More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[BAFRA77]

Rumours are that everyone's favourite swivel eyed Think Tank blowhard - Andrew Gilligan - is back informally advising the government on this.

 

[JonathanH]

Rumours are that everyone's favourite swivel eyed Think Tank blowhard - Andrew Gilligan - is back informally advising the government on this.

What exactly is he advising on, and on what basis? Where does his expertise lie?

 

[Energy]

What exactly is he advising on, and on what basis? Where does his expertise lie?

He's been a government adviser for ages, including under Boris. He's been advocating against HS2 and seems to think that a low speed line would save lots of money.

At least Boris is pro HS2 and NPR.

 

[BananaRepublic]

HS2 was first conceived of under Labour in 2009 ......

That's when the official HS2 project was first initiated.
HS2 was conceived a few years earlier, in the mid noughties, as an extension of a WCML route study that went on to thoroughly investigate the future capacity challenges for primarily the WCML, but expanded to consider if the proposed solutions could have a wider implication and impact on the ECML as well.
(This followed on from an earlier SRA report, published in 2004, that recommended a new WC high speed trunk line, that was smothered by the then SoS for transport.)

It was at this stage that it was decided that significant enhancements and upgrades to the existing network would not deliver the desired results and a recommendation for a brand new line was tabled.
The various options of how to provide that line, its viability and what the general route structure should look like, resulted in two main candidates. The S and Y routes.
There was a great deal of detail into the various business cases, effectively ruling out a route beyond Leeds or Manchester, to the NE or Scotland
A lot more was covered and almost all of it was incorporated into the initial HS2 proposal, a couple of years later on.

Greengauge 21 ran a campaign promoting the the same concept.
All this was before Adonis took on his transport role and thought it was a spiffing idea.

(Incidentally, one of the Y route options, in fact the originally favoured one, had the line run along the M40 corridor through the Chilterns and not via Amersham and Aylesbury.)



.

 

[Austriantrain]

From an outsiders point of view, two things were always baffling with HS2:

firstly, the idea to try and build a Shinkansen-style mostly stand-alone network. While that was inevitable in Japan due to the gauge-issue and has some merit in the UK because of the restricted loading gauge, it always requires to build most of the network in one go (sorry to say, but no European country as the kind of population structure and density that Japan has, and the network has to reflect it) - as has been found out, not realistic, and also leading to bad interchange to the remaining network (why the hell would anyone think that running Birmingham- Manchester shuttles would be a good idea, when what is needed is more capacity and speed between the whole range of English cities that are not London?).

Secondly, and not entirely disconnected from the first point, the stand-alone network with stand-alone stations has turned the focus from what, London aside, seems to be a major issue, namely capacity in and around the major cities. By overlaying a completely separate network, not much will be achieved in increasing capacity there - a path here and there liberated, but mostly peanuts.

So in the end, it turned out to be a project that would mostly benefit London and London WCML commuters - not a good political sell in a country where many of the regions feel very disaffected already.

It doesn’t change the fact though that continuously changing the course of direction will inspire no one‘s confidence, and while the „sunk cost“ fallacy famously should be avoided, there is also the reverse of it: spending large amounts of money for barely any advantages (the point made by someone before in this thread is a good one: if HS2 ends at Handsacre junction, how should 3 HS2 trains an hour with only 200m length replace 3 class 390 services an hour? Capacity might be comparable- those 390 don’t have that many seats - but the idea was to increase the passenger numbers and if that doesn’t happen, what was the purpose of the investment?).

 

[The Planner]

Trans Pennine upgrade has multiple closure for years ahead so on your basis by the end of it there will be no passengers left to help pay for it. Umm I think not otherwise there is no point undertaking the project in the first place.

And TRU isn't in a much better state than HS2 if you delve into it. At least TRU has diversionary routes for its blocks via Diggle, Calder Valley and even the Hope Valley. What do you do on the Chilterns?

