HSUK vs HS2

[Bald Rick]

For comparison, there are around 2 million flights a year between the London airports and Edinburgh and Glasgow each (4 million total). A single London airport will probably match the Euston total for Glasgow. A lot to be hoovered up. Assuming 4,000 operating hours a year for simplicity, that is 1,000 an hour or 500 per direction. You can imagine that HSUK superfasts to London Euston and Heathrow would soak up a lot of traffic. And the freed up domestic slots would allow for more heavy widebody aircraft to wider international destinations; this is strategic thinking in action.

It’s 2.6m air passengers (not flights) to Edinburgh and 2m to Glasgow. Both rather less than they were 20 years ago as the rail service is much better and the number of flights much reduced.

The freed up slots would only be used by widebodies at Heathrow and (possibly) Gatwick. But a high proportion of Heathrow - Glasgow / Edinburgh fliers are transfer passengers to/from long haul at Heathrow, so these flights would mostly remain. This is exactly what has happened with Manchester flights.

 

[BogiePicker]

It’s 2.6m air passengers (not flights) to Edinburgh and 2m to Glasgow. Both rather less than they were 20 years ago as the rail service is much better and the number of flights much reduced.

The freed up slots would only be used by widebodies at Heathrow and (possibly) Gatwick. But a high proportion of Heathrow - Glasgow / Edinburgh fliers are transfer passengers to/from long haul at Heathrow, so these flights would mostly remain. This is exactly what has happened with Manchester flights.

Yes, the word should have been passengers indeed and my argument proceeded on the basis of using that term (as opposed to nearly half a billion passengers between London and Scotland - but I suppose one could also semantically interpret as 'individual flights' = journeys). But HSUK proposes direct Scotland - Heathrow - Gatwick HSR services to cater precisely to this. A lot of the large continental European airports have very good rail connectivity and some even have proper HSR services, Frankfurt springs to mind, and I believe I've seen something about DB-Lufthansa cooperation. The other thing is that if the 500k Glasgow Central - Euston figure previously provided is correct, there's a good bit more to go.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, the word should have been passengers indeed and my argument proceeded on the basis of using that term (as opposed to nearly half a billion passengers between London and Scotland - but I suppose one could also semantically interpret as 'individual flights' = journeys). But HSUK proposes direct Scotland - Heathrow - Gatwick HSR services to cater precisely to this. A lot of the large continental European airports have very good rail connectivity and some even have proper HSR services, Frankfurt springs to mind, and I believe I've seen something about DB-Lufthansa cooperation. The other thing is that if the 500k Glasgow Central - Euston figure previously provided is correct, there's a good bit more to go.

I think you are missing the point that the incremental revenue gained from HSUK would fall rather a long way short of the incrementsl cost of building it compared to HS2.

 

[Trainbike46]

HS2 is my preferred one here:
-Route via Birmingham/West midlands makes sense
-More realistic that it will actually get built
-Including Eastern leg it connects most major population centres to each other (though NPR/HS3 needed as well for connections within the North)

Of course, HS2 isn't perfect, I would have liked a through station in Birmingham Manchester for example. For Birmingham that ship has definitely sailed. For Manchester and Leeds, change might be possible as part of a reinstatement of the cancelled bits.

HS2 is a start, not the end, of an improved railway in the UK
HSUK by contrast, feels more like a scheme to get HS2 cancelled, to only then realise that all of HS2's problems apply more strongly to it - leading to no HSR at all

 

[HSTEd]

I personally believe that HS2 has poisoned the well on significant new rail infrastructure for a long time.

NPR appears to be more or less dead, it simply hasn't stopped moving yet.
Fundamentally I think the scheme was overly ambitious, seemed to follow a flawed optimisation process, and then suffered from a catalogue of mismanagement and problems.

For just one example, see the initiation of an unwinnable legal action against the EU, seeking to force a rewrite of the Technical Specifications for Interoperability.
Or the phasing that didn't seem to consider Phase 2 might get cancelled or delayed.

 

[BogiePicker]

I think you are missing the point that the incremental revenue gained from HSUK would fall rather a long way short of the incrementsl cost of building it compared to HS2.

