Fantasy: If you could re-design HS2 ...

[SynthD]

The failure, as with everything else in HS2, has been a failure of HS2 project management in actually meaningfully engaging with the people affected right at the very beginning.

How much of that is that the people weren’t interested at first. They were then surprised by work arriving, and complained they weren’t told. I’ve seen that with other development, I don’t live near a HS2 worksite.

When was the right time to announce the local impact? When was it announced, and when was it heard?

 

[TNBB20]

I always thought HS2 had too many terminal stations. I'm sure the design became what it did for good reasons, but personally I would have wanted to make the Manchester and Leeds stations into through stations so that they could be served by trains from the north as well as the south. Birmingham is less of an issue as the junction already permits that.

This, this, and 1000X this. HS2 was designed heavily for point to point, the complete antithesis of something like the Japanese system. This is fine if you have very long distances and not a lot in between (i.e France and Spain) but we are arguably denser than those nations and have populations in long vertical corridors that people want to move along (and not just to London). I think a lot of this was done to get city center stations but half the cost of having to go in one side of the city and out the other (by only going in one side).

That being said, through stations at a reasonable cost would have had to have been built about 2-4km outside of the city center like the Japanese and Chinese do. In Birmingham somewhere like the old Gasworks near Costco in Saltley, In Sheffield it would have been Meadowhall, Manchester would have been East of Salford Central in the gap of land between the Chatt Moss Line and the line up to Bolton (actually proposed at one point) and Leeds somewhere like Neville Hill.

As I said the Chinese and Japanese do this (Shin-Osaka, Yokohama etc) BUT they then build good metro connections to the rest of the city and new office developments and housing around it. This creates a polycentric city (like London or Paris or Tokyo) but requires the gov to actually build a metro. Since a lot of these cities are arguing they need them this could have gone hand in hand but getting the UK Gov to build Crossrail was hard enough. Also if you go even slightly too far out (like the Chinese) it can really backfire.

Additionally it's hard to get people to support, they see the station not being built in the center and understandably don't like it, I think Sheffield spent a good amount of money arguing against the Meadowhall station saying HS2 needed to go to the central station despite Meadowhall being able to handle longer trains, northbound services, and giving the Super Tram another key passenger station.

That being said if one looks at London, all of it's major stations are about... 3km from its historic centers and linked with metros and busses creating a polycentric city

 

[MatthewHutton]

How much of that is that the people weren’t interested at first. They were then surprised by work arriving, and complained they weren’t told. I’ve seen that with other development, I don’t live near a HS2 worksite.

When was the right time to announce the local impact? When was it announced, and when was it heard?

I would be extremely surprised if Buckinghamshire “wasn’t interested at first”. There are a lot of people there who get very interested very quickly.

Maybe it’s more plausible to be like this further north. But still.

 

[HSTEd]

That being said, through stations at a reasonable cost would have had to have been built about 2-4km outside of the city center like the Japanese and Chinese do. In Birmingham somewhere like the old Gasworks near Costco in Saltley, In Sheffield it would have been Meadowhall, Manchester would have been East of Salford Central in the gap of land between the Chatt Moss Line and the line up to Bolton (actually proposed at one point) and Leeds somewhere like Neville Hill.

Personally, I am very skeptical of this.

When HS2 was being proposed people were already hawking 19m diameter tunnel boring machines.
You could put two 10+m wide platforms in each tunnel bore, which gets you at least four platforms without major digging of additional tunnels (one TBM approaches from each end).
Bored tunnel costs are only weakly related to cross section, HS2's own research suggest they scale linearly with diameter - in other words by the square root of cross section.

If you do that you need an access shaft like those built for the Barcelona metro, which are about 25m in diameter and thats about it.
If passenger numbers take off you can always dig another shaft.

Four through platforms is not quite Old Oak Common but its not that far off it - and you could potentially make the platforms as long as you like to allow stacking of trains in disruption.

Additionally it's hard to get people to support, they see the station not being built in the center and understandably don't like it, I think Sheffield spent a good amount of money arguing against the Meadowhall station saying HS2 needed to go to the central station despite Meadowhall being able to handle longer trains, northbound services, and giving the Super Tram another key passenger station.

I'd argue Sheffield was more interested in maintaining Sheffield's prominance in South Yorkshire than anything else.
I think they knowingly sacrificed a quality HS2 connection to ensure that Barnsley and (especially) Rotherham could not have one - but maybe I am too cynical.

