely lucky. But it wouldn’t be enough to drive the demand enough to justify the extra trains. You would still need Manchester-Birmingham-southwards XC trains.

Is that the difference that the Crewe work makes?

Probably need to get Crewe done then.

Since if you have Hixon and you have a northbound connection into Manchester, the only missing part is the redevelopment of Crewe.

Aside from the usual (and no need to have here) discussion about through trains, a semi-fast is a much better use of the Birmingham to Manchester paths than CrossCountry as you can use faster acceleration electrics with shorter dwell times than "Intercity" stock.

Journeys to Bristol will be quicker (though admittedly not much once the change of station from Curzon Street to New Street is factored in) and journeys to Reading and the South East will already be faster via OOC anyway. So it is just stations between Oxford and Leamington inclusive where a change at Birmingham International probably becomes the best route anyway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

HS2 has (deservedly) lost all trust, both with the public and the government, so any recovery has to be a step by step process. It's going to take a long time, but the reset does provide a last chance/opportunity for high-speed rail to be revived in the UK IMO.

1) Demonstrate that HS2 Ltd can deliver according to an agreed cost/time budget

Essentially this is the work Mark Wild is doing atm and it's by far the most important step. Unless HS2 can prove it's plans/budgets are credible, it will remain un-investable for any sane government. OTOH, if it can be demonstrated over the next few years that the new budget and timeline (agreed in 2026) is being delivered and Phase 1 is on track, trust can start to be restored.

I agree HS2 has lost all credibility. We have to accept that what comes next is more about improving credibility than actually doing the right engineering at this late stage in proceedings.

2) Re-plan Phase 2a

The pause at Handsacre offers a welcome opportunity to re-assess all works north of Birmingham. The project is very different to what was originally designed. Repeating design work is annoying, but it's much cheaper than building something which is no longer (/never was) the right answer. Other options could be considered over the next couple of years:
- A slimmed down version of 2a, possibly running at reduced speed or with other cost savings
- Build Handsacre Jn but also extend to Hixon to connect to the Stoke line (my preferred option).
- Only build HS2 to Handsacre Jn but also invest in an additional bypass or capacity improvements around Colwich

I think that in the interests of expediancy Handacre (a future white elephant hopefully) has to be build as planned/started.

3) Change in funding/planning mindset

Alongside the work HS2 Ltd has to do to get it's house in order, the government also needs to re-think how the project is delivered. IMO we need to flip the question. Instead of creating large phases and then working out how much each one costs, the government should first decide how much it is willing to spend over an X year period on new rail infrastructure, then work out what can be delivered.

Combined with that, the delivery needs to be more modular. One of HS2's biggest flaws was how so many of the design decisions only made sense if the whole project went ahead. We need to build in more opportunities to review and adapt as we go. For example, maybe Phase 2a could be split into multiple, smaller, phases:
2033-36 - Euston
2036-38 - Handsacre Jn
2038-40 - Handsacre to Hixon
2040+ ?

Each phase is more manageable and can be delivered in a few years, rather than decades. Importantly, the next phases are only approved once HS2 shows the previous phase is on track according to agreed time/budget. The overall project will take longer, but will be better controlled and there are fewer sunk costs if things go wrong.

I would say priority after Handacre/Phase1 is to work South from Manchester. Getting relief at the Manchester end (Stockport corridor) would get buy in from the Northern folk (politicians and tax payers). Given Euston has been paused then leave it paused until it is very very obviously needed.
This is based on proceeding from where we are now.

Alternative if we could start from scratch was perhaps some much more major interventions on the WCML in the most useful places. Steadily leading to an effectively new line being obvious. I know, I know - in the bigger picture a totally new line makes much more sense but far too few people could see that. Worse still it required London to Birmingham and Manchester to be finished before justification would become obvious. Were the proponents of HS2 too ambitious ?. Perhaps bypass(es) for Hixon, Colwich and Stafford could have come first. Hell even include Crewe. Then Phase 1 and 2a would be seen as more obviously beneficial.
I know the above is speculating about what could have been done instead. BUT it serves to remind us of what hole HS2 needs to dig itself out of. Currently HS2 in many peoples eyes needs to move beyond a barely useful white elephant.

