More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[eldomtom2]

There are more places than America, the choice isn't between the excessive arbitrary bureaucracy of our planning system or America.

Maybe not, but I was responding to a comment suggesting we should abolish planning altogether.

I would prefer America to the current solution.
Housing is better quality and considerably more available.

Clearly you haven't listened to Americans complain about their housing crisis then!

 

[HSTEd]

I was comparing to the current journey time to Leeds from London of 2 hours 15 mins but future timetables will reduce that further towards 2 hours. At best the S shaped HSR line would achieve 1 hour 45 minutes so slightly quicker for Leeds and slowe for York. For long distance trips reduced waiting time is less of advantage because far more people don't have flexibility.

1hr 45 is rather conservative!

It's about 340km from London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds.
1hr 45 would imply an average speed of about 194kph.

The Tokaido Shinkansen, with a top speed of only 270kph, manages 170kph stop to stop with 30km jumps!

1. 180km ish from London to Birmingham - we already know the journey time for this leg, its of the order ~45 minutes
2. 110km ish from Birmingham to Manchester - roughly equivalent to Hiroshima-Shin Yamaguchi (~120km), which takes 30 minutes on a non-stop Nozomi service.
3. 60km ish from Manchester to Leeds - roughly equivalent to Okayama-Fukuyama (~58km), which takes ~16 minutes.

So about 91 minutes plus dwell times.
Call it about 95 minutes, or 1hr 35.

And legs 2 and 3 are on a line with a top speed of only 300km/h, so it will be faster on a newbuild line.

There is not a chance in hell that the ECML can match that

EDIT:
The 40km jump from Leeds to York would take like 12-13 minutes.
So about 1hr50-1hr55

Again, not a chance the ECML will beat that in any meaningful sense.
As for frequency not mattering, we have a long history of cases in BR and hte privatised era that frequency does matter - increasing frequency increases custom.

To quote American transit activists - frequency is freedom

 

[The Planner]

Does anyone remember that plan to send Crossrail to Tring to reduce the number of trains into Euston.

Does anyone know if OOC redevelopment has rendered that unworkable now?
Cause that would save a few platforms at Euston for the rebuild, especially if you brought forwad the Bakerloo rolling stock replacement to allow the Watford DC to be abolished.

I doubt it would be unworkable, given it would probably be a viaduct over some industrial estate, but freeing up a few platforms at Euston wouldn't do much since you would have to plan a new tunnel to connect hs2 to above ground euston which would surely wipe out any saving. Does anyone know why crossrail to tring was cut? I imagine it would risk causing delays in the crossrail tunnel.


the closer a project gets to finishing the more accurate its budget will be, there's no reason to think that every station will run into the same problems as Euston. Curzon street, Interchange and OOC all seem to be getting on fine.

It didnt last long, it died around 2013/14. Tfl liked it but didnt want to pay for it. It also properly knackered the slow lines north of Wembley. IIRC, it was an extension of the centre turn back sidings proposed at OOC.

If I remember correctly, the phase 1 plans show a railhead and haul road for phase 1 construction on the alignment of what would eventually be the first few hundred yards of the route towards East Midlands Parkway or Leeds. Beyond those first few hundred yards, there is no current legal authority to build anything.

The railhead at Kingsbury was binned off very early on.

 

[HSTEd]

Maybe not, but I was responding to a comment suggesting we should abolish planning altogether.

Clearly you haven't listened to Americans complain about their housing crisis then!

I have, and they are always rather aghast when I point out the relative sizes of UK and US houses and the relevant pricing information.

 

[Nottingham59]

If I remember correctly, the phase 1 plans show a railhead and haul road for phase 1 construction on the alignment of what would eventually be the first few hundred yards of the route towards East Midlands Parkway or Leeds. Beyond those first few hundred yards, there is no current legal authority to build anything.

That's certainly what the maps showed. Personally, I expect they will amputate the leg to EMD, and just connect the railhead stump to the Birmingham-Derby line. And then boast about how that would be just as quick to Derby and Sheffield.

