More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[JamesT]

I doubt this would be the ultimate timetable. HS2 has no bypass in Birmingham, and in order to maximise the capacity I think there wouldn't be too many trains will pass through Birmingham without stopping
HS2 London to Birmingham takes about 50 minutes, and with only HS2 Phase 1 completed, London-Manchester trains travel from London to Birmingham on HS2 and from Birmingham to Manchester on the WCML, which the total journey time will be 1 hour 40 minutes. Which means Birmingham to Manchester can be done under 50 minutes on the WCML.
HS2 Phase 2 can cut the 50 minutes time to 25-30, but that's it - it will be 40 minutes faster than the current AWC services, which the fastest service is just over 2 hours.

HS2 definitely bypasses Birmingham. The line to Curzon Street is a spur.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The revenue flow suggested the opposite (Top non London flow, but still a tiny fraction compare with London-Anywhere)

Non-London flows are basically always smaller than London ones, but this one is (at least potentially) one of the larger non-London flows.

Although it isn't helped by CrossCountry is the ToC running this service.

Indeed, nor that it's really quite slow - even city centre to city centre it's quicker to drive (I've "raced" it once against friends ).

Sort out the rubbishness of it and I suspect you'll get significant numbers switching from the car. HS2 would do that.

 

[uglymonkey]

If they could do Okehampton, 10 million under budget, why like the solid gold GWML electrification, is HS2 being made of unobtainium and basically a licence to print money (think of a number and quadruple it- for less project). How can you get project management types to budget and stick to a figure??? There seems to be no oversight at all!!, loads of enhancement schemes would be more cost effective across the network and bring bigger benefits quickly than this farce.

 

[Parjon]

Birmingham - Manchester is most definitely not faster by car. And it seems a rather trivial upgrade for cross country to run longer trains if needed.

It is noticeable that they haven't invested in that. One must assume that market forces would know whether there is an underserved market or not.

If they are not willing to pay low sums to run longer trains... Then why is £40bn on a new railway a worthwhile spend.

 

[irish_rail]

Birmingham - Manchester is most definitely not faster by car. And it seems a rather trivial upgrade for cross country to run longer trains if needed.

It is noticeable that they haven't invested in that. One must assume that market forces would know whether there is an underserved market or not.

If they are not willing to pay low sums to run longer trains... Then why is £40bn on a new railway a worthwhile spend.

Yes that does seem odd doesn't it. I guess Dft is partly to blame, but for sure it goes to show the demand is quite what some proprietors of HS2 like to make out.

 

[Austriantrain]

Because Birmingham-Manchester is a very significant flow, and one that is very much underserved in terms of both speed and capacity at present.

I didn’t doubt that; the question is, why would anyone have the idea to run them as an airline-style shuttle service?

 

[Energy]

I didn’t doubt that; the question is, why would anyone have the idea to run them as an airline-style shuttle service?

I'm confused, the Bimringham to Manchester service would provide a high speed connection between the UK's 2nd and 3rd biggest cities?
It's a shuttle between the 2 as Curzon Street is a spur off the HS2 mainline.

 

[Austriantrain]

I'm confused, the Bimringham to Manchester service would provide a high speed connection between the UK's 2nd and 3rd biggest cities?
It's a shuttle between the 2 as Curzon Street is a spur off the HS2 mainline.

I am aware of all of that. It is actually my point: Its design failed to spread the benefits of the service (well, an extension to Leeds via NPR was later built in, rather proving my point), increasing the impression that it is a London-only-centric project). Even most of the West Midlands conurbation wouldn't have profited much, since their "access services" mostly run to New Street and not to Moor Street/Curzon Street.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2023 ==

If you have more connections to the existing railway you run the risk of having a less reliable HSR that can accommodate less trains.

That's an easy point to make and always true. It's also one that's easily self-defeating when voters don't see the point anymore because the advantages are so few and far in between.

(Not planning to defeat the entire HS2 project - that would be manifestly absurd - just pointing out points that always seemed odd to me and presumably did reduce support for the project. I am reasonably certain that such a project would not have been planned that way in most European countries - although I have to admit that the UK is a "difficult one", being demographically(!) a mixture between France (with an enormous and dominating city region) and Germany (apart from London, lots of similar-sized major cities pretty close to each other and with plenty of demand in between them).

As long as Euston gets built, maybe a good opportunity to resize the project and then expand it when it works out, maybe rethinking some decisions.

Enough said.