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

From an outsiders point of view, two things were always baffling with HS2:

firstly, the idea to try and build a Shinkansen-style mostly stand-alone network. While that was inevitable in Japan due to the gauge-issue and has some merit in the UK because of the restricted loading gauge, it always requires to build most of the network in one go (sorry to say, but no European country as the kind of population structure and density that Japan has, and the network has to reflect it) - as has been found out, not realistic, and also leading to bad interchange to the remaining network (why the hell would anyone think that running Birmingham- Manchester shuttles would be a good idea, when what is needed is more capacity and speed between the whole range of English cities that are not London?).

Secondly, and not entirely disconnected from the first point, the stand-alone network with stand-alone stations has turned the focus from what, London aside, seems to be a major issue, namely capacity in and around the major cities. By overlaying a completely separate network, not much will be achieved in increasing capacity there - a path here and there liberated, but mostly peanuts.

So in the end, it turned out to be a project that would mostly benefit London and London WCML commuters - not a good political sell in a country where many of the regions feel very disaffected already.

It doesn’t change the fact though that continuously changing the course of direction will inspire no one‘s confidence, and while the „sunk cost“ fallacy famously should be avoided, there is also the reverse of it: spending large amounts of money for barely any advantages (the point made by someone before in this thread is a good one: if HS2 ends at Handsacre junction, how should 3 HS2 trains an hour with only 200m length replace 3 class 390 services an hour? Capacity might be comparable- those 390 don’t have that many seats - but the idea was to increase the passenger numbers and if that doesn’t happen, what was the purpose of the investment?).

Is there anything stopping the HS2 trains being built to be 230-240m, so as not to require new platforms at any of the main stations? Apart from the HS2 press release announcing that they are ordering 200m trains (but none have yet been built). They could be reformed as 2 x 200m units in due course, should Ph2b happen.
Apologes, but it's surely time for pragmatism on this one?

 

[Grimsby town]

From an outsiders point of view, two things were always baffling with HS2:

firstly, the idea to try and build a Shinkansen-style mostly stand-alone network. While that was inevitable in Japan due to the gauge-issue and has some merit in the UK because of the restricted loading gauge, it always requires to build most of the network in one go (sorry to say, but no European country as the kind of population structure and density that Japan has, and the network has to reflect it) - as has been found out, not realistic, and also leading to bad interchange to the remaining network (why the hell would anyone think that running Birmingham- Manchester shuttles would be a good idea, when what is needed is more capacity and speed between the whole range of English cities that are not London?).

Secondly, and not entirely disconnected from the first point, the stand-alone network with stand-alone stations has turned the focus from what, London aside, seems to be a major issue, namely capacity in and around the major cities. By overlaying a completely separate network, not much will be achieved in increasing capacity there - a path here and there liberated, but mostly peanuts.

So in the end, it turned out to be a project that would mostly benefit London and London WCML commuters - not a good political sell in a country where many of the regions feel very disaffected already.

It doesn’t change the fact though that continuously changing the course of direction will inspire no one‘s confidence, and while the „sunk cost“ fallacy famously should be avoided, there is also the reverse of it: spending large amounts of money for barely any advantages (the point made by someone before in this thread is a good one: if HS2 ends at Handsacre junction, how should 3 HS2 trains an hour with only 200m length replace 3 class 390 services an hour? Capacity might be comparable- those 390 don’t have that many seats - but the idea was to increase the passenger numbers and if that doesn’t happen, what was the purpose of the investment?).

If you have more connections to the existing railway you run the risk of having a less reliable HSR that can accommodate less trains. If you'll disrupt the existing network more to build the connections. I accept that a more incremental approach could have provided benefits sooner though. That's certainly a disadvantage of HS2.

An incremental approach wouldn't have been much cheaper in the UK anyway because the main issue is lack of capacity into cities so its always going to be a case of building the expensive sections into city centres and maybe providing fairly disruptive junctions to to link into the WCML for less capacity strained track such as Nuneaton to Lichfield.

I'd reject the notion that HS2 is that disconnected from the existing rail and other tranport networks either. Piccadilly, Euston, OOC are well connected. Ideally the central Birmingham station would be at New Street but that would cost billions more. Curzon Street is more convenient for buses and Moor Street (which is planned to get more services). It will also have a tram link. Interchange isn't particularly well connected to public tranport but is mainly to intercept road traffic. Most UK cities have multiple stations so there's never going to be a perfect solution.

