More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[JonathanH]

I'd expect the XC services to be either withdrawn entirely or perhaps reduced to hourly and diverted to Liverpool, replaced by a semifast pattern of WMT services a bit more like what Liverpool has now, which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.

There would still be a need for people to get from Wolverhampton to Manchester, and Stoke to Birmingham at a reasonable speed. Likewise, the need for the stations between Liverpool and Crewe to be served as they are today.

One of the problems there has always been with HS2 is that it leads to slower journeys on many intermediate flows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Still, very little capacity released.

Removing two fast trains per hour is significant - if you have a simpler, slower pattern you can fit in a lot more.

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

There would still be a need for people to get from Wolverhampton to Manchester, and Stoke to Birmingham at a reasonable speed. Likewise, the need for the stations between Liverpool and Crewe to be served as they are today.

One of the problems there has always been with HS2 is that it leads to slower journeys on many intermediate flows.

But better connectivity by way of more regional express type services. It would still be possible to do those journeys, they'd just be on a "LNR service" a lot like Liverpool-Birmingham.

There are certainly losers (Coventry might well be the biggest - it'll still have 2 fasts to London but they won't be *as* fast, almost certainly calling at all three of Rugby, MKC and Watford), but the overall effect is positive.

 

[The Planner]

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.

Taking 1tph off the Coventry corridor does more than you may realise, it allows a proper 30 minute pattern and not the off set one there is now. There won't be any Manchester to London via Stoke and HS2 services if 2A happens.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The media seem to think today that HMG is easing off an early cancellation announcement this week before the party conference.
Having put the frighteners on the project, it may be the Autumn Statement (November) before decisions are announced.
That might, or might not, allow for more considered decisions to be made than just axing Phase 2.
HS2 Ltd CEO Mark Thurston leaves the job at the weekend.

 

[eldomtom2]

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.

In my experience the sort of people to complain about the American housing crisis and blame planning for it are also the sort of people to say Americans need to get used to smaller, denser houses...

 

[Richardr]

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.

That is what he does. Another example recently are the repairs of schools where people thought he meant 50 a year, but in fact he said 500 over ten years, which means when nothing happens in the first few years he can always say it is a ten year target, wait until then. Of course by then there will have been two more elections at least, and new targets set. 40 new hospitals is similar - again over ten years and we are already on our third PM since it was announced. It is a trick that has been repeatedly used.

 

[stuu]

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

I'm sure you are aware of how much sprawl is required to provide housing in the US. There is no way that could be replicated here - the 3m people in the Denver metro area live in an area the size of Wales

 

[HSTEd]

I'm sure you are aware of how much sprawl is required to provide housing in the US. There is no way that could be replicated here - the 3m people in the Denver metro area live in an area the size of Wales

Yes, and I doubt people would be able to have whole acre plots or whatnot in the UK, but the current situational is hardly tenable. It is already causing massive economic damage.

It is unlikely sprawl would actually cover the entire UK in that situation, far more likely is London would just end up swallowing up the likes of St Albans and stretching clear down to the South Coast but that would be the end of it.

But this is rather off topic.

 

[Arkeeos]

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

Well then why did you bring up America? America isn't some lawless land of no planning. They have extremely strong exclusionary zoning requirements, Japan arguably has looser planning regulations than any western country, yet their cities are very dense.

 

[HSTEd]

Well then why did you bring up America? America isn't some lawless land of no planning. They have extremely strong exclusionary zoning requirements, Japan arguably has looser planning regulations than any western country, yet their cities are very dense.

Indeed, in much of America planning systems are designed specifically to stop densification.

 

[The Ham]

Still, very little capacity released.

2tph is likely to be one whole platform (30 minutes for each service), local trains are likely be 20 minutes for each service and are likely to be 6 coaches Vs 11, so you'd be able to fit 6 services an hour using those platforms.

However those 6 services would either be new services or would be existing services which are removed from other platforms so the services they previously shared a platform with can now be longer (and the services being moved are also likely to be longer than they were as well).

It's one area where HS2 may have missed a trick in their publicity - however I can understand why they haven't as trying to suggest a timetable for 20 years time (when things could drastically change) is very risky - but if they had said by doing x we could lengthen these yy services and create two new services tgen it would have made it easier for people to understand the level of change possible.

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

Indeed, in much of America planning systems are designed specifically to stop densification.

Which arguably results in a lot of costly infrastructure to maintain (roads, sewers, water mains, electricity grid, etc.) that's before you consider it makes it too far to easily walk, meaning cars are more essential, so more parking is required making walking even less attractive.