What is crazy is that HS2 will not get into London proper (Euston Road) soon enough. A part of me sees the re-design of Old Oak to Euston as sabotage of the project. But once Old Oak is up and running I am sure Euston will be a lot easier to justify. In the meantime HS2 will hopefully be adding more justification to the Elizabeth line. Now here is an idea - should HS2 be arguing that the Elizabeth line has exceeded all expectations and be held up as a positive example of major rail projects ?.

But we won’t be ripping up the statute and case law books so that we can concrete over great crested newts in their homes for the sake of efficiency. Has any western country done this to your satisfaction?

I agree with the planning delays point, but when the politicians have wanted something different at Euston, or less yearly spending, it is still dragged out.

Good that they broke it into stages then, and did the most useful part first?

I fear phase one was too big. Goodness knows how to break it down though as London to Birmingham on its own seems very Southern biased. Perhaps doing Old Oak to Euston later would have appeased the leveller uppers - I do not like visiting that idea but hey ho, its happened.

I want someone to work out how much cost increase was due to inflation (ie in 2009 prices they delivered on budget), to politicians changing the plan or timeline (I faintly remember that Sunak's changes would cost more than they save), the combination of those two, or other - actual HS2 Ltd problems. I suspect we put too much blame in the wrong place.

Should a future government be bound to that, or should HS2 Ltd be released of any commitment to meet old goals and their target costs?

What does go wrong mean? This is preparing for events that can't happen by making the whole thing worse.

Yes I fear HS2 has got bogged down too much in avoiding mistakes and too much forward thinking (my own weakness). If a planning/capacity mistake had ended up costing more in the long run (over twenty years beyond opening) but kept it cheap and viable in the meantime then we could view later corrections as we would later stages.

Is that the difference that the Crewe work makes?

Probably need to get Crewe done then.

.............................

Perhaps Crewe itself could be left as the obvious thing to do once it becomes painfully obvious. So after the relief to Stockport viaduct and Hixon.

As an aside I still wonder if a good interchange at Birmingham is more important than Crewe.

 

[Topological]

I agree HS2 has lost all credibility. We have to accept that what comes next is more about improving credibility than actually doing the right engineering at this late stage in proceedings.

I think that in the interests of expediancy Handacre (a future white elephant) has to be build as planned/started.

I would say priority after Handacre/Phase1 is to work South from Manchester. Getting relief at the Manchester end (Stockport corridor) would get buy in from the Northern end of things. Given Euston has been paused then leave it paused until it is very obviously needed.
This is based on proceeding from where we are now.

Glad there is someone else who agrees with making a start from the Manchester end.

It should be clear that Manchester is expanding rapidly as a city and getting HS2 certainty into the planning can only be good for the city and the UK.

I would actually include passive provision for NPR East as part of the development, that is another line that needs building sometime that is enabled by HS2 to Manchester. Once that opens you have even more capacity to play with on the existing lines. At this stage noone really knows what that means, but if it is to be a branch from a terminus in Manchester then that is what gets locked in by the HS2 plan (I personally favour NPR trains reversing in Manchester, but I know that is not common opinion and that is definitely not for here).

Manchester is incredibly constrained at the moment and anything which unlocks that is of huge benefit.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Glad there is someone else who agrees with making a start from the Manchester end.

It should be clear that Manchester is expanding rapidly as a city and getting HS2 certainty into the planning can only be good for the city and the UK.

I would actually include passive provision for NPR East as part of the development, that is another line that needs building sometime that is enabled by HS2 to Manchester. Once that opens you have even more capacity to play with on the existing lines. At this stage noone really knows what that means, but if it is to be a branch from a terminus in Manchester then that is what gets locked in by the HS2 plan (I personally favour NPR trains reversing in Manchester, but I know that is not common opinion and that is definitely not for here).

Manchester is incredibly constrained at the moment and anything which unlocks that is of huge benefit.

Yes NPR (Northern Powerhouse Rail) adds more weight to getting the Manchester end of HS2 done (well planned) asap.

 

[daodao]

I would say priority after Handacre/Phase1 is to work South from Manchester. Getting relief at the Manchester end (Stockport corridor) would get buy in from the Northern folk (politicians and tax payers).

The potential capacity problem is between Handsacre and Crewe. It isn't worth building a new extremely expensive high speed line from Crewe to Manchester just for a couple of trains per hour from Euston to Manchester. If there is congestion at Stockport, expresses from London to Manchester via Crewe can be routed via the Styal line bypass, although this would reduce the number of trains per hour that can serve Manchester Airport.