The case for an 'HSUK Scottish extension' (York - Glasgow via Edinburgh) would not rest on the Heathwick flights alone; I showed a 500/hr/dir and HSUK would only send 1tph from Scotland/NE to Heathwick. It was adduced 1) to contrast with the 500k Glasgow Euston figure 2) to show an additional though not sufficiently justifying advantage of the 'eastern' route.

I also would have thought that BCR, rather than commercial revenue, would have been the deciding factor in any such scheme. Whether one judges that faster rail connections to Scotland/NE are worthwhile or not, it's clear HS2 has taken it seriously as well. My view is that the HSUK approach of aggregating all flows thereto on a single axis (not just from London & its airports, but from Cross Country and Transpennine) is superior to the HS2 approach which would require upgrading both East and West (for Newcastle at the very least) and dilute frequencies since Edinburgh and Glasgow paths up the west coast would be mutually exclusive.

 

[Shrop]

I've just picked up on this thread and noted the votes which are very much preferring HS2 over HSUK. I wasn't aware of HSUK until fairly recently, but from what I can see the HSUK spine route http://highspeeduk.co.uk/K01 HSUK system map.pdf appears to both serve the UK population and benefit the North far more efficiently than HS2, which begs the question of why so many people are supportive of HS2? The HSUK plan provides superb links between the northern cities Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds (and Sheffield)-Newcastle-Scotland, which HS2 almost completely ignored, because it was always focussed primarily on how to get to and from London. Okay, so HSUK might never have been the all-embracing and somehow relatively inexpensive scheme that it claims, but to dismiss it so readily as many on this forum do, seems unnecessarily harsh.

More importantly though, was HSUK really the only alternative? Some of its principles could, and probably should have been taken more seriously and developed into a workable alternative scheme for the UK, and with the benefit of hindsight how could anything possibly have gone more badly than HS2? But for a project cost many £billions and potentially affecting the travel patterns for millions of people, surely it didn’t come down to a choice between just two projects did it? I can offer more on this, including food for thought on why HS2 was so misguided, if there is still interest in this thread …

 

[The Planner]

I've just picked up on this thread and noted the votes which are very much preferring HS2 over HSUK. I wasn't aware of HSUK until fairly recently, but from what I can see the HSUK spine route http://highspeeduk.co.uk/K01 HSUK system map.pdf appears to both serve the UK population and benefit the North far more efficiently than HS2, which begs the question of why so many people are supportive of HS2? The HSUK plan provides superb links between the northern cities Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds (and Sheffield)-Newcastle-Scotland, which HS2 almost completely ignored, because it was always focussed primarily on how to get to and from London. Okay, so HSUK might never have been the all-embracing and somehow relatively inexpensive scheme that it claims, but to dismiss it so readily as many on this forum do, seems unnecessarily harsh.

More importantly though, was HSUK really the only alternative? Some of its principles could, and probably should have been taken more seriously and developed into a workable alternative scheme for the UK, and with the benefit of hindsight how could anything possibly have gone more badly than HS2? But for a project cost many £billions and potentially affecting the travel patterns for millions of people, surely it didn’t come down to a choice between just two projects did it? I can offer more on this, including food for thought on why HS2 was so misguided, if there is still interest in this thread …

It wasn't an alternative in any sense of the word, it could have been created on this forum for all intents and purposes.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

The biggest trouble with HSUK is it doesn't have a Manchester to Birmingham corridor. I remember reading in Modern Railways years ago someone's proposal of a "q" shaped route which would have such a line.

 

[Trainbike46]

The biggest trouble with HSUK is it doesn't have a Manchester to Birmingham corridor. I remember reading in Modern Railways years ago someone's proposal of a "q" shaped route which would have such a line.

a Q shaped route you say?

Maybe a London-Birmingham line, combined with a Birmingham-East Midlands-Sheffield-Leeds-Newcastle line, a Birmingham-Manchester line, and a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds line?

I did see such a proposal, it was called HS2 and HS3/NPR!