 

[Alpine Rider]

I despair. Be brave and finish HS2 - all of it.

Just think of how the world would have been different if investors threw in the towel when un expected costs arose when constructing major routes like the GWR or east coast mainline.

What really strikes me is how much excess baggage has been bolted onto the project. Near Aylesbury the land take and massive earthworks far exceeds the actual track width.
I am sure someone will explain that building dual lane service roads alongside pretty much the entire length of the route near here is efficient but it seems pretty excessive, let alone funding numerous brand new roundabouts and huge contractors compounds.

I really hope the bean counters realise that once the work is complete there should be large areas of land which can be freed up and sold off to offset some of the recent spend.

As for not completing the Euston section or indeed the full Y as originally planned - you suffer all the cost with virtually no release of line capacity on the existing mainline routes. So short sighted.

 

[Austriantrain]

Taking 1tph off the Coventry corridor does more than you may realise, it allows a proper 30 minute pattern and not the off set one there is now. There won't be any Manchester to London via Stoke and HS2 services if 2A happens.

Re Coventry: You are right of course and thank you!

 

[BRX]

If your belief is that house prices are determined by number of homes available - I don't see how decreasing density would help. 10 homes in a well planned dense development is the same number of homes as 10 homes in an American style suburban sprawl. And you have more land left over to build the next 10, not to mention a lower land take in the supporting infrastructure.

 

[Dan G]

As there have been various open questions stated upthread about the future of the network, and I notice that this thread has been recently renamed to “and how should we proceed”, I thought it might help those not fully aware of the current plans and phasing to have a look at the northern layout of Phase 1 and to consider what eventualities might arise from all the continuing uncertainty around the system's future. This isn't intended to add to the discussion around what else the network should / could have been; rather what might arise from the current state of play. Apologies to those who already know all this.

Here is the delta junction in Birmingham.

View attachment 143482

The line to the central Birmingham station (Curzon St) is well underway and the TBM logo there is Mary Ann which is +200metres into the first bore.

Another TBM starts next year.

The three-way junction allows trains from the South to go into Brum or to bypass Birmingham on their way North. And vice versa.

The northern arm would allow trains from Leeds / Manchester to go into Birmingham and vice versa.

The viaducts for this are currently being constructed.

It seems reasonable to assume that all of these connection possibilities will be built as there's no sign from current construction works that these plans have been fundamentally altered. It is also worth pointing out that none of this complex construction is necessary if the line is to forever remain a shuttle between London and Birmingham.

The line travels north from the delta junction and there is plenty of well-progressed construction works along this route including the crossing of the M42 (Marston box) and the A38 / WCML dive-under at Streethay.

The northern ends of Phase 1 are the NW spur past Lichfield which splits into two. The more northerly line merges into Phase 2 while the southerly spur links onto the WCML at Handsacre.


View attachment 143484

There has been uncertainty around the future of the Handsacre junction. According to this report, on page 50, there are various configuration states of HS2. Config. D which has Handsacre junction operating separately and distinctly from both the initial OOC->Curzon and anything regarding Phase 2A. This suggests the connection is considered separate to that of the Phase 2 build and therefore a phase 2 cancellation would not necessarily involve cancelling the Handsacre connection. Moreover, in the event of a phase 2 cancellation, as many have said, it would be absolutely crazy not to build this connection as it would render all of the work to build the grade separated viaducts at the delta junction plus the considerable amount of line to the north of the junction utterly pointless.

View attachment 143485
So I think it is reasonable to assume that Handsacre is definitely happening if Phase 2 is definitely not. It's perhaps more in question if Phase 2A is retained, although as shown above, the general assumption is that it forms an intermediate stage of configuration that opens up possibilities for trains to the north (although there are limitations at OOC that prevent it from being able to serve the full service spec that Euston would offer).

One open question I can't answer is the status of the NE spur at Kingsbury. Can anyone report any construction on this stretch? In the event that the stump is created, could it become a connection into the line to Derby and could this facilitate some kind of service into the East Midlands / Leeds / Sheffield in the event that the East Midlands link is cancelled?

If I remember rightly, various sources regarded the eastern leg of HS2 as the most useful part of the whole original Y network as it provided capacity release on both the MML and ECML.

Finally, the overall length of Phase 2A to Crewe is only around 2.5 times the distance from Water Orton to Handsacre (the bit that's being built simply to connect HS2 to a conventional line). It also bypasses some slow bits of the WCML and also includes train / maintenance depots and other useful things. So it adds quite a meaningful amount to the usefulness of HS2 and various others have said that in relative terms, this section is reasonably cheap. Plus it already has royal assent.