Getting relief at the Manchester end at enormous expense would only get buy in from Mancunians; everyone else in Northern England would regard it as more favouritism towards Manchester at their expense.

 

[Shrop]

National bodies are particularly noted for being underpowered in terms of ability to negotiate commercially with the private sector the negotiation being particularly difficult due to said multi tiered sub contracting where many participants make their money by project variance or getting compensation from each other.

The UK construction sector is completely inefficient and not globally competitive. The lack of infrastructure build its stop start nature and our complex planning laws are partially to blame for this.

The costs of HS2 and other UK rail projects are so ridiculous (multiples of those seen in other high cost European countries) that the amounts saved by reusing existing design work pale into insignificance compared to the value of doing it efficiently.

HS2 will have mountains of paper justifying why every decision that has been made makes sense in the context of the project. The agglomeration of those decisions makes absolutely no financial sense.

I like the above, which sums up a good deal of what I’ve often seen (and lamented) during my career in consultancies and local authorities.

For a good many years now UK rail (among others) has become entrenched in the deep rut of using countless companies whose main objective is making money “by project variance or getting compensation”. Even then, this is on top of providing mountains of paperwork and countless thousands of hours of expensive consultancy time, to justify, audit, certify, risk-assess etc. the project in the first place.

While this money-making target is often (and understandably) more important to some of the involved profit-orientated companies than is the project itself, there’s something uncomfortable about these companies being so powerful that the projects end up revolving around them rather than everyone involved having project success and completion as the primary objective.

Other countries have their own hurdles of course, but they don’t seem to be in such a deep rut as we are in the UK. I expressed upthread, my fear that discussing much further development of HS2 might be little more than just a bit of intellectual fun. I genuinely wish someone would prove me wrong, and I wish as much as anyone that the Sunak-trashed routes towards Manchester and Leeds could be revived, modified, improved or whatever, just so long as the north can have the better rail links that it deserves, and UK rail can regain some credibility. Good to see that the discussion is still alive.

Aside from the usual (and no need to have here) discussion about through trains, a semi-fast is a much better use of the Birmingham to Manchester paths than CrossCountry as you can use faster acceleration electrics with shorter dwell times than "Intercity" stock.

Journeys to Bristol will be quicker (though admittedly not much once the change of station from Curzon Street to New Street is factored in) and journeys to Reading and the South East will already be faster via OOC anyway. So it is just stations between Oxford and Leamington inclusive where a change at Birmingham International probably becomes the best route anyway.

I know it's tangential to this thread, but there's scope here for quite a re-think of the Manchester/Birmingham to Southampton XC route. I've previously lamented that this long distance route has an average of not much over ten miles per stop for even the fastest trains, with consequent long journey times and much shuffling around with accompanying very regular announcements, all detracting from passenger comfort.

I've advocated that every two or three hours, limited stop trains could (for example) run Birmingham - Oxford - Basingstoke (for Portsmouth trains) - Southampton (yes, avoiding Reading which has plenty of alternative options and it costs XC a train reversal every time). However, I guess that another option would be to withdraw this service completely due to other routes being available, and since long distance passenger numbers on this corridor aren't that high.

Could make an interesting discussion on a separate thread, along with other train-re-jigs once HS2 (eventually) starts?

 

[Topological]

The potential capacity problem is between Handsacre and Crewe. It isn't worth building a new extremely expensive high speed line from Crewe to Manchester just for a couple of trains per hour from Euston to Manchester. If there is congestion at Stockport, expresses from London to Manchester via Crewe can be routed via the Styal line bypass, although this would reduce the number of trains per hour that can serve Manchester Airport.

Getting relief at the Manchester end at enormous expense would only get buy in from Mancunians; everyone else in Northern England would regard it as more favouritism towards Manchester at their expense.

If people are too parochial then there is an issue.

However, the whole point of unclogging Manchester is that you enable all of the North to benefit from improved services to the regional capital.

I appreciate there will be many that want to argue, but the money is very clear about where the regional capital of the North is.

I guess it was the same when Manchester formed and all the different villages thought they were being overlooked. I know it is a bit off topic, but we have to accept the economic geography is changing again and build accordingly.

 

[HSTEd]

I agree with the planning delays point, but when the politicians have wanted something different at Euston, or less yearly spending, it is still dragged out.