 

[Energy]

I am aware of all of that. It is actually my point: Its design failed to spread the benefits of the service (well, an extension to Leeds via NPR was later built in, rather proving my point).

I'd rather have Manchester and Curzon Street be through stations but getting HS2 through both Birmingham Interchange, Curzon Street and then north would be a challenge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd rather have Manchester and Curzon Street be through stations but getting HS2 through both Birmingham Interchange, Curzon Street and then north would be a challenge.

You'd basically have to tunnel it all, and it'd cost a fortune, just like London is doing.

I'm not sure how much difference it would really make, anyway, as there's enough London-Manchester demand that running London-Birmingham-Manchester wouldn't be all that useful.

 

[stuu]

Birmingham - Manchester is most definitely not faster by car. And it seems a rather trivial upgrade for cross country to run longer trains if needed.

Five minutes in it right now, according to Google maps. And that is station to station. Somewhere random in Manchester to somewhere random in Birmingham is very likely to be quicker by car

 

[Bletchleyite]

Five minutes in it right now, according to Google maps. And that is station to station. Somewhere random in Manchester to somewhere random in Birmingham is very likely to be quicker by car

This was indeed somewhere random in Manchester (a flat in the Northern Quarter) to somewhere random in Birmingham (in the Jewellery Quarter at the city centre end, so New St the closest station). Almost no journeys are railway station to railway station, so comparing them is grossly disingenuous. Most journeys, indeed, are suburb to railway station (which is why Manchester Airport Parkway is such an important HS2 station, as it would replace Stockport in that Parkway role - miss it out and you lengthen most journeys to London, not shorten them - Stockport presently fulfils that role).

Also, journeys typically don't start or end precisely at timetabled time, so you lose a bit of time if you leave at a time which isn't optimal to striding onto the train just as it departed.

This was an entirely real-world journey, and I believe the car travellers won by about 20 minutes to half an hour (can't remember exactly).

 

[Trainbike46]

While I get the benefits of running doubles and singles, in UK terms the problem is 200m is too short for most London-based long distance services and 400m is too long, so I'd definitely support 300m-ish single units instead. The 11 car Pendolinos and 9 car 80x very much do seem "sweet spot" UK London-based IC trains.

The only services I can think of where 200m would be ideal are XC and TPE, but that's a bit moot for HS2 itself.

Manchester-London is currently pricing off many passengers, as capacity is currently lower than demand, so I would object to calling the 11-car pendolinos a capacity sweet-spot.

I suspect on that route, you could fill three 400m trains an hour within a reasonable timeframe. In longer term it may even become worth it to consider ordering higher-capacity HS2 captive trains for Manchester, possibly even double-deck ones, though we'll have to see how demand develops post HS2 opening first.

Most other places would also get a capacity upgrade, but by increasing frequency rather than capacity per train

I doubt this would be the ultimate timetable. HS2 has no bypass in Birmingham, and in order to maximise the capacity I think there wouldn't be too many trains will pass through Birmingham without stopping
HS2 London to Birmingham takes about 50 minutes, and with only HS2 Phase 1 completed, London-Manchester trains travel from London to Birmingham on HS2 and from Birmingham to Manchester on the WCML, which the total journey time will be 1 hour 40 minutes. Which means Birmingham to Manchester can be done under 50 minutes on the WCML.
HS2 Phase 2 can cut the 50 minutes time to 25-30, but that's it - it will be 40 minutes faster than the current AWC services, which the fastest service is just over 2 hours.

The fact that Birmingham's main station (Curzon Street) is on a spur makes a natural bypass for Birmingham

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Sep 2023 ==

Birmingham - Manchester is most definitely not faster by car. And it seems a rather trivial upgrade for cross country to run longer trains if needed.

It is noticeable that they haven't invested in that. One must assume that market forces would know whether there is an underserved market or not.

If they are not willing to pay low sums to run longer trains... Then why is £40bn on a new railway a worthwhile spend.

There are well-established issues with XC, better fitting in other threads, including relatively expensive rolling stock with relatively few seats per car, that contribute there

 

[Luke McDonnell]

Do you think that the widely trailed cancellation/pause is still a given as nothing has been officially confirmed yet there are still a lot interests that are against any moves to cancel including now some Tory donors apparently another report in the Independent is saying the Manchester leg may not be cancelled completely but delayed any ideas to what might happen?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Manchester-London is currently pricing off many passengers, as capacity is currently lower than demand, so I would object to calling the 11-car pendolinos a capacity sweet-spot.