 

[GJMarshy]

Isn't the issue not that "the HSUK plan is bonkers", but more "HSUK doesn't have a clear plan."

From every post I've seen on social media, and on their website, it seems their intention is to seemingly rewire & reconfigure the *entire* UK rail network to meet a set of arguably arbitrary objectives. It's just so vast in scope it seems impossible to hammer down on the specifics f what is planned to go where and how/when it would be implemented in the real world.

HS2 is far from perfect, but its scope was clearly defined from the off, with a very clear objective to relieve pressure on multiple mainlines, rather than serve more places directly. It failed because of
A) Marketing (speed was the focus for far too long,)
B) Bureaucracy and last-minute changes made at the whim of politicians.
C) Was not part of an ongoing rail investment plan, which meant building an R&D+Construction team from the ground-up with no template.
D) Because of economic illiteracy amongst not just the general public (the fault of politicians,) but politicians themselves thinking you can simply "reallocate" funds.

We say "failed" as thats the state of the HS2 brand as of now. The complete plan is still sound, and under any other name needs to (has to) go ahead if we are ever to provide the much needed capacity on the busiest routes.

HSUK was trying to solve every single perceived problem of the UK rail network under one, fragmented plan. Not one single person can claim to know the right solution required in every single location required to fix the UK's immense rail network. Scope is everything, and HSUK unfortunately lost a handle on that by claiming they know the right solution for everywhere in the UK, rather than using engineering expertise to propose realistic amendments to existing HS2 plans which would have been far more pragmatic and realistic.

 

[Shrop]

Isn't the issue not that "the HSUK plan is bonkers", but more "HSUK doesn't have a clear plan."

From every post I've seen on social media, and on their website, it seems their intention is to seemingly rewire & reconfigure the *entire* UK rail network to meet a set of arguably arbitrary objectives. It's just so vast in scope it seems impossible to hammer down on the specifics f what is planned to go where and how/when it would be implemented in the real world.

HS2 is far from perfect, but its scope was clearly defined from the off, with a very clear objective to relieve pressure on multiple mainlines, rather than serve more places directly. It failed because of
A) Marketing (speed was the focus for far too long,)
B) Bureaucracy and last-minute changes made at the whim of politicians.
C) Was not part of an ongoing rail investment plan, which meant building an R&D+Construction team from the ground-up with no template.
D) Because of economic illiteracy amongst not just the general public (the fault of politicians,) but politicians themselves thinking you can simply "reallocate" funds.

We say "failed" as thats the state of the HS2 brand as of now. The complete plan is still sound, and under any other name needs to (has to) go ahead if we are ever to provide the much needed capacity on the busiest routes.

HSUK was trying to solve every single perceived problem of the UK rail network under one, fragmented plan. Not one single person can claim to ktne how the right solution required in every single location required to fix the UK's immense rail network. Scope is everything, and HSUK unfortunately lost a handle on that by claiming they know the right solution for everywhere in the UK, rather than using engineering expertise to propose realistic amendments to existing HS2 plans which would have been far more pragmatic and realistic.

All fair enough, but surely HSUK wasn't the ONLY alternative to HS2? After all HS2 was heavily based on Heathrow, and even the alternative route choices for HS2 always left the northern cities of the UK without links to each other. At least HSUK provided a decent cross-Pennine link (and no, I'd have reservations about using Woodhead tunnel but a new tunnel shouldn't have been out of the question). But it does seem like Greengauge21 (which morphed into HS2) had a complete monopoly on the project form the word go, and for a scheme of this significance that doesn't seem right.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Aug 2024 ==

a Q shaped route you say?

Maybe a London-Birmingham line, combined with a Birmingham-East Midlands-Sheffield-Leeds-Newcastle line, a Birmingham-Manchester line, and a Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds line?

I did see such a proposal, it was called HS2 and HS3/NPR!

Nice in theory, shame that HS2 has been so badly managed (not least by politicians) that HS3/NPR won't be able to attract any public enthusiasm for at least another generation. And that's even if it could be afforded!