 

[ATS3]

It may only be in the Sun, reported by the BBC, but pressure is mounting to cap spend on HS2 because of high cost inflation.
Delay to the Euston section or to the whole project, is in the air, to keep within present annual budgets.
I'm not sure I believe the possibility of axing the Euston section, after all the demolition and enabling works have been done.
There may also be funding implications on other capital projects, eg NPR.
Jeremy Hunt is on his feet later today, so might address this.

HS2 will run through to London Euston, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt says

This follows reports that rising costs could mean the rail link might stop in the suburbs of west London.

www.bbc.co.uk

How should we continue? Build the entire darn thing and stop the corruption and NIMBYSM! China would of built it in a week and Italy, France would of built it in a year.

 

[fishwomp]

...

EDIT:
The 40km jump from Leeds to York would take like 12-13 minutes.
So about 1hr50-1hr55

Again, not a chance the ECML will beat that in any meaningful sense.

So, the Grand Central with a 1h52 on diesel power from York to KGX is a mirage? There are others services/operators at 2h-2h10 with stops throughout the day.

So, no, it is not worth building a 40km 12 minute journey line from York to Leeds to get such a tiny saving on York - London..

However, York -Birmingham could seriously do with a speed up like that,.. but the lack of connection to mainline at Brum means that anathema of changing trains instead of through services to the west country or reading would trigger another big thread on here!

 

[Taunton]

As for frequency not mattering, we have a long history of cases in BR and the privatised era that frequency does matter - increasing frequency increases custom.

To quote American transit activists - frequency is freedom

Frequency is allied with turn-up-and-go, which of course was standard in BR days.

Unfortunately a parallel rail development is the desire by operators to move ever more to advance booking, and with the way it is implemented you then just have the one train to go for, so forget frequency. It only works if you can just turn up at the station and get the next one.

 

[Manutd1999]

This could be a huge opportunity for Labour. Essentially they get a chance to re-organize the project without any of the political backlash...

For example, they could keep Phase 2a and Euston in the long-grass, therefore reducing spend in the next parliament. Meanwhile they can merge the Warrington and Marsden sections of NPR into Phase 2b and re-brand it from "HS2 + a bit of NPR" into "NPR + a bit of HS2". Work could begin immediately, safe in the knowledge that the (re-)design and planning process will reduce the near-term spend anyway.

You could even have a nice levelling-up slogan along the lines of "reducing investment in London (Euston) to deliver NPR". You would win every vote in the North

At least that's what I would do....

 

[Grimsby town]

the closer a project gets to finishing the more accurate its budget will be, there's no reason to think that every station will run into the same problems as Euston. Curzon street, Interchange and OOC all seem to be getting on fine.

I've realised that sentence isn't that clear. My point was that if we start again with different project to replace HS2, we are likely to run into a lot of the issues HS2 has already encountered.

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

1hr 45 is rather conservative!

It's about 340km from London-Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds.
1hr 45 would imply an average speed of about 194kph.

The Tokaido Shinkansen, with a top speed of only 270kph, manages 170kph stop to stop with 30km jumps!

1. 180km ish from London to Birmingham - we already know the journey time for this leg, its of the order ~45 minutes
2. 110km ish from Birmingham to Manchester - roughly equivalent to Hiroshima-Shin Yamaguchi (~120km), which takes 30 minutes on a non-stop Nozomi service.
3. 60km ish from Manchester to Leeds - roughly equivalent to Okayama-Fukuyama (~58km), which takes ~16 minutes.

So about 91 minutes plus dwell times.
Call it about 95 minutes, or 1hr 35.

And legs 2 and 3 are on a line with a top speed of only 300km/h, so it will be faster on a newbuild line.

There is not a chance in hell that the ECML can match that

EDIT:
The 40km jump from Leeds to York would take like 12-13 minutes.
So about 1hr50-1hr55

Again, not a chance the ECML will beat that in any meaningful sense.
As for frequency not mattering, we have a long history of cases in BR and hte privatised era that frequency does matter - increasing frequency increases custom.