I wouldn't say off peak it's pricing people off - Advances are still reasonably priced for the trip and Off Peaks are about 20% lower than LNER Super Off Peaks now so still affordable. The high Anytime fares are a problem, but they aren't there to price people off, rather they are there because their level maximises income (you get more money from one person paying £350 than three people paying £100 each). Many peak trains are very quiet due to those fares.

However, if you went to 300m trains, you'd still get about 2 coaches worth of extra capacity, and could use a more efficient interior layout - while Pendolinos aren't as wasteful of space as Voyagers, they aren't far off.

There'd also be the option of going to 4 or even 5tph rather than 3. The indicative HS2 plan didn't allow for that, but if the Eastern leg is gone then it could be done with those spare paths.

 

[Energy]

Do you think that the widely trailed cancellation/pause is still a given as nothing has been officially confirmed yet there are still a lot interests that are against any moves to cancel including now some Tory donors apparently another report in the Independent is saying the Manchester leg may not be cancelled completely but delayed any ideas to what might happen?

The mood in the media has shifted from cancelled to delayed, supposidly big tory donors weren't happy about Rishi's U turns. Boris, David Cameron and George Osborne publicly telling Rishi not to cancel has likely shifted it as well.

Rishi was big on NPR so I'm still expecting him to repackage Crewe to Manchester under that.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Do you think that the widely trailed cancellation/pause is still a given as nothing has been officially confirmed yet there are still a lot interests that are against any moves to cancel including now some Tory donors apparently another report in the Independent is saying the Manchester leg may not be cancelled completely but delayed any ideas to what might happen?

It'll play out this week in the run-up to the Tory party conference in Manchester next week (hosted in the old Manchester Central trainshed!).
Allegedly No 10 wants it done and dusted beforehand, but they will be monitoring the outrage from all parts.
Sunak and Hunt have to agree the position first, then the cabinet will be told, and then it (whatever it is) will be announced.
It'll be somewhere between a pause pending a full project/financial review, to immediate termination of work on specific sections.

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure how much difference it would really make, anyway, as there's enough London-Manchester demand that running London-Birmingham-Manchester wouldn't be all that useful.

If we had gone for the S route a through station in Birmingham and Manchester (whether straight through or auto reverse) would allow nine trains per hour.

Mass all the Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds trains.

Turn up and go across the entire corridor. Even without leeds six trains per hour from London to Manchester via Birmingham would be transformational, especially for non London journeys

 

[AndrewE]

Because Birmingham-Manchester is a very significant flow, and one that is very much underserved in terms of both speed and capacity at present.

I didn’t doubt that; the question is, why would anyone have the idea to run them as an airline-style shuttle service?

Because those at the top (who normally wouldn't lower thenselves to use public transport) think the only future for rail is as an airline on wheels, hence E* running from St Pancras non-stop to just a few continental destinations.

Contrast that with the pan-European high quality InterCity network currently being speeded up.

 

[Grimsby town]

If we had gone for the S route a through station in Birmingham and Manchester (whether straight through or auto reverse) would allow nine trains per hour.

Mass all the Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds trains.

Turn up and go across the entire corridor. Even without leeds six trains per hour from London to Manchester via Birmingham would be transformational, especially for non London journeys

Dwell times would be pretty high at each station because of the sheer number of flows that service would be catering for. I'm not sure Leeds would be much quicker than the current line. If that's what had been decided on and developed for the past 10 years then I would have supported it. It isn't though and people have to be realistic that changing plans is just going to delay implementation. Even if people don't think HS2 is perfect, it's certainly not that bad to rip it up and delay implementation for another decade.

 

[HSTEd]

Dwell times would be pretty high at each station because of the sheer number of flows that service would be catering for. I'm not sure Leeds would be much quicker than the current line.

Do you mean "current line" as in the classic railway or as in the proposed and now axed HS2 Eastern leg?
It would be marginally slower than the latter but would still absolutely crush the classic railway, unless the station dwell times were somehow increased to 20+ minutes. Indeed average journey times would probably end up faster because of a reduction of the average waiting time from ten minutes to five or ~3.3 minutes.

Trains like this are operated every day on the classic railway, and they don't suffer that kind of massive performance degradation.

If that's what had been decided on and developed for the past 10 years then I would have supported it. It isn't though and people have to be realistic that changing plans is just going to delay implementation. Even if people don't think HS2 is perfect, it's certainly not that bad to rip it up and delay implementation for another decade.