The politicians only stated changing the plan for Euston after the cost of the scheme started its spiralling.

It seems quite likely that the originally proposed Euston plan was undeliverable, given that multiple attempts have apparently failed to deliver a buildable scheme.

 

[Manutd1999]

I want someone to work out how much cost increase was due to inflation (ie in 2009 prices they delivered on budget), to politicians changing the plan or timeline (I faintly remember that Sunak's changes would cost more than they save), the combination of those two, or other - actual HS2 Ltd problems. I suspect we put too much blame in the wrong place.

Perhaps, but the fact this (seemingly) isn't known shows how badly the scope/budget has been controlled, by both government and HS2 Ltd.

Inflation is actually a great example of why a series of smaller phases would be better. You could say HS2 was unlucky to hit the post Covid/Ukraine inflation bubble, but a 10+ year project is always going to be exposed to inflation risks. Combined with a cost-plus contracting strategy, the government signed up to a budget which was almost guaranteed to increase over time. With a series of smaller phases the budget would be re-assessed more often, so inflation can be added or the scope reduced according to government preferences.

Should a future government be bound to that, or should HS2 Ltd be released of any commitment to meet old goals and their target costs?

In my vision HS2 Ltd would be accountable for delivering a set scope to a set time and cost. If future governments adjust the scope, the budget/programme gets re-assessed accordingly. That isn't so different from today but the key is that, with smaller phases, HS2 Ltd is more regularly accountable and incentivised to deliver (i.e. if you deliver, we'll keep approving future phases and the work will flow. If you don't, HS2 Ltd ceases to exist).

I think that in the interests of expediancy Handacre (a future white elephant hopefully) has to be build as planned/started.

I strongly disagree. If it takes 2-3 years to design a better plan, then we should do it. Handsacre is paused for the next few years anyway, so we have time to get it right.

 

[Peter Sarf]

The potential capacity problem is between Handsacre and Crewe. It isn't worth building a new extremely expensive high speed line from Crewe to Manchester just for a couple of trains per hour from Euston to Manchester. If there is congestion at Stockport, expresses from London to Manchester via Crewe can be routed via the Styal line bypass, although this would reduce the number of trains per hour that can serve Manchester Airport.

Getting relief at the Manchester end at enormous expense would only get buy in from Mancunians; everyone else in Northern England would regard it as more favouritism towards Manchester at their expense.

I am afraid think Sorting out the Manchester end would get more support than Handsacre to Crewe. Most people are not going to understand which one gives more benefit for the money. It needs to be benefit right under the nose of a large Northern citiy.

..................................

I strongly disagree. If it takes 2-3 years to design a better plan, then we should do it. Handsacre is paused for the next few years anyway, so we have time to get it right.

I would agree but I fear any further progress on approvals is a long way off. I suspect Handacre can easily be completed before serious consideration is eventually/reluctantly given to anything further North. It is no good taking the long term sensible view - HS2 (and railway projects in general) needs something finished and usable asap.

 

[daodao]

I am afraid think Sorting out the Manchester end would get more support than Handsacre to Crewe. Most people are not going to understand which one gives more benefit for the money. It needs to be benefit right under the nose of a large Northern city.

Spending in excess of £12 billion (at 2023 prices) to build a high speed rail route from Manchester to Crewe, requiring a long tunnel between Manchester and Ringway, just to serve 3tph, and save only about 20 minutes off the Manchester to London journey time, would be criminally profligate. Sunak was wise to cancel this unaffordable boondoggle, and at least some local MPs such as Graham Brady were not supportive of HS2 Phase 2b.

 

[Krokodil]

Manchester to Crewe should be built (it's 5tph that go through it, not 3; NPR could bring at least another four or so through the tunnel) but not before Handsacre to Crewe. otherwise you just end up funneling them into a bottleneck. However one aspect of Manchester does need looking at ASAP - platforms at Piccadilly. We need a couple of 400m platforms open at the same time as HS2.

 

[Topological]

Manchester to Crewe should be built (it's 5tph that go through it, not 3; NPR could bring at least another four or so through the tunnel) but not before Handsacre to Crewe. otherwise you just end up funneling them into a bottleneck. However one aspect of Manchester does need looking at ASAP - platforms at Piccadilly. We need a couple of 400m platforms open at the same time as HS2.

But because you would not build 400m platforms and the station, which needs the tunnel, the logical thing is get the tunnel built.