 

[Zomboid]

That being said, through stations at a reasonable cost would have had to have been built about 2-4km outside of the city center like the Japanese and Chinese do. In Birmingham somewhere like the old Gasworks near Costco in Saltley, I

I don't know about the geology, but an OOC style underground lair station would probably work on the same site at Curzon Street, at least on a very superficial level. Not sure what could be done in Manchester (though there looks to be some unused/ low value land to the north of Victoria that could be excavated) or Leeds.

 

[Tetchytyke]

How much of that is that the people weren’t interested at first. They were then surprised by work arriving,

If people were surprised by the work starting then the engagement was ineffective.

In any case, in Buckinghamshire it wasn’t that people didn’t know about it, it’s that HS2 simply weren’t interested in engaging with local councils and local opposition groups. HS2’s attitude was that they’re going to build what they want and the locals can just go swivel. Turns out that being deliberately antagonistic doesn’t help you get things through smoothly. Who knew!

We see that now in wider discussions about development. Instead of actually engaging with people and trying to reach a fair compromise in good faith, anyone who objects about anything is a NIMBY who should be ignored and any council which objects is being obstructive and wasting taxpayer money.

I'd argue Sheffield was more interested in maintaining Sheffield's prominance in South Yorkshire than anything else.

That’s not fair at all.

Meadowhall would be a parkway station. That’s no good for the centre of Sheffield.

Up the road in Bradford, the council there have been more amenable to a station outside the city centre on NPR. Bradford Council have been roundly slagged off for not pushing for a city centre station. They can’t win.

 

[The Planner]

If people were surprised by the work starting then the engagement was ineffective.

In any case, in Buckinghamshire it wasn’t that people didn’t know about it, it’s that HS2 simply weren’t interested in engaging with local councils and local opposition groups. HS2’s attitude was that they’re going to build what they want and the locals can just go swivel. Turns out that being deliberately antagonistic doesn’t help you get things through smoothly. Who knew!

We see that now in wider discussions about development. Instead of actually engaging with people and trying to reach a fair compromise in good faith, anyone who objects about anything is a NIMBY who should be ignored and any council which objects is being obstructive and wasting taxpayer money.

That’s not fair at all.

Meadowhall would be a parkway station. That’s no good for the centre of Sheffield.

Up the road in Bradford, the council there have been more amenable to a station outside the city centre on NPR. Bradford Council have been roundly slagged off for not pushing for a city centre station. They can’t win.

Are you saying they were brushed aside in the hybrid bill and additional provisions petitions?

https://www.parliament.uk/external/committees/committee-news-pre-oct-2020/2014/may/petitions/

 

[Tetchytyke]

Are you saying they were brushed aside in the hybrid bill and additional provisions petitions?

Why, yes I am.

The coalition government wanted to get their white elephant ego trip essential infrastructure bill through, so anyone who objected was simply ignored.

 

[HSTEd]

That’s not fair at all.

Meadowhall would be a parkway station. That’s no good for the centre of Sheffield.

I think it would be very handy to a much larger portion of the South Yorkshire conurbation than one in central Sheffield ever would be.

Up the road in Bradford, the council there have been more amenable to a station outside the city centre on NPR. Bradford Council have been roundly slagged off for not pushing for a city centre station. They can’t win.

Meadowhall is in a fully urbanised environment with excellent transport possibilities though, it is just not neatly in the centre of the segment of the conurbation named "Sheffield".

 

[A S Leib]

I think it would be very handy to a much larger portion of the South Yorkshire conurbation than one in central Sheffield ever would be.

The South Yorkshire conurbation effectively excludes Doncaster, as planned Sheffield to Euston times would have been about as long as Doncaster to King's Cross now, and without planned Curzon Street to Sheffield services; would that have affected the best place to put a station?

This may have been covered in this thread already as I can't remember everything which has been said, but would I be correct in thinking that a Rotherham / Meadowhall station would have had a better chance of having through services to Leeds or York than a central Sheffield one?

 

[Nottingham59]

would I be correct in thinking that a Rotherham / Meadowhall station would have had a better chance of having through services to Leeds or York than a central Sheffield one?

Yes it would have. All HS2 trains calling at Meadowhall would have continued on to Leeds or York

 

[Palmerston]

Would a Barnsley Parkway have made any sense? It's not large enough to try and direct HS2 through the centre, but is a fairly large and poorly connected town. Wouldn't necessarily need to be served by all Leeds trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think it would be very handy to a much larger portion of the South Yorkshire conurbation than one in central Sheffield ever would be.

On the basis that most journeys are suburb to city, yes. Yet people persist in suggesting a London version of this is not necessary. OOC doesn't count.

