Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ultimately, there is no good economic reason not to build Crossrail 2, given the success of the first, but politically it will look bad that London gets further funding. There is also an issue with a skills shortage when we are also building new nuclear power stations and many other things. Its shame though that the true value of these projects is not understood well, and HS2 is the most misunderstood of them all.
100% true. Crossrail 2 should definitely be built and at least the route is protected. However politically that's impossible (probably rightly) until NPR and some sort of "son of phase 2A" are both signed off IMO.
The skills shortage in engineering/electrical workers is clearly a big factor also.
These are all fair points, that will apply to all projects, including those in competition for limited transport funds. The challenge for HS2 is that very high speed rail has a weak strategic case in a geographically small country, particularly where there are other options for capacity enhancements.
Similarly sized countries to the UK (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) run very effective high speed networks.
At the risk of re-litigating the arguments for HS2 yet again, I haven't seen any proposals for capacity enhancements that wouldn't cost just as much and be just as disruptive as HS2 (or some form of similar high speed rail network).
Remember that when you're building something like HS2 you're building to deal with the next 50-100 years, not just what might or might not be needed in the next few years.
The West Coast Mainline is effectively full, especially south of Rugby
The only real solution is additional tracks (the line was last upgraded 20 years ago and cannot reralistically be upgraded further)
Building the additional tracks means the long distance express services will use them, releasing capacity on the existing line for more local, regional services and freight
That ensures the railway can continue to grow for decades into the future
The original 'Y' network would have released capacity on the ECML as well as the WCML
Now, if you're building a new line that will last for decades it makes sense to future proof it. If not we'll always regret it in years to come. It's like buildinga new relief road - you don't want to build it as a single carriageway when what is really needed in the future is a motorway.
So, I'd say we're right to be ambitious and build it for speed. The problem is the scheme has been mis-managed, with public relations and consequently public perception of what the scheme was all about being a large part of this.
The recent BBC series on HS2 is well worth a listen It's on BBC Sounds called 'Derailed - the story of HS2'.
The people who made and run the high speed networks in Europe were asked what they recommend. They consistently said they wished they built to a higher speed, eg 400km/h. We are trying to copy France, Spain and others, but we shouldn’t learn from their admitted mistakes?
There is no good way to predict the wider impacts. The people with the money can’t justify using the vaguer, weaker methods. Considering that the full list of projects with a positive bcr by today’s standards is far more than can be afforded, it doesn’t achieve anything to have a similar list with a broader idea of benefits.
The people who made and run the high speed networks in Europe were asked what they recommend. They consistently said they wished they built to a higher speed, eg 400km/h
Remember that when you're building something like HS2 you're building to deal with the next 50-100 years, not just what might or might not be needed in the next few years.
The West Coast Mainline is effectively full, especially south of Rugby
The only real solution is additional tracks (the line was last upgraded 20 years ago and cannot reralistically be upgraded further)
Building the additional tracks means the long distance express services will use them, releasing capacity on the existing line for more local, regional services and freight
That ensures the railway can continue to grow for decades into the future
The original 'Y' network would have released capacity on the ECML as well as the WCML
Now, if you're building a new line that will last for decades it makes sense to future proof it. If not we'll always regret it in years to come. It's like buildinga new relief road - you don't want to build it as a single carriageway when what is really needed in the future is a motorway.
So, I'd say we're right to be ambitious and build it for speed. The problem is the scheme has been mis-managed, with public relations and consequently public perception of what the scheme was all about being a large part of this.
The recent BBC series on HS2 is well worth a listen It's on BBC Sounds called 'Derailed - the story of HS2'.
Also since a major argument is always cost, people ought to break down as to why it costs so much. Construction is fine but it is getting to the construction that takes so long. That's endless analysis, residents' objections, needing to design things like stupid bat tunnels, trees, or needing to build a tunnel underneath literally everything as the only means of getting approval. This comes from both sides of the political spectrum, you have the older residents complaining about one thing (cost, something something trains are bad anyway) and then the greens arguing with the stupid points like 'we dont need it, we can reinvest it in (insert schemes with a tiny impact)' while simultaneously complaining about train fares and overcrowding. Even if the greens are supposed to be in support of it now, you still get outliers from that side of things vehemently against it.