 

[JamesT]

All fair enough, but surely HSUK wasn't the ONLY alternative to HS2? After all HS2 was heavily based on Heathrow, and even the alternative route choices for HS2 always left the northern cities of the UK without links to each other. At least HSUK provided a decent cross-Pennine link (and no, I'd have reservations about using Woodhead tunnel but a new tunnel shouldn't have been out of the question). But it does seem like Greengauge21 (which morphed into HS2) had a complete monopoly on the project form the word go, and for a scheme of this significance that doesn't seem right.

There were multiple official reports produced in the lead up to HS2 being approved and the various reviews since. Although Heathrow did feature quite heavily in some of the earlier choices, I think the more critical one was the decision that the first stage is London to the West Midlands. If you want to connect the three largest urban areas in the UK together, putting one of them on a spur and running the wrong side of the Pennines seems a strange way to do it, HS2 is a far more logical design.

 

[JLH4AC]

The HSUK proposal is not worth taking seriously, it is another crayonistic attempt to restore the Great Central Main Line and upgrade the current network hidden behind both valid and baseless criticism of HS2 (I would say most of HSUK criticism is baseless or otherwise misses the mark due how self self-serving it is.).

 

[Trainbike46]

The main problem I have with things like HSUK is that they don't explain at all how their proposal fixes any of the actual, or even perceived, issues of HS2. To me, HSUK feels like one of those proposals that get suggested to get a more developed plan cancelled, to then be undeliverable themselves.

Population density in the UK is effectively a blob at london, a donut shape covering Manchester, Birmingham, east midlands, and Leeds, with another dense area at the Scottish Central Belt.

HS2+HS3/NPR was much better at connecting all of that than the HSUK routes are, and I fail to see how HSUK would be better in any way.

And of course, now that HS2 already has the London-Birmingham leg under construction, HS2+HS3/NPR is at even more of an advantage

 

[HST43257]

I think HS2 and NPR (properly done in both cases) cover the corridors near-perfectly, whereas HSUK neglects the Birmingham to Manchester/Liverpool corridor. In the absence of any HS2/NPR infrastructure north of York and Wigan, I’d very much look at the HSUK plan (minus Edinburgh Airport) between York and Glasgow.

 

[Gareth]

Population density in the UK is effectively a blob at london, a donut shape covering Manchester, Birmingham, east midlands, and Leeds, with another dense area at the Scottish Central Belt.

And Liverpool. It's as if the city is a fictional place on here sometimes.

 

[Bald Rick]

HSUK was never an alternative to HS2.

Alternatives to HS2 were studied extensively, in terms of routeing and alternative rail / transport options to achieve similar objectives.

HSUK was something ‘offered’ a long time after HS2 had been defined, and a long time after the different options had been studied. It was also hpelessly optimistic on costs and benefits.

I will finish by quoting my former colleague Mr Keith Berryman, who managed the Crossrail Bill through Parliament. In the committee stage he was quoted thus:

”Indeed my Lord. One of the difficulties we have in planning railways is that there are a lot of people with maps and pencils who do not perhaps understand the economics of construction or the economics of the operation of a railway and they come up with all kinds of suggestions. We have very, very many of those suggestions in the course of preparation of the scheme.”

 

[Shrop]

HSUK was never an alternative to HS2.

Alternatives to HS2 were studied extensively, in terms of routeing and alternative rail / transport options to achieve similar objectives.

HSUK was something ‘offered’ a long time after HS2 had been defined, and a long time after the different options had been studied. It was also hpelessly optimistic on costs and benefits.

I will finish by quoting my former colleague Mr Keith Berryman, who managed the Crossrail Bill through Parliament. In the committee stage he was quoted thus:

”Indeed my Lord. One of the difficulties we have in planning railways is that. there are a lot of people with maps and pencils who do not perhaps understand the economics of construction or the economics of the operation of a railway and they come up with all kinds of suggestions. We have very, very many of those suggestions in the course of preparation of the scheme.”