 

[Shrop]

But I’m glad you agree that HS2 will serve a distance of a lot more than 100 miles. Saying otherwise is like suggesting the Elizabeth line serves only Paddington to Stratford and Abbey Wood.

"Serving" a distance of "a lot more than 100 miles" is not a good claim, which is why I qualified my comment.
I  could claim that HS1 serves Cornwall, because passengers from there can use it to reach Paris once they've travelled to London first. However it's not a good claim, and I wouldn't make it except in (weary) attempt to understand what someone is suggesting.
In other words it's not exactly false, but it  is very tenuous.
I think you know this too, and it is a bit tiresome to keep reading wishful claims for HS2 when we all know that it has actually failed in so many ways.

 

[zwk500]

"Serving" a distance of "a lot more than 100 miles" is not a good claim, which is why I qualified my comment.
I  could claim that HS1 serves Cornwall, because passengers from there can use it to reach Paris once they've travelled to London first. However it's not a good claim, and I wouldn't make it except in (weary) attempt to understand what someone is suggesting.
In other words it's not exactly false, but it  is very tenuous.
I think you know this too, and it is a bit tiresome to keep reading wishful claims for HS2 when we all know that it has actually failed in so many ways.

That's comparing apples with lemons though.

Trains from HS2 will run through on to the classic network. This would be anagolous to if there was a Penzance-Brussels direct train.

 

[Zomboid]

It's pretty clear that HS2 will benefit everyone who uses (or is impacted by the use of) the WCML between London and Birmingham, and anyone who uses the other intercity services from Euston. Even Glasgow to London is supposedly half an hour faster according to a quick look at Google, and by moving off the most congested section, reliability should be better too.

So yes, it "serves" much, much more than 100 miles.

Even if it didn't, Handsace to London is closer to 125 miles.

 

[Krokodil]

"Serving" a distance of "a lot more than 100 miles" is not a good claim, which is why I qualified my comment.
I  could claim that HS1 serves Cornwall, because passengers from there can use it to reach Paris once they've travelled to London first. However it's not a good claim, and I wouldn't make it except in (weary) attempt to understand what someone is suggesting.
In other words it's not exactly false, but it  is very tenuous.
I think you know this too, and it is a bit tiresome to keep reading wishful claims for HS2 when we all know that it has actually failed in so many ways.

That's not the same at all. HS2 services will  directly serve destinations throughout the north west and on to Scotland. No changes, your one-seat ride to Glasgow will be faster as soon as Handsacre opens.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

On the basis that most journeys are suburb to city, yes. Yet people persist in suggesting a London version of this is not necessary. OOC doesn't count.

Why does OOC not count?

 

[The Planner]

Why, yes I am.

The coalition government wanted to get their white elephant ego trip essential infrastructure bill through, so anyone who objected was simply ignored.

Right....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why does OOC not count?

Two reasons. It's too close in and it has no parking provision.

 

[pr1]

Re: intermediate stations, isn't the issue that the UK doesn't tend to think "joined up" so even if there was an M25 Parkway or similar, it might not fulfil the job an equivalent international station would?

 

[Zomboid]

Re: intermediate stations, isn't the issue that the UK doesn't tend to think "joined up" so even if there was an M25 Parkway or similar, it might not fulfil the job an equivalent international station would?

If we wanted there to be intermediate stations, the line would probably ultimately need to be 4 tracked south of the junction for Birmingham. (You might get away with one intermediate station on a 2 track and still be able to run a service, but if everyone was getting a station that probably wouldn't cut it without spoiling the capacity for the fast trains). It'd need more platforms at Euston as well.

Which to be fair wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

I know the Shinkansen manage a lot of intermediate stations, but having used the Kodama (stopping service) for some journeys on the Sanyo Shinkansen, those trains are held for a long time at some of these stations to let two or three non stop trains pass. Even the Hikari (middle rank of speed) I used on the Tokaido Shinkansen had a couple of extended dwells to let the fast trains through. It's got to a point now where the Chuo Shinkansen to the Tokaido Shinkansen is what HS2 is to the WCML - to get the very fastest trains off the now very busy original route.

 

[zwk500]

If we wanted there to be intermediate stations, the line would probably ultimately need to be 4 tracked south of the junction for Birmingham. (You might get away with one intermediate station on a 2 track and still be able to run a service, but if everyone was getting a station that probably wouldn't cut it without spoiling the capacity for the fast trains). It'd need more platforms at Euston as well.