I mean, opposition has not been a new thing, even the earliest lines faced opposition. However in more recent times I am very unhappy about the Town and Country Planning Act, which has seemingly given anyone the ability to block anything. We haven't built a reservoir in a long time even when we need it for growth and are forced to ration water, and all of our infrastructure is essentially running on life support at this rate. To add salt to the wound, this lack of building also means we have lost the skills required to build. That does not help when it comes to the cost and timeline of things no doubt.
We quite frankly shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to building anything in this country. Public perceptions haven't been helped by media and politicians focusing on the '20 minutes faster to Birmingham' rhetoric. Having HS2 further north than it is currently planned to terminate was so exciting before it all went to pot, and it would have been transformative if built even if you weren't directly benefiting from HS2 lines but merely the released capacity from it.
Also since a major argument is always cost, people ought to break down as to why it costs so much. Construction is fine but it is getting to the construction that takes so long. That's endless analysis, residents' objections, needing to design things like stupid bat tunnels, trees, or needing to build a tunnel underneath literally everything as the only means of getting approval. This comes from both sides of the political spectrum, you have the older residents complaining about one thing (cost, something something trains are bad anyway) and then the greens arguing with the stupid points like 'we dont need it, we can reinvest it in (insert schemes with a tiny impact)' while simultaneously complaining about train fares and overcrowding. Even if the greens are supposed to be in support of it now, you still get outliers from that side of things vehemently against it.
I mean, opposition has not been a new thing, even the earliest lines faced opposition. However in more recent times I am very unhappy about the Town and Country Planning Act, which has seemingly given anyone the ability to block anything. We haven't built a reservoir in a long time even when we need it for growth and are forced to ration water, and all of our infrastructure is essentially running on life support at this rate. To add salt to the wound, this lack of building also means we have lost the skills required to build. That does not help when it comes to the cost and timeline of things no doubt.
We quite frankly shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to building anything in this country. Public perceptions haven't been helped by media and politicians focusing on the '20 minutes faster to Birmingham' rhetoric. Having HS2 further north than it is currently planned to terminate was so exciting before it all went to pot, and it would have been transformative if built even if you weren't directly benefiting from HS2 lines but merely the released capacity from it.
Also since a major argument is always cost, people ought to break down as to why it costs so much. Construction is fine but it is getting to the construction that takes so long. That's endless analysis, residents' objections, needing to design things like stupid bat tunnels, trees, or needing to build a tunnel underneath literally everything as the only means of getting approval.
Public perception is always that a lot of those costs as ‘bolt on’ as opposed to looking at it as money saved if the line had taken a different alignment…
I appreciate the public only get fed sensationalist figures of cost in the media, but you mention things like bat tunnels; it doesn’t take much critical thought to ponder how much money was saved by choosing that alignment; in design, unnecessary local objections and bureaucracy, construction and the like.
This is a factor that really disappoints me. We should be encouraging more people into construction. We have much to build and many skills in construction would be transferrable into other sectors. Its also not going to be replaced by AI any time soon. However, when our govt chops and changes large construction projects as much as they do, it doesnt perhaps look like a stable career.
Same when we have steelworks closing with projects that require a large amount of steel. No joined up thinking. These projects could be doing a lot more for the entire economy and increasing opportunities.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Also since a major argument is always cost, people ought to break down as to why it costs so much. Construction is fine but it is getting to the construction that takes so long. That's endless analysis, residents' objections, needing to design things like stupid bat tunnels, trees, or needing to build a tunnel underneath literally everything as the only means of getting approval. This comes from both sides of the political spectrum, you have the older residents complaining about one thing (cost, something something trains are bad anyway) and then the greens arguing with the stupid points like 'we dont need it, we can reinvest it in (insert schemes with a tiny impact)' while simultaneously complaining about train fares and overcrowding. Even if the greens are supposed to be in support of it now, you still get outliers from that side of things vehemently against it.
I mean, opposition has not been a new thing, even the earliest lines faced opposition. However in more recent times I am very unhappy about the Town and Country Planning Act, which has seemingly given anyone the ability to block anything. We haven't built a reservoir in a long time even when we need it for growth and are forced to ration water, and all of our infrastructure is essentially running on life support at this rate. To add salt to the wound, this lack of building also means we have lost the skills required to build. That does not help when it comes to the cost and timeline of things no doubt.
We quite frankly shoot ourselves in the foot when it comes to building anything in this country. Public perceptions haven't been helped by media and politicians focusing on the '20 minutes faster to Birmingham' rhetoric. Having HS2 further north than it is currently planned to terminate was so exciting before it all went to pot, and it would have been transformative if built even if you weren't directly benefiting from HS2 lines but merely the released capacity from it.