Perhaps someone with knowledge could shed insight into how much land has been purchased / early works that have already happened for Phase 2A.

View attachment 143487

It does seem disingenuous to me for the government to be allowing the cancellation of phase 2 to be seen as a way to save cash in the here-and-now. HS2 is going to carry on costing £billions every year until phase 1 is complete and it's hard to see how that changes if you cancel phase 2A which is already on pause or phase 2b which isn't even confirmed yet.

It seems to be fairly widely assumed that the government are going to allow phase 1 to continue, with even critics grudgingly conceding that the works are too far advanced to cancel.

Whilst disappointing and frustrating to see a project cost more because of delay and interruptions, the long term view is that a significant piece of high speed railway will be built that will retain options for future extensions. Perhaps smaller parcels of extensions to the network will be more palatable / less in the public crosshairs in future.

Great post!

The exact wording from Harper's delay/pause statement in March is "The government is committed to delivering HS2 Phase 2a between Birmingham and Crewe. We have seen significant inflationary pressure and increased project costs, and so we will rephase construction by 2 years, with an aim to deliver high-speed services to Crewe and the North West as soon as possible after accounting for the delay in construction". That's purely to push phase 2a construction costs out of the silly "debt as ratio of GDP to be falling in the fifth year from date of forecast" fiscal rule. As we all know, it would be cheaper not to delay.

Obvs we don't know exactly what Sunak is thinking beyond he wants to scrap bits/all of HS2 beyond phase 1, but as it stands phase 2a is to be built.

Re his thinking, rumour is now that the cancellation announcement is "delayed" to at least the autumn statement.

 

[eldomtom2]

Well then why did you bring up America? America isn't some lawless land of no planning. They have extremely strong exclusionary zoning requirements,

The point is that left to their own devices developers will not build walkable paradises - they will build car-centric sprawl.

Japan arguably has looser planning regulations than any western country, yet their cities are very dense.

Define "looser". Japan has its whole host of planning regulations, same as any other country.

 

[zwk500]

The point is that left to their own devices developers will not build walkable paradises - they will build car-centric sprawl.

In America, planning regulations require a certain amount of parking spaces per unit, depending on use. Left to their own devices, developers will build the most profitable housing which in cities will not necessarily be car-centric.

Define "looser". Japan has its whole host of planning regulations, same as any other country.

Japan has a massive housing over-supply, resulting in houses being unsellable because they've got too much wrong and nobody will pay to renovate them when they can buy a newer, better house for less than the cost of the works.

The key point that's emerging here is that some kind of planning system is inevitable in a representative democracy, but that whatever is in place in the UK clearly isn't working properly.

 

[eldomtom2]

In America, planning regulations require a certain amount of parking spaces per unit, depending on use.

That depends on the specific jurisdiction - not all cities have parking minimums.

Left to their own devices, developers will build the most profitable housing which in cities will not necessarily be car-centric.

Conversely, there's no reason to believe that in many places the most profitable housing will not be car-centric. Expecting the free market to deliver non-car-centric housing leaves far too much up to chance.

Japan has a massive housing over-supply, resulting in houses being unsellable because they've got too much wrong and nobody will pay to renovate them when they can buy a newer, better house for less than the cost of the works.

I don't see how that's relevant to my point.

The key point that's emerging here is that some kind of planning system is inevitable in a representative democracy, but that whatever is in place in the UK clearly isn't working properly.

Maybe, but I'd like to see actual proposals for reforming the system rather than just complaining about it.

 

[Arkeeos]

Maybe, but I'd like to see actual proposals for reforming the system rather than just complaining about it.

By right development, less arbitrary-ness to give certainty, legal protection to builders, zoning(More like Germany and Japan, less like America). There's a huge array of changes to make.

 

[Sonik]

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.

It's not just France, this effect is seen in many countries. China has arguably pushed it too far, but in a long narrow country like the UK where HSR is underdeveloped and the economy is very strongly biased to the south east, economic distribution effects are almost inevitable i.e. it applies to the UK situation even more so.

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.

Essentially most of that argument relies on several bits not being built e.g. Eastern Leg, Golburn, NPR

With Golbourne alternate (via WBQ) all Liverpools, Glasgows, Edinburghs would bypass Winsford. Easten leg could eliminate several XC services and create fact connections NE to SW. NPR takes Liverpool-Airport-Manchester-beyond services out of Castlefeild.

It's the trimming of the network that limits capacity release. If the whole network is built as originally conceived, the capacity release and bypassing of bottlenecks will be significant.

WCML is the UK's main artery for both passengers and freight, so capacity release here has the most value on the network

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.