Or to accept that every train will make the same number of intermediate stops. If trains started from OOC 3 minutes apart and the first skipped this theoretical M25/Aylesbury parkway station and then stopped at interchange, but the 2nd stopped at the new station and skipped Interchange, they should pass Delta South junction about 3 minutes apart.
However the idea of trading Interchange stops for M25/Aylesbury parkway would come with it's own set of objectors who claimed their region was now being deprioritised in favour of the London commuter belt...

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Two reasons. It's too close in and it has no parking provision.

Hence why I thought routing the line away from Heathrow was a mistake.

 

[JamesT]

Hence why I thought routing the line away from Heathrow was a mistake.

The proposals for an HS2 'Heathrow Hub' appear to still have it on the GWML rather than any closer to the airport. I'm not sure that gains a great deal over Old Oak Common, which has the potential for onward connectivity to more of London.

 

[Uncle Buck]

The proposals for an HS2 'Heathrow Hub' appear to still have it on the GWML rather than any closer to the airport. I'm not sure that gains a great deal over Old Oak Common, which has the potential for onward connectivity to more of London.

Heathrow Hub as the first HS2 stop out of London would only have been a superior option to Old Oak if:

a) the GWML was diverted via Heathrow ie a Paddington to Bristol/Cardiff/Exeter train would call at Heathrow as its first stop out of London
b) all or most Crossrail services went through this Heathrow station, possibly rejoining what would have been the “old” GWML to continue to Reading
c) HS2 took a very different route, requiring a rather awkward curve.

Seeing as both A and C and probably B seem ruinously expensive and disruptive, it is hard to see how this would have worked.

The real issue is that London’s main airport is in the wrong place- it should be either at Luton or in the Chilterns- but then we are getting way into hypotheticals.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The proposals for an HS2 'Heathrow Hub' appear to still have it on the GWML rather than any closer to the airport. I'm not sure that gains a great deal over Old Oak Common, which has the potential for onward connectivity to more of London.

Heathrow Hub as the first HS2 stop out of London would only have been a superior option to Old Oak if:

a) the GWML was diverted via Heathrow ie a Paddington to Bristol/Cardiff/Exeter train would call at Heathrow as its first stop out of London
b) all or most Crossrail services went through this Heathrow station, possibly rejoining what would have been the “old” GWML to continue to Reading
c) HS2 took a very different route, requiring a rather awkward curve.

Seeing as both A and C and probably B seem ruinously expensive and disruptive, it is hard to see how this would have worked.

The real issue is that London’s main airport is in the wrong place- it should be either at Luton or in the Chilterns- but then we are getting way into hypotheticals.

Heathrow Hub could have worked I think. It was near enough to Heathrow to plausibly feel like part of the Heathrow complex. Whereas OOC is a whole borough away. If it was built at Stockley Park, you could have had potentially 6 Crossrail trains an hour connecting from the airport to the terminals. New York's JFK has no rail connections at all, but relies on (admittedly unacceptably long) driverless light rail lines to connect to the nearest rail nodes. We didn't have to route HS2 underneath or beside Heathrow itself.

Heathrow Hub would have also provided parking near the M25 and rail connections to Surrey, in theory, with the Heathrow Southern Rail Link. Not all trains would need to stop there. I doubt there would be much demand for Leeds/Birmingham trains, but certainly the Anglo-Scot or Manchester trains.

 

[The Ham]

Please could you explain how much journey time will be saved along these sections, as a result of being served by HS2? After all, you've presented it as serving "a lot more than 100 miles" ...

Sorry, but how are those claims of yours worth the cost of £100bn?

The question was does it provide journey time savings beyond the 100 miles, you've now asked a different question given that you clearly don't like the answer.

As to the cost, clearly the two examples aren't worth £100bn.

However, there's a lot more than those examples.

However, I suspect that whatever anyone says chances are you'll disagree with what is said.

Anyway, the main point I keep coming back to, is that passenger growth is still broadly on track even with a significant change in travel patterns and the delay of in opening HS2 means that the growth can be zero and still carry the same (or more) passengers than was expected to be the case upon the original start date.

The proposals for an HS2 'Heathrow Hub' appear to still have it on the GWML rather than any closer to the airport. I'm not sure that gains a great deal over Old Oak Common, which has the potential for onward connectivity to more of London.

Old Oak Common will likely be sufficiently useful as per this post:

Heathrow Hub as the first HS2 stop out of London would only have been a superior option to Old Oak if:

a) the GWML was diverted via Heathrow ie a Paddington to Bristol/Cardiff/Exeter train would call at Heathrow as its first stop out of London
b) all or most Crossrail services went through this Heathrow station, possibly rejoining what would have been the “old” GWML to continue to Reading
c) HS2 took a very different route, requiring a rather awkward curve.