Messing about within the current Piccadilly footprint will be incredibly disruptive (and unnecessary).

I really believe that Manchester to Liverpool via this tunnel will be transformational for Liverpool (and Warrington) and has huge knock-on benefits from routing that traffic away from Castlefield. If it was not for the tunnel being so expensive then the line would make sense without London.

Unfortunately, to get the numbers that will please the treasury, instead of just the spillover benefits, requires the London connection.

Given the additional construction time relative to the sections through open countryside, Manchester needs to start soon.

 

[jfowkes]

Surely the number of trains the tunnel will support when built is mostly irrelevant - you build infrastructure to support the ambitions you have for the next 10, 25, 50 years.

We need a plan, we need ambitions, we need goals, then you build infrastructure to meet them.

 

[Topological]

Surely the number of trains the tunnel will support when built is mostly irrelevant - you build infrastructure to support the ambitions you have for the next 10, 25, 50 years.

We need a plan, we need ambitions, we need goals, then you build infrastructure to meet them.

If they do the Manchester tunnel properly then it should be:

4tph London
4tph Liverpool
2tph Birmingham
2tph Scotland (This may be constrained to only 1 and a shuttle* to Lancaster)

With potential for more than that.

 

[SynthD]

The costs of HS2 and other UK rail projects are so ridiculous (multiples of those seen in other high cost European countries) that the amounts saved by reusing existing design work pale into insignificance compared to the value of doing it efficiently.

Where does design work end? The line to Crewe is certainly further than that, it has been bought. The route to Manchester and Long Eaton (East Midlands) has been surveyed?

However, the whole point of unclogging Manchester is that you enable all of the North to benefit from improved services to the regional capital.

I like this reasoning, but it sounds like a smaller version of unclogging the south WCML for the benefit of the whole line. That is seen as unacceptably London centric by some.

It seems quite likely that the originally proposed Euston plan was undeliverable, given that multiple attempts have apparently failed to deliver a buildable scheme.

Every finished plan was buildable, but politicians wanted cheaper options. We don't take them seriously when they say X will be done, let’s not take them seriously on this.

Perhaps, but the fact this (seemingly) isn't known shows how badly the scope/budget has been controlled, by both government and HS2 Ltd.

In my vision HS2 Ltd would be accountable for delivering a set scope to a set time and cost.

If the set cost is inflation linked, it will look badly controlled to those who want HS2 to pay 2009 prices now.

with smaller phases, HS2 Ltd is more regularly accountable and incentivised to deliver

How does that work? It’s a government owned company, it’s not handing out share options. The CEO is appointed by government, meets with them often, goes to select committees.

 

[Topological]

Where does design work end? The line to Crewe is certainly further than that, it has been bought. The route to Manchester and Long Eaton (East Midlands) has been surveyed?

I like this reasoning, but it sounds like a smaller version of unclogging the south WCML for the benefit of the whole line. That is seen as unacceptably London centric by some.

I thought Manchester was also sorted, including some land purchase, but I may be wrong.

The reasoning is exactly the same as the reasoning for the Southern end of the WCML. The South end of the WCML will see huge benefit once the path eating Pendolinos are gone*

* I would actually keep some longer-distance stock for Northampton and Birmingham via Coventry. Eventually for Stoke as well. These would need 3 of the current Pendolino paths.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Spending in excess of £12 billion (at 2023 prices) to build a high speed rail route from Manchester to Crewe, requiring a long tunnel between Manchester and Ringway, just to serve 3tph, and save only about 20 minutes off the Manchester to London journey time, would be criminally profligate. Sunak was wise to cancel this unaffordable boondoggle, and at least some local MPs such as Graham Brady were not supportive of HS2 Phase 2b.

Ah but your argument relies on long term common sense operationally and cost wise.

What HAS to happen is a clear indication to the North that HS2 is not London centric. Then HS2 might get more buy in rather than being a political hot potato.

With HS2 sorting out the Manchester end this helps support Northern Powerhouse Rail (and vice versa) - the Liverpool to Manchester line. Then also encourages a trans Pennine route to Leeds not just from West of the Pennines BUT also from London.

 

[daodao]

What HAS to happen is a clear indication to the North that HS2 is not London centric. Then HS2 might get more buy in rather than being a political hot potato.