To quote American transit activists - frequency is freedom

Take a look at New Street and see how many cross country or avanti through trains have 2 minute dwell times. TPE has 2 minute dwell times and I've observed at Leeds how this can easily lead to late departures. That's with an operation that is likely to have less large luggage than longer London flows. As I say journey time isn't everything but it'd be good to have some improvement if we building a new line. It'd likely be slower than the ECML to York which already achieves 1 hour 50 min journey times.

Frequency is very important on local services but less so long distance services (I say this as someone who travels on flexible tickets from Manchester to London). The benefits of an extra train diminishes as frequency is increases. Even on local transport services once a service gets to every 8 minutes, additional services won't increase demand. I'd suggest that patronage increases from intercity frequencies are more a function of more cheap advances being sold to fill that capacity. Finally BR weren't improving headways from every 20 minutes to every 10 minutes on 100 mile journeys. They were going from 120 minute to 60 minutes or from 60 minutes to 30 minutes. That's a far bigger relative impact.

 

[Mark J]

What I can't understand...

If buildings have been purchased and demolished around Euston, with work still continuing to be being done in the area, tunneling already started to Euston from Old Oak Common - what benefit is there from axing this part of the route?

 

[HSTEd]

So, no, it is not worth building a 40km 12 minute journey line from York to Leeds to get such a tiny saving on York - London..

However, York -Birmingham could seriously do with a speed up like that,.. but the lack of connection to mainline at Brum means that anathema of changing trains instead of through services to the west country or reading would trigger another big thread on here!

Once you are at turn up and go frequenceis a lot of the problems with changing trains vanish, as the Underground proves every day.
The advantage of the S railway is that it reduces the total length of track built for the network to achieve its given objectives. It's 90km from Manchester to York, it displaces a large part of the original Eastern leg and you get a Transpennine HSL!

It also means that you get unlimited lots and lots and lots of capacity between all stations on the route with the minimum of crew required, leveraging the huge capacity of high speed trainsets.

Take a look at New Street and see how many cross country or avanti through trains have 2 minute dwell times. TPE has 2 minute dwell times and I've observed at Leeds how this can easily lead to late departures. That's with an operation that is likely to have less large luggage than longer London flows. As I say journey time isn't everything but it'd be good to have some improvement if we building a new line. It'd likely be slower than the ECML to York which already achieves 1 hour 50 min journey times.

I'm not sure overcrowded XC trains using Voyagers are really the best model for a 400m high speed set! However, even if it goes to 3 or 4 minute dwells it still beats Leeds and is kind of competitive to York. (EDIT, see below for argument!)

And the ECML has plenty of other calls on its resources.

Unfortunately a parallel rail development is the desire by operators to move ever more to advance booking, and with the way it is implemented you then just have the one train to go for, so forget frequency. It only works if you can just turn up at the station and get the next one.

Ultimately I'm not sure the advance ticket system is really the right model for an ultra high capacity high speed rail solution.
The capacity is so enormous it can never really be filled, so yield management in the conventional sense makes no sense!

The marginal cost of adding more seats is going to be tiny, especially compared to the cost to the government of the passenger taking conventional rail.
I think the best option for the government in this situation would be to operate the railway at a lower ticket cost than the "parallel" classic lines.
Every passenger using the high speed railway is one that does not have to be accomodated on a subsidised classic train that costs more to operate.

This will be one of the highest capacity railways in the world, and until it generates traffic levels comparable to the Tokaido Shinkansen, it serves the governments interests to get as many people as possible onto it.

EDIT: Changed post due to a misreading of London-York timetable.

EDIT #2:
Selecting an hour at random 0900-1000 departures from KGX heading north to York.
0900 departure: 1hr52
0906 departure: 2hr24
0930 departure: 2hr02

Notionally three trains per hour, but what is the effective journey time?
I'd argue, in terms of actually being useful to the passenger there are really only two trains per hour, since the 0906 only gets you in about 2 minutes earlier than the 0930.
Two trains an hour, 1hr52 and 2hr02.

Since being able to do it all day is the important issue, I'd say its reasonable to take the average journey time, which is about 1hr57 @ 2 trains per hour. I'd say that is within margin of error of the HSL time.