Thanks but as I indicated above, despite the title of this thread I don't think that HSUK should be thought of as the only alternative to HS2. So let's disregard HSUK for a moment (and hopefully the OP will be happy with this), what were the alternatives to HS2 that were discussed? I mean, were the alternatives any more than just variations of the Greengauge21 project?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks but as I indicated above, despite the title of this thread I don't think that HSUK should be thought of as the only alternative to HS2. So let's disregard HSUK for a moment (and hopefully the OP will be happy with this), what were the alternatives to HS2 that were discussed? I mean, were the alternatives any more than just variations of the Greengauge21 project?

There is a published summary of the extensive study on the alternatives somewhere. I don‘t have a link to hand but sure another forum member will pop up with it. This has to be done as part of the consents process.

And for clarity, HSUK isn’t, and never was, considered as an alternative to HS2, except perhaps by those who invented it.

 

[Trainbike46]

And Liverpool. It's as if the city is a fictional place on here sometimes.

Sorry, and that's despite me regularly travelling through Liverpool!

 

[Gareth]

Haha, no worries.

 

[Shrop]

There is a published summary of the extensive study on the alternatives somewhere. I don‘t have a link to hand but sure another forum member will pop up with it. This has to be done as part of the consents process.

I'd be interested to see this. I've seen quite a bit about alternatives such as the M1 corridor assessment, but that was only as an alternative to the Chiltern route, ie part of the original HS2 proposal. What I was wondering about was schemes other than variations on Greengauge21's HS2 proposal.

 

[swt_passenger]

There is a published summary of the extensive study on the alternatives somewhere. I don‘t have a link to hand but sure another forum member will pop up with it. This has to be done as part of the consents process.

And for clarity, HSUK isn’t, and never was, considered as an alternative to HS2, except perhaps by those who invented it.

Is it possibly this 150 page summary from Atkins? Loads of nicely coloured line diagrams and maps overlaid on the MML and ECML areas?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b833ce5274a7318b8f254/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf

@Shrop should see it.

 

[eldomtom2]

Is it possibly this 150 page summary from Atkins? Loads of nicely coloured line diagrams and maps overlaid on the MML and ECML areas?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b833ce5274a7318b8f254/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf

That seems to be HS2 vs. upgrading existing lines, not HS2 vs. a new-build high-speed line taking a different route.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Is it possibly this 150 page summary from Atkins? Loads of nicely coloured line diagrams and maps overlaid on the MML and ECML areas?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b833ce5274a7318b8f254/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf

@Shrop should see it.

Ah "Rail Package 2", that takes me back

 

[GJMarshy]

There absolutely was an alternative, well-thought out and costed proposal by ARUP (who lead on HS1)

It had its merits but also drawbacks. Interesting read!

What HS2 could have learned from HS1’s 30 years of success | New Civil Engineer

Thirty years ago, I was in Blackpool where the secretary of state for transport Malcolm Rifkind made his dramatic announcement at the Conservative Party

www.newcivilengineer.com

 

[Shrop]

Is it possibly this 150 page summary from Atkins? Loads of nicely coloured line diagrams and maps overlaid on the MML and ECML areas?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b833ce5274a7318b8f254/hs2-strategic-alternatives.pdf

@Shrop should see it.

Thanks for this, I will take a look with interest. Just back from a long walk in North Wales and in the waiting room at the dentist waiting for a repair, but will look when I can.

 

[PMN1]

There absolutely was an alternative, well-thought out and costed proposal by ARUP (who lead on HS1)

It had its merits but also drawbacks. Interesting read!

What HS2 could have learned from HS1’s 30 years of success | New Civil Engineer

Thirty years ago, I was in Blackpool where the secretary of state for transport Malcolm Rifkind made his dramatic announcement at the Conservative Party

www.newcivilengineer.com

Is the full ARUP report anywhere, I have found what looks to be snippets.

 

[Shrop]

Well that's

Is the full ARUP report anywhere, I have found what looks to be snippets.

Interesting to.see this, and thanks for posting it. I've had a quick look at the report that was drawn to my attention yesterday on this thread, but I have to say I'm not too impressed with what I've seen so far, it seems to make too many assumptions on what was needed and has plenty of Heathrow bias, despite claiming to be investigating alternatives.