CBR is nonsense because most of the benefit is seen in wider distribution of economic growth, not the direct return on the railway investment itself. The issue is that London/SE is overheated with high business and living costs which constrains growth, so the growth has to happen elsewhere. Without better integration with transport links, it won't happen. With good connectivity, businesses will inevitably take advantage of lower costs outside the SE. We see this happening already in Birmingham, before HS2 is even open.

We can allocate costs as wanted to show different things but fundamentally Commuter services make a poor capacity return on overall asset because they saturate the edges of the network with short, lower fare journeys, limiting capacity on trunk routes (for freight too). The whole purpose of HS2 is to redress this balance.

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

It is unlikely sprawl would actually cover the entire UK in that situation, far more likely is London would just end up swallowing up the likes of St Albans and stretching clear down to the South Coast but that would be the end of it.

But this is rather off topic.

This is exactly why HS2 is needed, to spread economic activity across the UK instead of just London/SE which has outgrown it's geography

 

[daodao]

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

It is 2hr 10min according to Real Time trains for the hourly fast train, e.g. the 1053 departure on 20/12/23 arrives York at 1303.

Realtime Trains | 1P23 1053 Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle | 20/12/2023

Real-time train running information for 1P23 1053 departure from Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle on 20/12/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The trans-pennine service could be accelerated significantly without the expensive white elephant of NPR/HS2 phase 2b.

 

[The Ham]

It is 2hr 10min according to Real Time trains for the hourly fast train, e.g. the 1053 departure on 20/12/23 arrives York at 1303.

Realtime Trains | 1P23 1053 Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle | 20/12/2023

Real-time train running information for 1P23 1053 departure from Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle on 20/12/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The trans-pennine service could be accelerated significantly without the expensive white elephant of NPR/HS2 phase 2b.

But can it significantly increase capacity?

Under NPR those services would at some key stations be using new platforms, which would allow them to not only be longer but would also allow a mix of extra and longer services to use the platform capacity released by them and the HS2 services (part of which for terminus stations would include the shorter turn around times meaning that rather than 2 long distance trains an hour in a platform it's 3 local services - maybe 6 if they are half length - to use the same platform).

 

[RobShipway]

It is 2hr 10min according to Real Time trains for the hourly fast train, e.g. the 1053 departure on 20/12/23 arrives York at 1303.

Realtime Trains | 1P23 1053 Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle | 20/12/2023

Real-time train running information for 1P23 1053 departure from Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle on 20/12/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

The trans-pennine service could be accelerated significantly without the expensive white elephant of NPR/HS2 phase 2b.

But can it significantly increase capacity?

Under NPR those services would at some key stations be using new platforms, which would allow them to not only be longer but would also allow a mix of extra and longer services to use the platform capacity released by them and the HS2 services (part of which for terminus stations would include the shorter turn around times meaning that rather than 2 long distance trains an hour in a platform it's 3 local services - maybe 6 if they are half length - to use the same platform).

As well as the comment from @The Ham that I agree with you also have to remember that there is a need to be rebuilding station platforms due to rules and regulations to do with the disability act. Where under NPR new platforms would be built to disability regulations, these could help in allowing the older platforms to be rebuilt as well to be able to be used by the disabled, but without having to reduce too much the capacity of the station.

 

[daodao]

But can it significantly increase capacity?

Under NPR those services would at some key stations be using new platforms, which would allow them to not only be longer but would also allow a mix of extra and longer services to use the platform capacity released by them and the HS2 services (part of which for terminus stations would include the shorter turn around times meaning that rather than 2 long distance trains an hour in a platform it's 3 local services - maybe 6 if they are half length - to use the same platform).

HS2's main raison d'etre is to accelerate journeys between London and the Midlands/North of England and to relieve capacity on the southern WCML south of Crewe. That can be achieved by completing all the approved works from Euston to Crewe, with a feed into the Midland mainline from Birmingham to Derby to serve Derby, Chesterfield and Sheffield, and a link to the existing WCML south of Colwich to serve Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield. IMO it is worthwhile completing this part of the project, albeit with delays if money is tight.

Trains diverge 4 ways at Crewe, so HS2 extensions north of Crewe would be lightly used and not value for money. 2 tph each from London to Manchester, from London to Liverpool and from London to Lancashire/Cumbria/Glasgow can be accommodated on existing tracks north of Crewe. Fast trains from Birmingham to places north of Crewe could also be diverted to run via HS2 phase 2a. The lack of electrification and relatively low demand means that North Wales/Chester will have to make do with connections into/out of HS2 services at Crewe.

