More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[Richardr]

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

It is under a Tory government that the project has at least got to where it is, and the southern voters will have already had the line. The extensions being spoken about being cancelled are from Birmingham northwards, not southern countryside.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

It is under a Tory government that the project has at least got to where it is, and the southern voters will have already had the line. The extensions being spoken about being cancelled are from Birmingham northwards, not southern countryside.

It's not about cancelling it to protect the southern countryside, it's the principle of it that southern Tory voters do not like.

 

[squizzler]

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.

I think the "X" was in fact about doing just that, then electrifying to Bristol and beyond amongst other things to allow a cross country semi-HSR route.

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.

I suspect it is true, but even so, supporters of the HSR programme should definitely capitalise on this. Why should we play our allotted task of defence only? Go on the full attack, say I. Argue for, and on the basis of, an expanding network.

The electrification enthusiasts have learnt over recent years to make the argument "X number of miles per year until it's done" rather than "save Cardiff to Swansea" or "Didcot to Oxford". I think HSR supporters should also shift their arguing style to "miles per year" over several decades needed to complete the projected programme making the case that cost comes down with experience. Rather than basing on named schemes where HS2 or Northern Powerhouse become these totems that people project their own prejudices on.

 

[Speed43125]

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 ==



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

Virgin and Aer Lingus have wide bodies based out of Manchester, and direct flights to a variety of Asian and North American destinations already exist. Though obviously there is less of an emphasis on business travel vice London.

I suspect it is true, but even so, supporters of the HSR programme should definitely capitalise on this. Why should we play our allotted task of defence only? Go on the full attack, say I. Argue for, and on the basis of, an expanding network.

I agree there is probably now a greater understanding amongst 'normals' about what HS2 is and what its planned benefits are. However, unless this question mark over phase 2b remains for significantly longer, people do generally care more about issues such as the NHS, inflation/interest rates, RAAC in Schools etc etc than a rail line. So don't expect for instance Labour to make any big noise about an enlarged network beyond the IRP network, let alone beyond the original Eastern Arm.

 

[Burton Road]

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.

The problem is that HS2's modelling suggests that 3 classic compatible HS2 trains (2 via Crewe, 1 via Stoke and Handsacre) wouldn't provide sufficient capacity for Manchester's demand, and there is no more capacity on the tracks into Piccadilly from the south to accommodate the additional services needed. Additionally the National Infrastructure Commission modelled the benefits of freed up commuter capacity across the combined HS2/NPR/MER network, and found that the potential economic benefits of freeing up the existing network through south GM/NE Cheshire is huge, which without cancelling P2b we would miss out on. Admittedly that isn't a problem that requires the level of infrastructure that HS2 have proposed for Phase 2b, but it is still a significant adverse consequence of not building it.

 

[BRX]

This recent stuff does seem to have resulted in more "normals" getting their heads around what the actual purpose of HS2 is - despite some pretty poor reporting that I've heard on the mainstream radio/TV etc.

In the past few days I've been explaining to quite a few non-enthusiast people the arguments for why it's idiotic to build a stripped back version now that it's under construction and I've found them to be receptive.

 

[Austriantrain]

However, unless this question mark over phase 2b remains for significantly longer, people do generally care more about issues such as the NHS, inflation/interest rates, RAAC in Schools etc etc than a rail line.

If whatever remains of HS2 is actually useful (most importantly IMO reaching Euston and not ending at OOC and having it built at least until Handsacre junction, running Manchester/Liverpool etc over it and not just Birmingham), I would think you could expect the same effect as in France: people will appreciate a fast, reliable and comfortable railway and will clamour for more. In that sense, actually finishing something that can be used (and not just an OOC-Curzon Street shuttle) is important, because public pressure is then likely to strengthen, asking for more.

 

[Technologist]

I think the "X" was in fact about doing just that, then electrifying to Bristol and beyond amongst other things to allow a cross country semi-HSR route.


