A personal idea on HS2/Chilterns

[PeterC]

Always intrigues me the level to which HS2 is opposed based on nothing more than an ingrained presumption that the northern bits won't happen. Which has nothing to do with whether the full scheme has merit or not.

I think any of us who have worked with multi phase projects in any field will be cynical about the later phases ever being implemented.

 

[adamedwards]

HS1 got built to the link to Swanley and then phase 2 to St Pancras.

 

[Bald Rick]

I bet that a lower-spec line would get by at £5 to £6 billion, no station at OOC. On the other hand, if Phase 2 was built as a priority and Phase 1 as the secondary concern, I would have no objections. I forsee Phase 1 being completed then Phase 2 being scrapped, providing little or no benefit to deprived Northern towns. Not everyone wants to save 20 minutes just on their journey to London, but lots of people want to save 20 minutes on their journeys in general.

I’ll take that bet. How would you save half the cost (£4bn - £5bn) just between Old Oak and Euston? Ask the designers for half their fees back? Ask the property owners for half the cash back that they have already banked or paid out for new property? Timber sleepers? Where?

Don’t you think that HS2 might already have looked at how to save money?

 

[Peter Kelford]

HS1 got built to the link to Swanley and then phase 2 to St Pancras.

Because Swanley was absolutely nowhere. Don't forget the French, wider EU and US influence.

I’ll take that bet. How would you save half the cost (£4bn - £5bn) just between Old Oak and Euston? Ask the designers for half their fees back? Ask the property owners for half the cash back that they have already banked or paid out for new property? Timber sleepers? Where?

Don’t you think that HS2 might already have looked at how to save money?

We could save up to 6 times the cost of HS2 and still be about average for the rest of western Europe.

Don't follow your argument here. Which bit has merit, which is the vanity project, given that you think we should already have built HS2 as far as Manchester?

None of it is irrational. The problem is the way we work. If we were in a rational state that behaved like other western democracies do, HS2 would already be built, probably in the 90s or at most early 2000s. It is a vanity project because of the way it's it's being delivered.

 

[B&I]

While I think that a new high capacity line leading northwest out of London is necessary, and that a souped-up Chiltern line would not adequately meet the need for this, it never ceases to amaze me that proponents of HS2 never seem to ask themselves why the project as currently designed has so little support, even among people who clearly in favour of moving more passengers onto rail

 

[Polarbear]

HS2 has been poorly explained to a public that generally speaking, do not understand how railways actually operate. That's not intended as a criticism of joe public, as I don't expect most people to understand the nuances of railway operation. That for me is a major factor in there being relatively little public support for the project. The HS2 team has only recently started doing some reasonable marketing & explanation of the project, which is a great pity.

That said, those same people will also complain regularly about overcrowding, road congestion, high fares etc., and will want something done about all of those things. Trouble is, many people do not see HS2 as the answer as they can't see the wider benefits. Again, that's mainly due to the whole project being poorly marketed from the start.

 

[6Gman]

I bet that a lower-spec line would get by at £5 to £6 billion, no station at OOC. On the other hand, if Phase 2 was built as a priority and Phase 1 as the secondary concern, I would have no objections. I forsee Phase 1 being completed then Phase 2 being scrapped, providing little or no benefit to deprived Northern towns. Not everyone wants to save 20 minutes just on their journey to London, but lots of people want to save 20 minutes on their journeys in general.

What would be the purpose of Phase 2 in advance of Phase 1 being completed?

A highspeed railway linking Manchester, Crewe and Birmingham feeding into what? The existing crowded WCML?

 

[Tobbes]

Because Swanley was absolutely nowhere. Don't forget the French, wider EU and US influence.

You have some evidence for this nefarious "influence", presumably....

We could save up to 6 times the cost of HS2 and still be about average for the rest of western Europe.

Because lots of cost drivers are comparable to an average of western europe; like London property and land prices, for instance. Or possibly not.

None of it is irrational. The problem is the way we work. If we were in a rational state that behaved like other western democracies do, HS2 would already be built, probably in the 90s or at most early 2000s. It is a vanity project because of the way it's it's being delivered.

I have some sympathy with your criticism the UK's failure to build HS2 in the late 90s (IIRC, Alistair Darling cancelled it in 1998?). But to claim that it is a vanity project because of its delivery mechanism is ridiculous.

 

[Bald Rick]

We could save up to 6 times the cost of HS2 and still be about average for the rest of western Europe.

Really? Not on a like for like basis. Most high speed lines in Europe are built across farmland, with little in the way of obstructions. That is simply not possible in the U.K.