Conflating the 2 separate components of HS2 phase 2 is disingenuous. Phase 2b, but not phase 2a, could easily be ditched, with a substantial cost saving but minimal adverse consequences. Burnham can be ignored.

 

[D365]

As well as the comment from @The Ham that I agree with you also have to remember that there is a need to be rebuilding station platforms due to rules and regulations to do with the disability act. Where under NPR new platforms would be built to disability regulations, these could help in allowing the older platforms to be rebuilt as well to be able to be used by the disabled, but without having to reduce too much the capacity of the station.

I'm confused - what point are you trying to make?

 

[RobShipway]

I'm confused - what point are you trying to make?

The point that I am making is any of the projects of HS2 is not just about capacity or improving speeds, but also about improving the environment of stations for all.

 

[jawr256]

It is 2hr 10min according to Real Time trains for the hourly fast train, e.g. the 1053 departure on 20/12/23 arrives York at 1303.

Realtime Trains | 1P23 1053 Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle | 20/12/2023

Real-time train running information for 1P23 1053 departure from Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle on 20/12/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

That's in December, when TPE are reducing their services. It's 1hr 50min now.

Realtime Trains | 9E10 1024 Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle | 27/09/2023

Real-time train running information for 9E10 1024 departure from Liverpool Lime Street to Newcastle on 27/09/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[squizzler]

It is pretty apparent the attempt to get the public on side to cancel large parts of HS2 have failed. With the momentum starting to swing the other way, now is the time to start agitating in favour of the full Eastern arm again, maybe even the GreenGauge proposal for an "X" shape by addition of a branch to Bristol and the South West.

Rishi Sunak’s dithering over HS2 spurs on its critics and supporters​

With Tory conference looming and talk of delaying decision to autumn statement, the row could intensify further

When news leaked that Rishi Sunak was planning to row back on net zero goals last week, it took Downing Street less than 24 hours to get the prime minister out in front of a podium to confirm the news and lay out his rationale.
But for nearly a fortnight, the fate of HS2 has hung in the balance. Far from seizing the agenda after plans to pare back the high-speed rail project emerged, Sunak has been accused by Conservative MPs of vacillating.

 

[irish_rail]

It is pretty apparent the attempt to get the public on side to cancel large parts of HS2 have failed. With the momentum starting to swing the other way, now is the time to start agitating in favour of the full Eastern arm again, maybe even the GreenGauge proposal for an "X" shape by addition of a branch to Bristol and the South West.

X would make most sense, as south west to Birmingham is actually dreadfully slow, unlike say London to Birmingham. But I'll be long dead before we see the likes of high speed rail to the West Country!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2023 ==

It is pretty apparent the attempt to get the public on side to cancel large parts of HS2 have failed. With the momentum starting to swing the other way, now is the time to start agitating in favour of the full Eastern arm again, maybe even the GreenGauge proposal for an "X" shape by addition of a branch to Bristol and the South West.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that much of this backlash is more an excuse to hit out at the government and that they are now in a position that whatever they do it will be criticised, owing to the way they have behaved the past 5 years or so. And so the HS2 cancellation backlash I reckon is more a dig at the Tories than it is "Beryl in Manchester" being genuinely appalled.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

X would make most sense, as south west to Birmingham is actually dreadfully slow, unlike say London to Birmingham. But I'll be long dead before we see the likes of high speed rail to the West Country!

Or just link the Eastern Arm onto the existing line at Birmingham to allow XC trains. That would pick up a lot of support for the project I'm sure.

I'm also surprised there hasn't been enough focus on connecting Manchester Airport to Liverpool, Birmingham and Leeds by high-speed trains - effectively turning it into a rival UK hub airport to Heathrow. If we had joined up, long-term thinking in this country, we might even see a publicly owned carrier, long-haul carrier operating out of Manchester to turn it into a European hub.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2023 ==

X would make most sense, as south west to Birmingham is actually dreadfully slow, unlike say London to Birmingham. But I'll be long dead before we see the likes of high speed rail to the West Country!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 27 Sep 2023 ==


I do have a sneaking suspicion that much of this backlash is more an excuse to hit out at the government and that they are now in a position that whatever they do it will be criticised, owing to the way they have behaved the past 5 years or so. And so the HS2 cancellation backlash I reckon is more a dig at the Tories than it is "Beryl in Manchester" being genuinely appalled.

The Tories have always hated HS2. I don't know how a party that is literally called The Conservative party can actually be so Libertarian. Cancelling HS2 is just throwing meat at the Southern voters who hate the project because it cuts through countryside like the one they live in, and might stop them from going to the "no homes, no trains, no anything" Liberal Democrats