With HS2 sorting out the Manchester end this helps support Northern Powerhouse Rail (and vice versa) - the Liverpool to Manchester line. Then also encourages a trans Pennine route to Leeds not just from West of the Pennines BUT also from London.

Why?

Building new rail infrastructure is very expensive and especially so if it is designed for high speed trains. The UK is in a parlous economic situation with massive debt, whose servicing alone consumes vast portions of tax revenue.

Therefore, new rail lines should only be built if they can be demonstrated to have economic benefits, not just for political reasons. There is a possible case for restarting HS2 Phase 2a, at least in part to mitigate the Colwich to Stafford bottleneck, in order to gain greater benefits from HS2 Phase 1 which is already under construction.

However, I fail to see the economic cases for either HS2 Phase 2b or NPR, the latter via an extremely roundabout route that won't reduce journey times. Running London-Leeds trains via a devious trans-pennine route would be ridiculous.

Passenger train services in Northern England do need to be improved, as is being undertaken with the longer-term TRU project, but mega projects are unaffordable, and high speed unnecessary where distances are short, as they are between Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. More reliable services, with a rationalised route network, run with longer (6 to 8 coach, preferably emu or bemu) trains at a minimum frequency of 2tph on key routes, to make best use of existing capacity, should suffice. Services that waste capacity, such as the 1tph 2coach dmu from from Southport to Manchester Oxford Road, need to be eliminated.

 

[HSTEd]

Every finished plan was buildable, but politicians wanted cheaper options. We don't take them seriously when they say X will be done, let’s not take them seriously on this.

The cost estimates blowing up came before the alterations to the scheme. That doesn't tend to reflect well on the health of the project.


As for a Manchester-Airport tunnel, if it is built in isolation another short segment of track would allow the Mid Cheshire line to be diverted over it, so that gets you another path via Stockport.

You can also reroute the TfW service that goes through Castlefield to the airport via the line. So that's another Castlefield path.

 

[Topological]

The cost estimates blowing up came before the alterations to the scheme. That doesn't tend to reflect well on the health of the project.


As for a Manchester-Airport tunnel, if it is built in isolation another short segment of track would allow the Mid Cheshire line to be diverted over it, so that gets you another path via Stockport.

You can also reroute the TfW service that goes through Castlefield to the airport via the line. So that's another Castlefield path.

At first I thought this would be daft, since HS trains will be running much faster and a 100mph DMU would get in the way.

However, how fast would a HS2 train that did not stop at Manchester Airport be going when it enetered the tunnel? (I actually think most trains should stop as it will be a major railhead station)

Presumably you would still need something shuttling between Stockport and Hale/Northwich, but that would not need to impact the viaduct and could be a tram train. (Essentially, I am saying not to worry about the severed line, rather than taking the topic on a tangent)

 

[Nottingham59]

However, how fast would a HS2 train that did not stop at Manchester Airport be going when it enetered the tunnel? (I actually think most trains should stop as it will be a major railhead station)

Most of the Manchester Spur is rated at 230km/h, but just before entering the tunnel it drops to 200km/h.

The slowest speed through the station in 160km/h. This limit was introduced in the 2022 redesign when the station plan was changed from deep underground to a near surface station with a sharp vertical curve at the north end to get back quickly to tunnel depth.

See M3 Hulseheath to Piccadilly Profile Sheet 5 of 10 here:

HS2 Phase 2b plan and profile maps: Crewe to Manchester (2022)

These plan and profile maps show the route between Crewe and Manchester as deposited in 2022.

www.gov.uk

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why?

.............................

The answer is in the first paragraph of my full post (repeated below). I am not saying it is sensible but it might be more politically expedient. I do not like it but I feel we need to think less London centric. HS2 has too many enemies - HS2 needs to get more buy in.

Ah but your argument relies on long term common sense operationally and cost wise.

What HAS to happen is a clear indication to the North that HS2 is not London centric. Then HS2 might get more buy in rather than being a political hot potato.

With HS2 sorting out the Manchester end this helps support Northern Powerhouse Rail (and vice versa) - the Liverpool to Manchester line. Then also encourages a trans Pennine route to Leeds not just from West of the Pennines BUT also from London.

 

[daodao]

...
I am not saying it is sensible but it might be more politically expedient. I do not like it but I feel we need to think less London centric. HS2 has too many enemies - HS2 needs to get more buy in.