 

[Snow1964]

Is there anything stopping the HS2 trains being built to be 230-240m, so as not to require new platforms at any of the main stations? Apart from the HS2 press release announcing that they are ordering 200m trains (but none have yet been built). They could be reformed as 2 x 200m units in due course, should Ph2b happen.
Apologes, but it's surely time for pragmatism on this one?

It seems possible to reconfigure at this stage, presumably it was done so they could work as double units on new line, and single off route. Probably get nearer 255m (about same as 11car pendolino) before start running into length problems, and for many stations nearer 290m

 

[irish_rail]

And TRU isn't in a much better state than HS2 if you delve into it. At least TRU has diversionary routes for its blocks via Diggle, Calder Valley and even the Hope Valley. What do you do on the Chilterns?

Could ask the same question re the GWML which is going to be disrupted for years to come for the Old Oak Station which will be of no use to anyone outside of the south east.

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

So in the end, it turned out to be a project that would mostly benefit London and London WCML commuters - not a good political sell in a country where many of the regions feel very disaffected .

I think you've hit the nail on the head here. In reality, the beneficiaries of HS2 are the Southern WCML commuter dormitory towns. No one else really benefits. Yes Manchester would be a few minutes quicker to London, but it already has 3 trains an hour to London and a good service. Same with Birmingham. So its hardly surprising its politically unpopular and doesn't really appeal to any section of the electorate. Not to mention all the areas of the country who are paying for it and getting zero benefit (Wales, the south, the south west the East and North east). The biggest mistake Gov is making is not canning the whole thing, not just Manchester. A standalone Old Oak Common to Curzon Street train service will be a complete white elephant and not worth building.

 

[stuu]

Hence why I said reopen the New North Mainline connection into Paddington

Where would all the trains go? Paddington is full

 

[jfowkes]

The Independent are reporting that "Rishi Sunak is set to delay the northern phase of HS2 by up to seven years as part of a bid to scrap the project in the long term"

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hs2-cuts-grant-shapps-rishi-sunak-b2417491.html#

Ministers are expected to say that work on the railway north of Birmingham will be delayed in order to move costs into a future parliament – kicking the project into the long grass.

It is understood that ministers will It is understood that ministers will confirm that the southern part of HS2 will terminate at Old Oak Common and not continue to Euston.confirm that the southern part of HS2 will terminate at Old Oak Common and not con

 

[Cross City]

Not to mention all the areas of the country who are paying for it and getting zero benefit (Wales, the south, the south west the East and North east).

This is the reason why the UK can't have nice things and is constantly falling further and further behind other comparable nations, and why projects get curtailed in the first place. People moaning that they wont directly benefit from a scheme which would've massively benefited the nation as a whole.

Utter crabs-in-bucket mentality.

 

[Howardh]

What will happen to the space at Euston if HS2 doesn't end up there? It could do with new platforms, more space for passengers etc, so will they finish the construction for just ordinary trains - possibly putting Avanti on the level earmarked for HS2? If not, they simply can't abandon the new build...can they??

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Part of the issue is getting the contractors on board, I can imagine the design had a multitude of assumptions on how it would be constructed with estimates based on that. Civils contractors come in, suck teeth and say "can't build it like that guv".

Why can't they?

 

[The Planner]

Could ask the same question re the GWML which is going to be disrupted for years to come for the Old Oak Station which will be of no use to anyone outside of the south east.

Apart from the fact it isn't, as I have described on either this, or other threads. OOC will be limited in the main to week long blocks over the New Year periods where patronage and revenue is lowest. How do you do the same on Chiltern over the entire route mileage compared to the minuscule comparison of OOC?

 

[Sad Sprinter]

HS2 should never have been started until the uks 10 biggest cities outside of London had comparable public transport. Now we have worst of al worlds with other infrastructure upgrades frozen out and a high speed white elephant. This is on HS2 who have proven to be utterly inept and to think we are 2 years off celebrating 200 years of railways.