But the journey time on the HSL will have a much much higher departure rate, 6 or even 9 trains per hour.
2 trains per hour your wait time is 15 minutes on average
6 trains per hour your wait time is 5 minutes on average.

So I would suggest the HSL would still be the more attractive option.

EDIT #3:
I realise I am making a lot of edits!
But I just realised that the ~45 minute journey time London-Birmingham is a bit more caveated than it might appear. It would depend on a choice on whether or not you are retaining Birmingham International, not sure it has much purpose in a Birmingham-through-station approach. If you delete it the journey time to Birmingham will probably shrink by a few minutes but it would be difficult to be sure without physically designing the line.

But I think I can stand by my statement of Beats ECML to Leeds, Competitive with ECML to York, and thrashes ECML on all counts on frequency and capacity, as well as on all non London journeys.

 

[snowball]

This could be a huge opportunity for Labour. Essentially they get a chance to re-organize the project without any of the political backlash...

For example, they could keep Phase 2a and Euston in the long-grass, therefore reducing spend in the next parliament. Meanwhile they can merge the Warrington and Marsden sections of NPR into Phase 2b and re-brand it from "HS2 + a bit of NPR" into "NPR + a bit of HS2". Work could begin immediately, safe in the knowledge that the (re-)design and planning process will reduce the near-term spend anyway.

You could even have a nice levelling-up slogan along the lines of "reducing investment in London (Euston) to deliver NPR". You would win every vote in the North

At least that's what I would do....

Except that with all the legalities for NPR still to go through, it would be 10 years before construction could start and the Tories might be back.

Unless you want a railway from Piccadilly to the middle of a field near Rostherne, in which case construction could perhaps start in 5 years.

 

[HSTEd]

Unless you want a railway from Piccadilly to the middle of a field near Rostherne, in which case construction could perhaps start in 5 years.

Hey, we could always hook it up to the Mid Cheshire line and use it to short circuit the Castlefield issues!

 

[Sonik]

Except that with all the legalities for NPR still to go through, it would be 10 years before construction could start and the Tories might be back.

Unless you want a railway from Piccadilly to the middle of a field near Rostherne, in which case construction could perhaps start in 5 years.

The issue there being that 2b hasn't had royal assent yet, and Sunak intends to scrap it, and has over a year to push it off the rails even if he looses the next election.

It really is political vandalism of the highest order, but I think you may well have just identified Sunak's devious plan - to spend nothing for the next 10 years, while pretending to support the North with 'jam tomorrow'. Unfortunately voters less informed of the details may not see through it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2023 ==

Hey, we could always hook it up to the Mid Cheshire line and use it to short circuit the Castlefield issues!

The tragedy is that 2b linked to electrified TPRU at Ashburys or thereabouts can be done inside the railway boundary (i.e. no further legislation) and that alone as a first stage temporary 'NPR' could make a relatively quick difference to congestion in Manchester by displacing some airport trains

 

[Cross City]

Maybe slightly off topic but the news billionaire hedge fund owners of Birmingham City FC have written to Sunak about the importance of HS2.

Maybe signs of discontent in the business world too?

Tom Wagner writes to the Prime Minister | Birmingham City Football Club

Birmingham City FC

www.bcfc.com

 

[Taunton]

Ultimately I'm not sure the advance ticket system is really the right model for an ultra high capacity high speed rail solution.

Unfortunately the management thoughts, wanting to get every seat sat on and no empty places, has long been going the other way. I suspect the overall HS2 approach may be that nobody will be taken without an advance reservation, despite departures every 10 minutes you have to all hang around for just one, specific, one.

 

[daodao]

Isn't the simplest thing to do is to complete those parts of HS2 that have parliamentary approval, on a delayed time scale, and scrap plans for the rest of what has been proposed, but without parliamentary approved? That saves money by cancelling the most expensive parts of HS2 with the least benefit. The proposed NPR should be cast into the long grass. A fast electric train service from Liverpool to York via existing lines, calling just at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds, should be possible in under 2 hours once TRU is complete.

 

[class26]

That's certainly what the maps showed. Personally, I expect they will amputate the leg to EMD, and just connect the railhead stump to the Birmingham-Derby line. And then boast about how that would be just as quick to Derby and Sheffield.

behind an all shacks 170 I presume ?