HS2 as it exists today will never be completed, the project is dead, it just hasn't stopped moving yet.
The real question now is what comes after.

 

[BrianW]

Over 2000 postings on this thread over eight months. So much speculation; so much hot air sadly. Little account (if any?!) will be taken by government of our contributions, however well thought through they may be. The proposal has been 'run up the flagpole' (or whatever expression is currently in vogue). The conservative party's conference takes place at the former Manchester Central next weekend; probably the last before a General Election. That is the PM's focus- getting back in. That's Kier Starmer's focus too. Today has trouble enough of it's own; tomorrow will look after itself. Last week's flagpole speculation on Net Zero resulted in what? Where are the votes? What are the pollsters advising? The bookies?

 

[Trainbike46]

Because those at the top (who normally wouldn't lower thenselves to use public transport) think the only future for rail is as an airline on wheels, hence E* running from St Pancras non-stop to just a few continental destinations.

Contrast that with the pan-European high quality InterCity network currently being speeded up.

The reason Eurostar runs the way it does is to do with border restrictions and safety requirements. They used to sell intermediate tickets on Lille-Brussels, but these were killed off by increasingly strict rules imposed by the UK home office. These rules make it uneconomic to introduce many stops. The issue wouldn't apply to HS2, regardless of which route was selected

 

[Energy]

If we had gone for the S route a through station in Birmingham and Manchester (whether straight through or auto reverse) would allow nine trains per hour.

Is there any detail on the S route? Im struggling to find much online.

 

[HSTEd]

Is there any detail on the S route? Im struggling to find much online.

Not that I am aware of, I think a lot of it has dissapeared from departmental websites et al into archives wherever.

 

[Energy]

Not that I am aware of, I think a lot of it has dissapeared from departmental websites et al into archives wherever.

Ahh, I'm guessing it would have gone London - (OOC) - Birmingham Intl (thru) - Birmingham City Centre (thru) - Manchester (thru) - Leeds?

 

[HSTEd]

Ahh, I'm guessing it would have gone London - (OOC) - Birmingham Intl (thru) - Birmingham City Centre (thru) - Manchester (thru) - Leeds?

I'm not sure, there were a bunch of options being considered at the time.
I think this is before they fully agreed on the London-Birmingham route, the Heathrow branch was still in the plan at the time.

 

[matacaster]

Perhaps people might like to consider again in which direction the traffic will flow if both Manchester and Leeds are reinstated. I can tell you (without evidence! to back it up) It'll be Mancunians and loiners going to London return. Very few Londoners will be excited at the prospect of going to Manchester or Leeds... just trust me on this. All the best jobs and attractions are in London. People won't travel north without a reason and a fast train service from London to Bradford won't offset the dire state of many northern towns and cities.

 

[HSTEd]

Perhaps people might like to consider again in which direction the traffic will flow if both Manchester and Leeds are reinstated. I can tell you (without evidence! to back it up) It'll be Mancunians and loiners going to London return. Very few Londoners will be excited at the prospect of going to Manchester or Leeds... just trust me on this. All the best jobs and attractions are in London. People won't travel north without a reason and a fast train service from London to Bradford won't offset the dire state of many northern towns and cities.

Ultimately improving links to the economic engines in London (or a handful of other cities) is the only chance any of these places have for recovery.

Most of the depressed northern towns simply have no economic raison d'etre in the post agriculture, post coal, post mass manufacturing environment.
No reasonable amount of government spending can alter that reality, tighter integration with London et al is the best chance available to improve standard of living in these places.

 

[AndrewE]

Ultimately improving links to the economic engines in London (or a handful of other cities) is the only chance any of these places have for recovery.

Most of the depressed northern towns simply have no economic raison d'etre in the post agriculture, post coal, post mass manufacturing environment.
No reasonable amount of government spending can alter that reality, tighter integration with London et al is the best chance available to improve standard of living in these places.

I take it you haven't been to Leeds for quite a while then - or Manchester. Or Liverpool. It's not just partying/entertainmet which sustains them - although that seems to be approved of for london's theatreland. Sheffield's biggest employers are now Healthcare and education - although I believe they actually produce as much steel as they ever have.
Certainly they lost a lot of manufacturing, but there is still a lot going on, including financial services stuff.

What really hit lots of big towns and cities in the provinces was goverment departments turning their backs on them and cutting centrally-funded employment - which is now being reversed a little bit, thank goodness.