Totally agree with that. If you can't get properly around the entire "metro-area" as Americans say, then the productivity of the cities themselves aren't going to increase much despite the nice, shiny high speed rail link.

 

[The Planner]

Why can't they?

Because contractors tend to be the subject matter experts, not the project management and development side. You could well ask why aren't contractors brought in earlier on a multitude of projects.

 

[Bletchleyite]

hy the hell would anyone think that running Birmingham- Manchester shuttles would be a good idea, when what is needed is more capacity and speed between the whole range of English cities that are not London?

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

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Because contractors tend to be the subject matter experts, not the project management and development side. You could well ask why aren't contractors brought in earlier on a multitude of projects.

I could ask ask why don't we have in-house teams anymore that can do these things

 

[AndrewE]

Could ask the same question re the GWML which is going to be disrupted for years to come for the Old Oak Station which will be of no use to anyone outside of the south east.

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


I think you've hit the nail on the head here. In reality, the beneficiaries of HS2 are the Southern WCML commuter dormitory towns. No one else really benefits. Yes Manchester would be a few minutes quicker to London...

That's not correct. Since the WCML upgrade (which was about speed - to London, as well as on the northern half) the NW has lost most of its connectivity with the southern half of the midlands. We were looking forward to HS2 taking the "first stop: London" trains off our line and giving us back the services to "places," i.e significant junctions like Rugby - and Watford junction too.

 

[irish_rail]

This is the reason why the UK can't have nice things and is constantly falling further and further behind other comparable nations, and why projects get curtailed in the first place. People moaning that they wont directly benefit from a scheme which would've massively benefited the nation as a whole.

Utter crabs-in-bucket mentality.

The trouble is the UK does get nice things, always in the same places. That's what levelling up is supposed to be about. The trouble is levelling up has turned into throwing money at certain parts of the north. This country desperately needs to be levelled up properly, and HS2 simply will not help that in any way shape or form. If only those billions could be spread throughout the regions for spending on individual worthwhile projects.

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

That's not correct. Since the WCML upgrade (which was about speed - to London, as well as on the northern half) the NW has lost most of its connectivity with the southern half of the midlands. We were looking forward to HS2 taking the "first stop: London" trains off our line and giving us back the services to "places," i.e significant junctions like Rugby - and Watford junction too.

If you are worried about NW connections further south then maybe be asking why XC don't provide any trains from the NW to the south west. Id say Plymouth Torbay and Cornwall are of more use to most people in the North west than Rugby and Watford! If the money from HS2 was redistributed we could have a decent fleet of long XC bi mode trains connecting the nation up , including cities such as Liverpool which is scandalously not served by XC.

 

[The Planner]

I could ask ask why don't we have in-house teams anymore that can do these things

Valid question, but if you keep it outside and sub contract everything, you can off set the risk to whoever you contract out to.

 

[Sir Felix Pole]

Could ask the same question re the GWML which is going to be disrupted for years to come for the Old Oak Station which will be of no use to anyone outside of the south east.

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


I think you've hit the nail on the head here. In reality, the beneficiaries of HS2 are the Southern WCML commuter dormitory towns. No one else really benefits. Yes Manchester would be a few minutes quicker to London, but it already has 3 trains an hour to London and a good service. Same with Birmingham. So its hardly surprising its politically unpopular and doesn't really appeal to any section of the electorate. Not to mention all the areas of the country who are paying for it and getting zero benefit (Wales, the south, the south west the East and North east). The biggest mistake Gov is making is not canning the whole thing, not just Manchester. A standalone Old Oak Common to Curzon Street train service will be a complete white elephant and not worth building.