Also some of the accounting for high speed lines in some european countries is ‘interesting’ to say the least.

 

[The Ham]

Really? Not on a like for like basis. Most high speed lines in Europe are built across farmland, with little in the way of obstructions. That is simply not possible in the U.K.

Also some of the accounting for high speed lines in some european countries is ‘interesting’ to say the least.

Indeed, farmland is typically £8,000 per acre, my house a decade ago was £4,000 per square metre for the footprint of the building and that wasn't in London (it's now worth circa £7,000 per square metre).

Even if you compare the total land area then it would have been about £1,000 per square metre, or about £4 million per acre (or about £8 million per acre now).

The above also shows why the cost of land for HS2 have gone up quite so significantly. It would also be the same issue for any alternative scheme and would be a much bigger problem for schemes which were looking to widen the number of tracks through an urban setting.

The reason that most European schemes are cheaper is that they didn't need to build new city centre stations as there wasn't the capacity issues at them which we have. I suggest that you look at the thread about the extra two platforms for Manchester Piccadilly, where there's talk about cutting services to ensure that reliability is maintained, then come back to us as to how to provide extra intercity services into Manchester.

I know how, if it was left to market forces, it would play out. In that the Intercity services pay their way whilst local services don't, so the local services into Manchester would be cut to provide for the extra intercity services.

With the DfT also looking to receive the most income from franchises, which do you think that they'd priorities of there were to be extra capacity? A new local service for a franchise which they have to subsidise or a new intercity service which would likely provide them with extra money.

 

[Peter Kelford]

didn't need to build new city centre stations

Curzon Street is on an ex-railway brownfield site. Hardly needs purchasing. The profit part of it shows what's wrong with the governmental system and why in this environment it's better to have no HS2 than a fudged London-Birmingham line with issues to the north. Don't forget that even the most expensive HSL recently built in France (Nîmes) cost 3 times less than HS2.

 

[Ianno87]

None of it is irrational. The problem is the way we work. If we were in a rational state that behaved like other western democracies do, HS2 would already be built, probably in the 90s or at most early 2000s. It is a vanity project because of the way it's it's being delivered.

Surely if it was a vanity project, we'd have rushed ahead and built it in the 90s for the kudos rather than spending two decades since then carefully thinking about it and developing it?

 

[The Planner]

Curzon Street is on an ex-railway brownfield site. Hardly needs purchasing. The profit part of it shows what's wrong with the governmental system and why in this environment it's better to have no HS2 than a fudged London-Birmingham line with issues to the north. Don't forget that even the most expensive HSL recently built in France (Nîmes) cost 3 times less than HS2.

Is it comparable in terms of length etc?

 

[Bald Rick]

Curzon Street is on an ex-railway brownfield site. Hardly needs purchasing. The profit part of it shows what's wrong with the governmental system and why in this environment it's better to have no HS2 than a fudged London-Birmingham line with issues to the north. Don't forget that even the most expensive HSL recently built in France (Nîmes) cost 3 times less than HS2.

Ex Railway land. It still had to be paid for. What about the costs of two hotels and various domestic buildings at Euston? Were they free too?

The Nîmes - Montpellier Contourment was built almost entirely across open country, with no tunnels or viaducts of any significance. The costs quoted are for construction, and do not include for the twenty years+ of studies, consultations and design work beforehand. On a per distance basis, the cost (construction inflation adjusted) is broadly the same as the cost of Phase 1 of HS1, which itself is broadly the same as the cost of the similar Phase 2a of HS2.

 

[Chester1]

What would be the purpose of Phase 2 in advance of Phase 1 being completed?

A highspeed railway linking Manchester, Crewe and Birmingham feeding into what? The existing crowded WCML?

Playing devils advocate, it would support multiple captive and mixed services:

Manchester to Birmingham x 2
Manchester to London x 2 (diverting 1 Stoke service and running HS Manchester to Crewe)
Liverpool to Birmingham x 2 (HS Crewe to Birmingham)

That would allow 4 long distance services into Manchester and 2 into Birmingham to be replaced by services and stock more suitable for commuters e.g. 8 or 12 coach 350s .

It wouldn't resolve the southern WCML capacity problems but its not pointless!

 

[Peter Kelford]

Is it comparable in terms of length etc?

Price per Km.

 

[Peter Kelford]

two hotels

Why does the government have to pay for something as lucrative as two hotels?

 

[The Planner]

Playing devils advocate, it would support multiple captive and mixed services:

Manchester to Birmingham x 2
Manchester to London x 2 (diverting 1 Stoke service and running HS Manchester to Crewe)
Liverpool to Birmingham x 2 (HS Crewe to Birmingham)

That would allow 4 long distance services into Manchester and 2 into Birmingham to be replaced by services and stock more suitable for commuters e.g. 8 or 12 coach 350s .