 

[jawr256]

A fast electric train service from Liverpool to York via existing lines, calling just at Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds, should be possible in under 2 hours once TRU is complete.

Liverpool to York is already 1hr 50min on a direct service.

 

[fishwomp]

Maybe slightly off topic but the news billionaire hedge fund owners of Birmingham City FC have written to Sunak about the importance of HS2.

That's awesome, we only need to get 100 of them together to chip in, and they can pay for the line! If the line were built at no cost to the tax payer, I think we'd all be in favour, great crested newts excepted of course.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

That's awesome, we only need to get 100 of them together to chip in, and they can pay for the line! If the line were built at no cost to the tax payer, I think we'd all be in favour, great crested newts excepted of course.

We've already paid for a chunk of it so we don't need 100 of them, another 50 or so will do !

 

[Austriantrain]

The economic distribution effect of HSR is well proven in France,

I don't think French experience is easily transferable to the UK. Firstly, most newer French HSL would never have passed anything like the British approach to cost-benefit ratio. Secondly, the countries' layout are completely different. From London to other English cities, journey time is not the issue, capacity is.

This is evidently a false dichotomy because both are needed, and HS2 will greatly facilitate development of local services, both by freeing up bottlenecks like Winsford-Weaver and Castlefeild,

Apart from the inner WCML, I don't actually see much capacity being liberated, especially not into highly congested Birmingham and Manchester. Into Birmingham, the two Manchesters will not free any paths, since the current XC services will still need to run. They might serve more stops north of Birmingham, but that only means that everyone not originating in central Birmingham or on the Moor Street lines (e.g. everyone south of Birmingham and many others) will lose and not win. And coming from London, only one path will be freed, because there will still need to be 2 tph via Coventry (instead of currently three).

Into Manchester, again, not much change: there would likely still be two Londons via Stoke (one via HS2, the other via the Trent valley). Since the Golborne link was dropped, Winsford - Weaver will stay the same and the Castlefield problem will remain as is. Even the one London path on Crewe - Stockport will probably still be needed for Winslow - even though of course this train would have more capacity for regional traffic (because most London passengers would use HS2), but the effect is tiny.

On the other hand, the very expensive new station and approaches in Birmingham would only see 5 tph during our lifetime (3 Londons, 2 Manchesters - does anyone believe that the Eastern HS2 rump leg will go ahead at any pointin the foreseeable future?), and in Manchester, once NPR is completed, 11 (3 Londons, 2 Birmingham, 6 Liverpool), which on a (north of Crewe) not that fast railway with all trains stopping at MIA is not that impressive either.

It's also always been the long distance services that are more financially sustainable (and even contribute to financing local services) so the arguments about costs and revenue are purely politics based on a false narrative.

I don't think anyone has ever won an election on cost-benefits-ratio, not even in the UK... apart from that: from all I read here, the real money makers on British railways weren't long-distance, but rather the London commuter belt, and that is where the money is missing nowadays.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What I can't understand...
If buildings have been purchased and demolished around Euston, with work still continuing to be being done in the area, tunneling already started to Euston from Old Oak Common - what benefit is there from axing this part of the route?

Tunnelling from OOC to Euston hasn't started.
Preparation work at OOC is in progress, including boring a short service tunnel, but the plan is to position two TBMs at the east end of the OOC station site and await the un-pausing of the Euston project. It seems they might be waiting a long time.
At Euston itself, work in progress (groundworks mainly) is being finished and made safe, and again they will wait for the go-ahead once a new station design is agreed.
A new traction power supply building for LU (needed because the old one was in the way of the HS2 station) has been completed.

 

[stuu]

On the other hand, the very expensive new station and approaches in Birmingham would only see 5 tph during our lifetime (3 Londons, 2 Manchesters - does anyone believe that the Eastern HS2 rump leg will go ahead at any pointin the foreseeable future?), and in Manchester, once NPR is completed, 11 (3 Londons, 2 Birmingham, 6 Liverpool), which on a (north of Crewe) not that fast railway with all trains stopping at MIA is not that impressive either..