Seeing as both A and C and probably B seem ruinously expensive and disruptive, it is hard to see how this would have worked.

The real issue is that London’s main airport is in the wrong place- it should be either at Luton or in the Chilterns- but then we are getting way into hypotheticals.

Although there's more that it could also do.

First up there's a lot of development due to happen nearby.

There's also possibly further rail schemes (such as Overground services nearby at Old Oak Common Lane and possibly HEX services passing through Heathrow if that happens).

Heathrow Hub could have worked I think. It was near enough to Heathrow to plausibly feel like part of the Heathrow complex. Whereas OOC is a whole borough away. If it was built at Stockley Park, you could have had potentially 6 Crossrail trains an hour connecting from the airport to the terminals. New York's JFK has no rail connections at all, but relies on (admittedly unacceptably long) driverless light rail lines to connect to the nearest rail nodes. We didn't have to route HS2 underneath or beside Heathrow itself.

Heathrow Hub would have also provided parking near the M25 and rail connections to Surrey, in theory, with the Heathrow Southern Rail Link. Not all trains would need to stop there. I doubt there would be much demand for Leeds/Birmingham trains, but certainly the Anglo-Scot or Manchester trains.

Southern Approach to Heathrow (depending on which services are the through services - either the Metro or outer suburban routes).

The Metro services could cause issues with the potential of inheriting delays between two very complex areas (whist this is also true for the Outer Suburban Services to Guildford and Basingstoke the lines are less intensely used and so have more scope for recovery). There would be limited benefits in terms of station pairing due to the interchange options at Clapham Junction and Richmond (and a lesser extent Kew).

Pairing Woking, Guildford and Basingstoke to Paddington would give quite a significant population direct rail services to Old Oak Common and HS2.

This could put Woking, Basingstoke and Guildford within about 150 minutes (even with only phase 1) of Manchester. That makes it around 60 minutes faster than current services.

That makes day trips viable (leave Basingstoke 8:30, arrive Manchester 11:00, leave Manchester 18:30 arrive back 21:00) without having to leave early and arrive back overly late.

 

[FMerrymon]

First up there's a lot of development due to happen nearby.

With a significant economic return and housing opportunity.

That makes day trips viable (leave Basingstoke 8:30, arrive Manchester 11:00, leave Manchester 18:30 arrive back 21:00) without having to leave early and arrive back overly late.

Freeing up seats on crosscountry too.

With the range of possible connections through Old Oak, orbital journeys to the west of London will be easier by rail than now, providing an alternative to driving on the M25

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The question was does it provide journey time savings beyond the 100 miles, you've now asked a different question given that you clearly don't like the answer.

As to the cost, clearly the two examples aren't worth £100bn.

However, there's a lot more than those examples.

However, I suspect that whatever anyone says chances are you'll disagree with what is said.

Anyway, the main point I keep coming back to, is that passenger growth is still broadly on track even with a significant change in travel patterns and the delay of in opening HS2 means that the growth can be zero and still carry the same (or more) passengers than was expected to be the case upon the original start date.



Old Oak Common will likely be sufficiently useful as per this post:



Although there's more that it could also do.

First up there's a lot of development due to happen nearby.

There's also possibly further rail schemes (such as Overground services nearby at Old Oak Common Lane and possibly HEX services passing through Heathrow if that happens).



Southern Approach to Heathrow (depending on which services are the through services - either the Metro or outer suburban routes).

The Metro services could cause issues with the potential of inheriting delays between two very complex areas (whist this is also true for the Outer Suburban Services to Guildford and Basingstoke the lines are less intensely used and so have more scope for recovery). There would be limited benefits in terms of station pairing due to the interchange options at Clapham Junction and Richmond (and a lesser extent Kew).

Pairing Woking, Guildford and Basingstoke to Paddington would give quite a significant population direct rail services to Old Oak Common and HS2.

This could put Woking, Basingstoke and Guildford within about 150 minutes (even with only phase 1) of Manchester. That makes it around 60 minutes faster than current services.

That makes day trips viable (leave Basingstoke 8:30, arrive Manchester 11:00, leave Manchester 18:30 arrive back 21:00) without having to leave early and arrive back overly late.

Exactly. Tbf you could connect them with OOC but Heathrow is nearer. could improve the case for international services if you have a stop there