It wouldn't resolve the southern WCML capacity problems but its not pointless!

Except to deliver that, Manchester to Birmingham are coming off HS2 at Crewe, Liverpool to Birmingham cannot use HS2 at all if Phase 2 is built first, or you are building the top end of phase 1 from Curzon St - Handsacre -Crewe. So, no you are not building phase 2 on its own first.

 

[Peter Kelford]

The Nîmes - Montpellier Contourment was built almost entirely across open country, with no tunnels or viaducts of any significance. The costs quoted are for construction, and do not include for the twenty years+ of studies, consultations and design work beforehand. On a per distance basis, the cost (construction inflation adjusted) is broadly the same as the cost of Phase 1 of HS1, which itself is broadly the same as the cost of the similar Phase 2a of HS2.

I also put it to you that Interconnexion Est cost £30m/km in today's money.

 

[The Planner]

Price per Km.

Thats not what I asked. How long was it overall, and what challenges did it have though @Bald Rick seems to have answered that.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Except to deliver that, Manchester to Birmingham are coming off HS2 at Crewe, Liverpool to Birmingham cannot use HS2 at all if Phase 2 is built first, or you are building the top end of phase 1 from Curzon St - Handsacre -Crewe. So, no you are not building phase 2 on its own first.

The northern part of P1 will be built but not London-Birmingham.

 

[The Planner]

The northern part of P1 will be built but not London-Birmingham.

Ah, so not phase 2 on its own then, the goalposts are moving then.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Ah, so not phase 2 on its own then, the goalposts are moving then.

The majority of P1 will still not be built.

 

[Ianno87]

The majority of P1 will still not be built.

Lots of complicated bits like the route into Birmingham and the junctions around Birmingham Interchange would be built then? You'd need to build them in such a way as to be able to provide the route to Euston in future. Suddenly 'just to northern bit of P1' starts to have a lot of scope in it, for not very many trains.

And you'd probably break Birmingham New Street station and the Coventry corridor when passengers realise that Manchester-[HS2]-Birmingham-[WCML]-Euston becomes about as fast as a direct train.

 

[The Planner]

The majority of P1 will still not be built.

Based on what? Clearly you need to do some research on the route. One of, if not the biggest grade separated rail junction in the country would still have to be built to enable Phase 2 trains to get to Birmingham as well as probably the most difficult bit of route to build on the approaches to Birmingham from Water Orton. The rest of HS2 is easy.

 

[Bald Rick]

I also put it to you that Interconnexion Est cost £30m/km in today's money.

I’m sure it was, in construction cost. What about all the design and preparation works? Client costs? Costs of obtaining consents? SNCF rarely publish those.

For info the the total cost HS1 Ph1, in today’s money including all costs I mention above was £38m/km, including several tunnels and what was (at the time) the longest single span high speed rail viaduct in the world.

 

[Bald Rick]

Why does the government have to pay for something as lucrative as two hotels?

Because it’s somebodys property. Taking property without paying is called theft.

 

[Esker-pades]

Shamless plug for something I wrote about 1 month ago about why upgrading the Chiltern Main Line doesn't negate HS2.
https://felixunstructured.weebly.co...e-chiltern-main-line-isnt-the-solution-to-hs2

Introduction
The Chiltern Main Line has enjoyed something of a revival. It was hit hard by the Beeching Cuts, but new stations and track have been constructed/reinstated since the late '80s. Since Chiltern Railways took over after privatisation in the '90s, both it and the government have invested heavily in mainly the long distance aspect of their operations (London to Birmingham and latterly Oxford) meaning that the route now competes with the West Coast Main Line (WCML) and the Great Western Main Line (GWML).

Since HS2 was announced, critics of the project have often cited additional upgrades to the Chiltern Main Line as negating HS2. As a secondary main line between London and Birmingham (the same two cities as HS2 Phase 1 links), without any examination it seems as if this is slightly logical. Further examination of both projects shows how flawed a view this is.

Electrification
The Chiltern Main Line is one of the few InterCity routes in the UK to have no electrification. Electrification does have benefits. As a rule, electric trains accelerate more rapidly than diesel versions, which means that capacity is increased and journey times reduced. Given that the Chiltern Main Line is mainly a double track railway with a mixture of stopping and express services, this would be beneficial to the railway from a timetabling point of view. There are also the environmental positives to consider. The Taxpayer's Alliance explain that this, along with 26 other projects, would be a good replacement for HS2.