Exactly this and @Hadders point too. There's some very big lessons to be learnt from HS2 in terms of planning, construction, dealing with media accuracy, the level of influence of special advisers to the Prime Minister, standards from members of the house of Lords, short term political decisions, treasury enforced annual spending caps and much more besides. Instead, the project itself is criticised - the focus on speed as the driver of cost is simplistic and not really accurate. We miss the opportunity to actually fix what is wrong if we just dismiss the original concept of the project. It says a lot about the current state of the nation and as I've delved deeper into certain aspects, I've not been happy with what I've learnt.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
These are all fair points, that will apply to all projects, including those in competition for limited transport funds. The challenge for HS2 is that very high speed rail has a weak strategic case in a geographically small country, particularly where there are other options for capacity enhancements.
Not all projects will have that transformational effect, even though they may be important. They may have a higher BCR, but not have so much of the strategic case. But yes, a motorway can be transformational and support housing and connectivity, reduce cars going through urban centres, it doesn't just apply to rail. The big benefit of rail/mass transit is the capacity which can be transformational for housing density and allow far more people to get into a centre quickly and efficiently. However, simply building that in an urban area which has low growth and not connected well to other areas of employment by that scheme is not going to have as great a return either.
When HS2 was cancelled, the department for transport found it difficult to scrabble together projects on which to spend the HS2 money, which is why network north was mocked for including things like an already completed metrolink extension to Manchester airport. There was no strategic case for the overall "project" because the interventions were not linked and not targeted toward some untapped growth potential. Ministers at the time said they didn't need to worry about BCR, that Sunak had guaranteed the money regardless. Therefore these projects were not assessed for value and we would likely get less back That's a really poor way to invest in infrastructure, which you do to achieve certain aims which give you a return to the economy. HS2 would have returned multiples of its investment in terms of housing, jobs, redevelopment whilst preventing the counterfactual of strangling growth in the north through lack of capacity between north and south. It does not compare in any way to the supposed alternatives that were proposed.
Until a year ago, we had the second longest domestic rail route in Europe. London-Edinburgh is the joint fourth busiest city pair for air traffic in Europe https://www.eurocontrol.int/sites/d...ntrol-data-snapshot-49-busiest-city-pairs.pdf. We still have flights between London and Manchester. The recommended distance for high speed rail is 150-500 miles. In no way, are we too small a country for high speed rail. The high speed also helps relieve capacity on other lines, such as cross country, gets more people into the cities during rush hour and has a higher economic return.
Who were those proponents who were apparently compromised and who were not promoting capacity as the main reason for hs2?
Not sure if this is factual, or someone speculating, but video says Mark Wild's HS2 reset report is now with the Government.
No idea though when any update will be released by the Government.
The video gives a quick summary of HS2 and then asks question what will Government do, because it is late and over budget, perhaps cut train speed, maybe more changes, when will things happen etc. Doesn't give any answers, but is more a what will happen going forward.
There is not that many constituencies directly affected, local elections in Tamworth, Cannock Chase, Newcastle under Lyme, Stockport, Manchester.
Constituencies near London area probably wants construction work and disruption finished as soon as possible, so any (further) delay would be bad news
There is a strip of constituencies with elections Sheffield to Leeds, but that section is currently dead.
Seeing as originally part 1 was to be operating around 2029-2030, and opening dates just seem to have drifted over the years, not sure what good news they could actually come out with, unless go ahead for another section to better use what is almost built goes ahead.
HS2 should have gone all the way to Scotland from the start. A through station at Birmingham with an actual interchange with New Street to connect with XC services. And a HS3 to funnel in the Northern cities into a new airport hub at Manchester. It is infuriating beyond measure.
All of London will be voting in May's local elections.
While some definitely want an end to the disruption from construction, and lack of plans for Euston, all national parties are essentially HS2-hostile, mainly because they want the capital spent on other more local and immediate projects
.
All of London will be voting in May's local elections.
While some definitely want an end to the disruption from construction, and lack of plans for Euston, all national parties are essentially HS2-hostile, mainly because they want the capital spent on other more local and immediate projects
.