Manchester to London by HS2, if completed in full, will be 54 minutes faster than the current service so hardly 'a few minutes'. As has been pointed out many times, HS2 frees up capacity on the WCML for other services including freight. Manchester to Crewe via both routes - Stockport and Styal - is at capacity now. 3 trains an hour now between Manchester and London does indicate a rather strong demand don't you think - it has been consistently the most profitable Inter City route since electrification - so if you are going to build a high speed line it is where you would do it. Lyon in France, is the most successful city outside of Paris in terms of economic performance, helped hugely by the LGV PSE, so to claim that no else benefits from HS2 apart from 'WCML dormitory towns' is complete nonsense,

 

[AndrewE]

If you are worried about NW connections further south then maybe be asking why XC don't provide any trains from the NW to the south west. Id say Plymouth Torbay and Cornwall are of more use to most people in the North west than Rugby and Watford! If the money from HS2 was redistributed we could have a decent fleet of long XC bi mode trains connecting the nation up , including cities such as Liverpool which is scandalously not served by XC.

I am concerned about that too, but this is a thread about HS2 and I already get rapped over the knuckles about going off-topic too many times as it is.
A significant set of historical links have grown up as a consequence of the WCML being a major transport corridor, probably as there have on lots of others. Breaking them makes the railway less attractive to customers, which is why commuter train service patterns survive so long and why revisions cause such annoyance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It seems possible to reconfigure at this stage, presumably it was done so they could work as double units on new line, and single off route. Probably get nearer 255m (about same as 11car pendolino) before start running into length problems, and for many stations nearer 290m

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.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I could ask ask why don't we have in-house teams anymore that can do these things

UK railways weren't in general built by the railways themselves, but by contractors like Thomas Brassey and Robert "Concrete Bob" McAlpine.
You'll also find the European high speed lines were built by contractors, some of whom are in the HS2 consortia for their expertise.
The railway itself cannot possibly generate the continuing workload to justify a permanent workforce for new construction.

 

[irish_rail]

Manchester to London by HS2, if completed in full, will be 54 minutes faster than the current service so hardly 'a few minutes'. As has been pointed out many times, HS2 frees up capacity on the WCML for other services including freight. Manchester to Crewe via both routes - Stockport and Styal - is at capacity now. 3 trains an hour now between Manchester and London does indicate a rather strong demand don't you think - it has been consistently the most profitable Inter City route since electrification - so if you are going to build a high speed line it is where you would do it. Lyon in France, is the most successful city outside of Paris in terms of economic performance, helped hugely by the LGV PSE, so to claim that no else benefits from HS2 apart from 'WCML dormitory towns' is complete nonsense,

Are all of those Manchester to London trains full? No they are not. This project smacks more and more as a political gesture . There are other less expensive ways of opening up capacity for freight and local trains. But going back to my original point, I was agreeing with another poster that Hs2 is politically unpopular to the majority because it doesn't seem to benefit anyone all that much (to the man on the street anyway who doesn't understand capacity increases etc etc).

 

[AndrewE]

I could ask ask why don't we have in-house teams anymore that can do these things

Because at privatisation it was government policy to put everything out to be exploited for gain. Railtrack (in)famously bragged that the company's only staff would be 23 accountants.

UK railways weren't in general built by the railways themselves, but by contractors like Thomas Brassey and Robert "Concrete Bob" McAlpine.
You'll also find the European high speed lines were built by contractors, some of whom are in the HS2 consortia for their expertise.
The railway itself cannot possibly generate the continuing workload to justify a permanent workforce for new construction.

In fact when we had one railway there were very good in-house project managers. There was enough of a continuing workload to keep these railway-aware people in jobs, so that their experience of the industry was retained, to everybody's benefit.

 

[LYuen]

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

The revenue flow suggested the opposite (Top non London flow, but still a tiny fraction compare with London-Anywhere)
Although it isn't helped by CrossCountry is the ToC running this service.

Manchester to London by HS2, if completed in full, will be 54 minutes faster than the current service so hardly 'a few minutes'. As has been pointed out many times, HS2 frees up capacity on the WCML for other services including freight. Manchester to Crewe via both routes - Stockport and Styal - is at capacity now. 3 trains an hour now between Manchester and London does indicate a rather strong demand don't you think - it has been consistently the most profitable Inter City route since electrification - so if you are going to build a high speed line it is where you would do it. Lyon in France, is the most successful city outside of Paris in terms of economic performance, helped hugely by the LGV PSE, so to claim that no else benefits from HS2 apart from 'WCML dormitory towns' is complete nonsense,

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.