If building HS2 Phase 2 is not (economically) sensible, then it is NOT politically expedient to proceed, as the government will be slated by opposition parties for its profligacy.

I suspect that the current UK government has already made this decision and does not intend to build either HS2 Phase 2 or NPR.

 

[AndrewE]

If building HS2 Phase 2 is not (economically) sensible, then it is NOT politically expedient to proceed, as the government will be slated by opposition parties for its profligacy.

I suspect that the current UK government has already made this decision and does not intend to build either HS2 Phase 2 or NPR.

but HS2 to Brum only delivers a small fraction of the potential benefits from the investment. It would be madness not to deliver what was promised to the country outside the Travel-to-London work area, besides abandoning the extra green dividend from getting more electric freight on the classic WCML (south) because you can't path anything more past Stafford.

Poliically expedient in the home counties? Maybe, but there are lots of vulnerable seats north and west of (e.g.) Nuneaton... I am sure that Stafford is the sort of place that will benefit from better inter-regional services once "fast-to-London" trains don't take all the line capacity gobbled up by them.

 

[daodao]

but HS2 to Brum only delivers a small fraction of the potential benefits from the investment. It would be madness not to deliver what was promised to the country outside the Travel-to-London work area, besides abandoning the extra green dividend from getting more electric freight on the classic WCML (south) because you can't path anything more past Stafford.

Poliically expedient in the home counties? Maybe, but there are lots of vulnerable seats north and west of (e.g.) Nuneaton... I am sure that Stafford is the sort of place that will benefit from better inter-regional services once "fast-to-London" trains don't take all the line capacity gobbled up by them.

My personal view is that there may be an economic case for building HS2 Phase 2a as far north as Crewe, in part for the reasons that you have stated, but that there is no economic justification for building either HS2 Phase 2b or NPR (as distinct from the TRU upgrade currently in progress).

 

[HSTEd]

but HS2 to Brum only delivers a small fraction of the potential benefits from the investment. It would be madness not to deliver what was promised to the country outside the Travel-to-London work area, besides abandoning the extra green dividend from getting more electric freight on the classic WCML (south) because you can't path anything more past Stafford.

Poliically expedient in the home counties? Maybe, but there are lots of vulnerable seats north and west of (e.g.) Nuneaton... I am sure that Stafford is the sort of place that will benefit from better inter-regional services once "fast-to-London" trains don't take all the line capacity gobbled up by them.

We have to be careful to avoid falling into the sunk cost fallacy.
Phase 2A alone is going to be many billions of pounds (especially given probable cost growth over estimates), the benefits in terms of a handful of additional paths will be difficult to justify on this basis.

There are likely far cheaper ways to secure the support of those seats than spending £7bn+ on Phase 2A. After all, HS2 projected a cost of "up to" £7bn before cancellation, and other project costs have grown since then. The years will also not have been kind in terms of inflation.


You might be able to justify a minimum project to connect to the Stone-Colwich line, which would get you a few more paths, but thats probably about it.
Also, even if paths are available, expanding operation of these less lucrative services may require increases in subsidy. Those subsidies will also have be sold to the treasury.

 

[Eurostarosaur]

Ministers give steer to ‘Futureproof’ Euston’s HS2 station, newly released minutes reveal

Euston’s HS2 station could be futureproofed for possible expansion, according to meeting minutes from earlier in 2025, which were only recently published.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

Very interesting article, potential for a proper sized HS2 including space for more trains due to future HS2 extension...

 

[Technologist]

Building new rail infrastructure is very expensive and especially so if it is designed for high speed trains. The UK is in a parlous economic situation with massive debt, whose servicing alone consumes vast portions of tax revenue.

Therefore, new rail lines should only be built if they can be demonstrated to have economic benefits, not just for political reasons.

Latter sentence is to a degree why the former is true.

The fact that we expect every line to be an economic net positive means that we are stuck doing similar things to what we have already done and thus have the economic data. Most of that data is also for rail that isn't anywhere near self funding and need to be justified on the basis of social or broader economic benefits.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Ministers give steer to ‘Futureproof’ Euston’s HS2 station, newly released minutes reveal

Euston’s HS2 station could be futureproofed for possible expansion, according to meeting minutes from earlier in 2025, which were only recently published.

www.ianvisits.co.uk

Very interesting article, potential for a proper sized HS2 including space for more trains due to future HS2 extension...

That is, on the face of it, good news.