Everybody wants to be seen as tough on waste and tough on the causes of waste. I'm not sure many parties are actively hostile on HS2 though. They're more unwilling to go beyond London-Birmingham until they can think of a new name for it and a clever way of commissioning it that will be cheaper
If they do it will be the worst sort of scraping-the-barrel short-termist penny pinching. You're obviously not going to change the route now, so you can't make any civil engineering savings (by maybe adding more curvature to avoid earthworks, tunnels, bridges etc.). The only big civils "saving" would be to replace the slab track with ballast. That would mean another big project scope change, which doesn't come for free, and will also increase maintenance costs.
Then you've got a small saving from reduced energy cost of actually running the trains, but because they're running slower you need more trains to run the same timetable - more capital cost, more staffing costs.
If there was a time to reduce from 360kph to 320kph, it was ten years ago with a plan, not now out of desperation.
There is not that many constituencies directly affected, local elections in Tamworth, Cannock Chase, Newcastle under Lyme, Stockport, Manchester.
Constituencies near London area probably wants construction work and disruption finished as soon as possible, so any (further) delay would be bad news
There is a strip of constituencies with elections Sheffield to Leeds, but that section is currently dead.
Seeing as originally part 1 was to be operating around 2029-2030, and opening dates just seem to have drifted over the years, not sure what good news they could actually come out with, unless go ahead for another section to better use what is almost built goes ahead.
I don't think places have to be directly impacted for it to be bad news for the government / Tories depending on which way you want to spin it. It feeds into a general rhetoric about the overall competency (or absence of) of the government and having a grip on things.
The Guardian has this take on HS2 costs, with a ministerial statement due today apparently.
This is also linked to the increased tariffs on steel imports announced yesterday:
Doubling tariffs on imported steel will raise cost of the metal when Iran war is already inflating steel and concrete prices
www.theguardian.com
Heidi Alexander, the transport secretary, is due to update the Commons on Monday on Labour’s drive to “reset” the cost of HS2 amid concern over its rising price tag. She is expected to say she has asked HS2’s chief executive, Mark Wild, to explore reducing the speed of its trains to save money.
A government source said Alexander was “weighing up all options to claw back as much time and money for the taxpayer as possible” with the aim to open the railway as soon as possible and at the lowest possible cost
The Guardian has this take on HS2 costs, with a ministerial statement due today apparently.
This is also linked to the increased tariffs on steel imports announced yesterday:
If the trains are already contracted, then presumably it's simpler to build them as is, and not operate at maximum speed. Redesigning them for say 300-320km/h instead of 360-400km/h is going to add time, and have negligible savings. Other railways around Europe already made similar decision although Freccarosia 1000 type designed for 360km/h (and tested at 400km/h). In practice any savings would be operating not capital.
I guess could replace the yet to be be built track with cheaper (ballasted) design, although if that is technically possible in the tunnels, viaducts etc which have been designed for slab track when slab is part of the structure. And considerable length is structures, not in open.
If the trains are already contracted, then presumably it's simpler to build them as is, and not operate at maximum speed. Redesigning them for say 300-320km/h instead of 360-400km/h is going to add time, and have negligible savings. Other railways around Europe already made similar decision although Freccarosia 1000 type designed for 360km/h (and tested at 400km/h). In practice any savings would be operating not capital.
I guess could replace the yet to be be built track with cheaper (ballasted) design, although if that is technically possible in the tunnels, viaducts etc which have been designed for slab track when slab is part of the structure. And considerable length is structures, not in open.
The Times report says they were going to ship hs2 trains to China for testing as they apparently they are too fast for European tracks, but then where were the Freccarosia 1000 tested?
The Times report says they were going to ship hs2 trains to China for testing as they apparently they are too fast, but where were the Freccarosia 1000 tested?
I will try to update this with the source (as I was using a different device) but I saw a post from European rail expert journalist Jon Worth on Bluesky and I think the gist of his view is that the sources for this story are garbage; you do testing/proving at places like Velim (or Old Dalby) up to whatever speed they can handle but the high speed testing is done on the main line.
This would align with previous statements from HS2 about getting 50 miles or so from Washwood Heath southwards finished a bit earlier to get testing started earlier.
Reducing the proposed 360kph line speed is not a bad thing, it will give the Manchester trains enough time to reduce their speed from Handacre so they do not finish up in a field at Colwich Jct.
Reducing the proposed 360kph line speed is not a bad thing, it will give the Manchester trains enough time to reduce their speed from Handacre so they do not finish up in a field at Colwich Jct.
