Could/should HS2 Western leg be shelved?

[Ianno87]

A better business case for HS2, at least to those opposed to it. Obviously, there are some real feet daggers, but I'm sure there are also some who just need a gentle nudge.

No it wouldn't improve the business case, as that factors in operational costs of, and demand on, all services, not just HS2.

You'd be adding operational cost (and extra fleet etc) to extend HS2 services for a diminishing return on how many more passengers would transfer to use it instead of conventional services, so the business case would actually worsen. Or, at best, HS2 would just be replacing a conventional service to carry the same passengers.

The proposed train service is designed to place HS2 trains where utilisation of the service would be greatest...but there gets a point where adding more bits on doesn't generate sufficient benefits any more to offset the extra cost etc of doing so.

For example, serving Edinburgh via both the WCML and ECML would split London demand via both routes, but you'd be adding operational cost to HS2 services to carry passengers between (for example) Newcastle and Edinburgh who would be catered for in exactly the same way by existing services.

 

[The Ham]

No it wouldn't improve the business case, as that factors in operational costs of, and demand on, all services, not just HS2.

You'd be adding operational cost (and extra fleet etc) to extend HS2 services for a diminishing return on how many more passengers would transfer to use it instead of conventional services, so the business case would actually worsen. Or, at best, HS2 would just be replacing a conventional service to carry the same passengers.

The proposed train service is designed to place HS2 trains where utilisation of the service would be greatest...but there gets a point where adding more bits on doesn't generate sufficient benefits any more to offset the extra cost etc of doing so.

For example, serving Edinburgh via both the WCML and ECML would split London demand via both routes, but you'd be adding operational cost to HS2 services to carry passengers between (for example) Newcastle and Edinburgh who would be catered for in exactly the same way by existing services.

Indeed, part of the business case is that although the trains are longer and way more seats than for many routes (Manchester benefiting the most from this) the actual number of extra coaches will be fairly limited.

In fact in the case of Manchester, depending on how many 11 coach services currently run HS2 may actually reduce the number of coaches needed.

Current 9 coach at 3tph and going end to end and back in 5 hours requires 135 coaches.

HS2 services with 16 coaches at 3tph and going end to end and back in 3 hours requires 144 coaches.

As such if 5 of the 15 units needed are 11 coach trains then the number of coaches increases to 145.

However that's only looking at current services, many suggest that we should go to 12 coach trains in the future to cater for demand. If that were to happen then there'll be a need for 180 coaches.

As such the leasing costs will be higher (even if the lease costs for HS2 trains were, say, 15% higher), however you also need more staff to run the same frequency of services. Which further adds to the costs.

Then there's not the same potential for passenger numbers, as even a 12 coach 80x (and they would be longer than a 12 coach 390) would only have ~800 seats compared to HS2 services which are cited as having 1,100 seats.

That's before you start to get people using rail more as the journey times are much smaller.

 

[Purple Orange]

I have always had a feeling that many people who are opposed to HS2, are opposing the project because it doesn’t do what they want it to, or go where they want it to go, rather than opposing on merits of what HS2 is intended to do. For example, because it doesn’t go directly in to Liverpool, there have been many forumers (on this and other sites) from the Merseyside area who believe it should be stopped or curtailed at Crewe. If the plan was to also run a new build line in to Liverpool, there would be far fewer calls to stop the line at Crewe.

Next month marks the point the chancellor will reveal his plans for the spending review, and the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) should or might be published then. If that IRP document details a new line to Liverpool, I expect many calls for the Crewe-Manchester leg to be scrapped will diminish.

The Crewe-Manchester line is vitally important to help HS2 realise it’s potential, increasing capacity in to London, Manchester & Birmingham and also reducing journey times between the three. Those are the primary objectives. The ancillary benefits are reduced journey times to other cities.

The eastern branch, although it can relieve capacity in to Kings Cross and St. Pancras, not building it actually relieves more capacity in to Euston. Therefore this comes down to priorities:

1. Is it better to remove 2 fast tph in to St. Pancras and 4 fast in to Kings Cross, most likely to be replaced by semi-fast to the same destinations?
2. Or is it better to keep 6 HS2 paths in to Euston and 3 HS2 paths in to Birmingham open to facilitate growth on the western side of the country?

People will decry ‘levelling-up’ (which is a nonsense slogan to win votes), but to my eyes the government is prioritising Manchester and Birmingham as the cities for the ‘levelling-up’ agenda. Two cities that do need ‘levelling-up’ still, but two cities with the greatest potential. This is why we will see Crewe-Manchester go ahead.