It will all get built, or at least something like an Eastern leg will, and Euston and some solution in Manchester. But in typical British fashion it will be 20 years later than it should have been and at a cost far higher than if it had been done in the first place. Like the Elizabeth Line, or the Channel Tunnel Rail Link

 

[Austriantrain]

It will all get built, or at least something like an Eastern leg will, and Euston and some solution in Manchester. But in typical British fashion it will be 20 years later than it should have been and at a cost far higher than if it had been done in the first place. Like the Elizabeth Line, or the Channel Tunnel Rail Link

Can't say anything about the cost; but building an entire HS network from scratch in one go would have been pretty much unprecedented. So maybe expectations were too high?

 

[stuu]

Can't say anything about the cost; but building an entire HS network from scratch in one go would have been pretty much unprecedented. So maybe expectations were too high?

It was never planned to be, it was always planned to be in phases.The same as everywhere else, China being a bit of an outlier. Spain built a huge network from 2000 onwards and hasn't stopped, Italy is broadly the same. France has generally had one line under construction for most of the time between 1980 and now.

That's why I don't understand what is to be gained from cancelling anything. Admitting we can't afford it but will build it in the future is surely better politically as it keeps both pro and anti people a bit happier

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apart from the inner WCML, I don't actually see much capacity being liberated, especially not into highly congested Birmingham and Manchester. Into Birmingham, the two Manchesters will not free any paths, since the current XC services will still need to run.

That is by no means certain. I'd expect the XC services to be either withdrawn entirely or perhaps reduced to hourly and diverted to Liverpool, replaced by a semifast pattern of WMT services a bit more like what Liverpool has now, which is an improvement for local passengers of the kind HS2 is intended to deliver. This could help create, for instance, a consistent local stopping and semifast pattern between Birmingham and Wolverhampton. You'd still have the TfW, but with Golborne the Scotland would also go onto HS2 so most of the service would be WMT.

They might serve more stops north of Birmingham, but that only means that everyone not originating in central Birmingham or on the Moor Street lines (e.g. everyone south of Birmingham and many others) will lose and not win. And coming from London, only one path will be freed, because there will still need to be 2 tph via Coventry (instead of currently three).

Moor St is right next to Curzon St, so anyone using the Snow Hill Lines "S-Bahn" would simply change there for a fast service to their destination.

You're correct about 2tph from Euston remaining, but these may have a slower stopping pattern to improve connectivity and could, again, be integrated in the wider WMT service pattern. It's still an improvement, though granted that particular bit doesn't free up much.

Into Manchester, again, not much change: there would likely still be two Londons via Stoke (one via HS2, the other via the Trent valley). Since the Golborne link was dropped, Winsford - Weaver will stay the same and the Castlefield problem will remain as is. Even the one London path on Crewe - Stockport will probably still be needed for Winslow - even though of course this train would have more capacity for regional traffic (because most London passengers would use HS2), but the effect is tiny.

Assuming 2B, which I believe to be essential to the HS2 benefits, the intention is that there will only be one classic line Manchester IC service, not two.

I don't think anyone has ever won an election on cost-benefits-ratio, not even in the UK... apart from that: from all I read here, the real money makers on British railways weren't long-distance, but rather the London commuter belt, and that is where the money is missing nowadays.

To get the benefits you really need to build all of it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2023 ==

That's why I don't understand what is to be gained from cancelling anything. Admitting we can't afford it but will build it in the future is surely better politically as it keeps both pro and anti people a bit happier

Land could be sold I guess. Not at all optimal though.

 

[Parjon]

You could even have a nice levelling-up slogan along the lines of "reducing investment in London (Euston) to deliver NPR". You would win every vote in the North

At least that's what I would do....

HS2 already tried that negative spin, and totally misread the room. Depriving another area of something wouldn't be regarded as a positive message here, in fact. Very sad if that's the sentiment over there in Manchester.

 

[Austriantrain]

Assuming 2B, which I believe to be essential to the HS2 benefits, the intention is that there will only be one classic line Manchester IC service, not two.

Still, very little capacity released.