The BBC are saying the logic is that limiting speed to 300kph (at least initially) means that HS2 trains can be tested on HS1, rather than waiting for Washwood Heath to Chiltern to be finished.
The government is looking at ways to make much-delayed London to Birmingham railway line cheaper to deliver.
www.bbc.co.uk
Most high speed trains in this country run at up to 200km/h (125mph), while those on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) operate at up to 300km/h.
This means HS2 trains could not be tested at their intended operating speeds until a bespoke test track, or the railway itself is complete, something DfT sources claim would delay completion of the project by several years and cost billions of pounds.
The alternative, they say, would be to send trains to China to be tested on existing tracks there.
If the speed reduction has legs, can the rolling stock certification be done in stages?
Test the trains on HS1 and certify them for 300km/h operation. Once HS2 is built, operate it at 300km/h initially but use overnight windows to test for 360, and do the 360 certification then.
The BBC are saying the logic is that limiting speed to 300kph (at least initially) means that HS2 trains can be tested on HS1, rather than waiting for Washwood Heath to Chiltern to be finished.
HS1 is fitted with TVM430 signalling (which I think dates back to 1989 with TGV-Atlantic), but HS2 has modern standard ECTS, and new trains weren't planned to be fitted with TVM430. Even the French are gradually replacing old TVM430 on its high speed lines.
But I guess could run without signalling on closed line with one train in operation basis.
There are some new lines due in both Spain and Portugal that are due to open around the testing time, if HS1 isn't suitable. There are also some new lines due in Italy (but the sections due to open around 2029-2031 seem to be limited to 250km/h)
The article may well be nonsense. But I really don't see the problem in reducing the top speed to 320kph. It'll be a couple of minutes added to the time from London to Birmingham. Bear in mind the timetabled speed is planned to be 330kph, with a maximum running speed of 360kph to keep to timetable (but that only allows you to make up a couple of minutes).
The people who made and run the high speed networks in Europe were asked what they recommend. They consistently said they wished they built to a higher speed, eg 400km/h. We are trying to copy France, Spain and others, but we shouldn’t learn from their admitted mistakes?
Yet no European country is building or planning to build a 400kph line. Why have they not put their own advice into action?
Ultimately the gains of running at a particular speed need to be compared to the additional costs of doing so, looking at the specifics of the line in question. It's often claimed that running at high speed doesn't cost much more than a conventional speed railway, and that IS true, BUT only to a certain point. HS2 has had to consider all sorts of esoteric technical issues for its 400kph future design speed which, along with other missteps, have weighed heavily on its costs.
And what gain is there overall? The longest distance of a potential high speed line in the UK being talked about is London-Scotland, around 400 miles (I don't think anyone's suggesting a direct Plymouth-Aberdeen high speed line). Assume a 320kph top speed over that distance (allowing 40km at each end to accelerate up to speed and decelerate down from that speed). That gives you a journey time of 2h15.
Now take the top speed up to 360kph, and you get a journey time of 2h04 - a saving of a whopping... 11 minutes!
That assumes there are no intermediate stops (which would limit the gains of higher speed running), AND also assumes that a 360kph alignment is feasible through the terrain of North of England and Scottish Borders - which it almost certainly isn't. None of the early-doors concepts to extend HS2 to Scotland were talking about running at those kinds of speeds.
Bear in mind that the purpose of building a high speed line to Scotland would be to transfer the large number of Scotland-London flights to rail. The rule of thumb is that you need to get below a 3 hour rail journey to take out air travel. So saving a few minutes to get the journey down from 2h15 to just over 2 hours doesn't really seem to have much of a point.
The only countries that need to consider 400kph running are large ones like China, where you've got thousands of kilometres to cover, and the incremental time saving of higher speeds would be measured in hours rather than minutes.
The article may well be nonsense. But I really don't see the problem in reducing the top speed to 320kph. It'll be a couple of minutes added to the time from London to Birmingham. Bear in mind the timetabled speed is planned to be 330kph, with a maximum running speed of 360kph to keep to timetable (but that only allows you to make up a couple of minutes).
The problem is that such reduction at this stage wouldn't bring much savings. Unless they go for ballasted track. But that would require new design, ripping up contracts etc. That means years of further delays for probably negligible savings after all that.
Other options is to change only train design, leaving infrastructure as it is being build. Again, can't see massive savings here.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
www.theguardian.com
www.bbc.co.uk