However, there are problems. Firstly, the branch to Aylesbury shares track with the London Underground which is 4th rail electrified. No main line railway in the UK is electrified in such a manner, and for good reason. 4th rail is only good for low-speed light rail operations (like the tube). 3rd rail electrification is off the table too. The Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) and the Department for Transport (DfT) have effectively ruled out any new stretches of 3rd rail electrification on safety grounds. Essentially, the work required to demonstrate that the risk of new third rail installations can be sufficiently mitigated, and that any additional risk compared to other traction solutions is more than offset by other benefits means that any new 3rd rail electrification is not going to happen. Additionally, if one electrified the Chiltern Main Line with 3rd rail, it would be 'out-of-place' with the rest of the rail network that it interacts with (the GWML at Oxford and Banbury and all electrification in Birmingham all has overhead electrification). One could switch from one to the other, but that would make the rolling stock and project needlessly expensive. Dual-power with both 4th rail and OHLE may be possible, but dual-power electrification of any section is expensive and wasteful. There may be engineering barriers (I don't know enough to comment properly).

One could argue that one should keep the London to Aylesbury line diesel (and only electrify the Chiltern Main Line proper), but, given that the Taxpayer's Alliance video I mentioned earlier was filmed at Stoke Mandeville (on the London to Aylesbury line), they cannot really put the Chiltern Main Line electrification argument forward without explaining how this problem will be addressed.

Additional Tracks?
Although the Chiltern Main Line has been almost completely re-doubled, it is still not in the state it was in prior to rationalisation. Several stations used to have passing loops and other sections used to be 4 track for some distance. In order from London, these are:

• Wembley Stadium (passing loops)
• South Ruislip to West Ruislip (4 track)
• Denham (passing loops)
• Gerrards Cross (passing loops)
• Beaconsfield (passing loops)
• High Wycombe (passing loops)
• Princes Risborough (passing loops)
• Lapworth to Tyseley (4 track)

Some of these would increase capacity. The 4 track sections are especially useful because it allows trains to overtake while not making the slower train stop.

Why These Improvements do not Negate HS2
Let's say that we managed to carry out all these improvements. Why does this mean HS2 is still required?

Although I said that electrification increases capacity, it doesn't do it by that much. It certainly wouldn't mean that the Chiltern Main Line could take anything like the number of additional services that HS2 will take when fully completed. Passing loops don't create as much capacity because the slower trains require paths into and out of the loops, and they are stationary for at least 5 minutes at the loop. Additional capacity created would likely be used up to provide additional stopping services to the underserved commuter stations between London and Banbury, or between Dorridge, Stratford-upon-Avon, and Solihull into Birmingham.

These improvements only take into account Phase 1 (London to Birmingham) and not Phase 2 (Birmingham to Manchester/Leeds etc.). HS2 is often accused of being London-centric, so any ideas of alternative schemes to solve the problems that HS2 tries to solve fall into that narrative and are thus partially useless.

Finally, this fundamentally misunderstands what HS2 is. These improvement plans assume HS2 is about making journeys between London and Birmingham faster. It is not. HS2 is about creating additional capacity for the places where there is no additional capacity available. Electrifying and improving the Chiltern Main Line will not be of any benefit to the main capacity problems that HS2 will solve (listed and explored in detail here). Improving the Chiltern Main Line must be done in addition to HS2, not instead of it. That is a problem that the 26 other projects outlined by the Taxpayer's Alliance also share. Few of them even address the problems that HS2 solves, and the ones that do only look at one of the problems and do not solve it as comprehensively as HS2. Merry Christmas.

Basically, upgrading the Chiltern Main Line does very little to address the problems that HS2 does.

 

[Chester1]

Except to deliver that, Manchester to Birmingham are coming off HS2 at Crewe, Liverpool to Birmingham cannot use HS2 at all if Phase 2 is built first, or you are building the top end of phase 1 from Curzon St - Handsacre -Crewe. So, no you are not building phase 2 on its own first.

Just phase 2 would be a waste. Combined with the top end of phase 1 it would have worthwhile benefits, especially if Liverpool (maybe from South Parkway) was linked to HS2 to allow Liverpool - Manchester and Birmingham HS services. I support the whole project but if the London end becomes politically impossible id rather they started in the north than not build anything.

 

[Bald Rick]

Shamless plug for something I wrote about 1 month ago about why upgrading the Chiltern Main Line doesn't negate HS2.
https://felixunstructured.weebly.co...e-chiltern-main-line-isnt-the-solution-to-hs2



Basically, upgrading the Chiltern Main Line does very little to address the problems that HS2 does.

Good essay.