I suspect it is true, but even so, supporters of the HSR programme should definitely capitalise on this. Why should we play our allotted task of defence only? Go on the full attack, say I. Argue for, and on the basis of, an expanding network.

The electrification enthusiasts have learnt over recent years to make the argument "X number of miles per year until it's done" rather than "save Cardiff to Swansea" or "Didcot to Oxford". I think HSR supporters should also shift their arguing style to "miles per year" over several decades needed to complete the projected programme making the case that cost comes down with experience. Rather than basing on named schemes where HS2 or Northern Powerhouse become these totems that people project their own prejudices on.

You can do both, there should be a top level goal, connect top 20 conurbations to high speed rail, plus build commuter rail in those top 20 regions, plus transit orientated development with the value uplift in those transit orientated developments being captured by the program.

Then shift the debate to how much is being achieved per year by the fixed annual budget (plus variable budget from land value uplift). Treasury can keep out of the cost benefit of any given bit of it.

 

[swt_passenger]

Today’s Times is reporting that it’s that well known anti Andrew Gilligan who’s pushing the agenda with the PM.

 

[daodao]

The problem is that HS2's modelling suggests that 3 classic compatible HS2 trains (2 via Crewe, 1 via Stoke and Handsacre) wouldn't provide sufficient capacity for Manchester's demand.

2 tph from London just for Manchester/Stockport running via Chelford should be adequate if the trains are of at least equivalent capacity to the existing Pendolinos, with 1 tph of equivalent length for Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield.

Additionally the National Infrastructure Commission modelled the benefits of freed up commuter capacity across the combined HS2/NPR/MER network, and found that the potential economic benefits of freeing up the existing network through south GM/NE Cheshire is huge,

The existing commuter services over the electrified ex-LNW network in the southern half of Greater Manchester are adequate - every station on this network within Greater Manchester itself has at least 2 tph on Mon-Sat daytimes, with the exception of Bramhall, so building HS2 phase 2b to provide extra commuter capacity in this area is not needed, unlike on the southern WCML. Areas south of the Greater Manchester boundary are mostly semi-rural, with high car ownership, so more frequent trains to villages like Chelford and Prestbury would probably be little used.

 

[RobShipway]

2 tph just from London just for Manchester/Stockport running via Chelford should be adequate if they are of at least equivalent capacity to the existing Pendolinos, with 1 tph of equivalent length for Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield.


The existing commuter services over the electrified ex-LNW network in the southern half of Greater Manchester are adequate - every station on this network within Greater Manchester itself has at least 2 tph on Mon-Sat daytimes, with the exception of Bramhall, so building HS2 phase 2b to provide extra commuter capacity in this area is not needed, unlike on the southern WCML. Areas south of the Greater Manchester boundary are mostly semi-rural, with high car ownership, so more frequent trains to villages like Chelford and Prestbury would probably be little used.

What about the demands for freight in the future, to help cut down on carbon emissions? Without HS2 in it's full extent even to Manchester, you do not have the paths that could be needed on the WCML for those freight service.

 

[daodao]

What about the demands for freight in the future, to help cut down on carbon emissions? Without HS2 in it's full extent even to Manchester, you do not have the paths that could be needed on the WCML for those freight service.

Building phase 2a of HS2, which I support, would release freight paths on the WCML; phase 2b provides no relief to the WCML.

 

[MPW]

I do wonder what a new study would conclude is the best route if also taking NPR as a given. For example does it make more sense for a combined HS2/NPR to be at or near Victoria instead of picc, or along the river by manchester liverpool road station? Not recommending that or wanting a discussion of it, just saying new studies might identify a different optimal route and station if considering all objectives now (connecting the north) vs previously more london-centric. Those are almost random points on a map as an example.

Actually, I guess that was the whole point of the IRP!

 

[JamesT]

Building phase 2a of HS2, which I support, would release freight paths on the WCML; phase 2b provides no relief to the WCML.

Surely phase 2b relieves the WCML between Crewe and Manchester? Or is this pedantry about what counts as WCML versus the branches?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surely phase 2b relieves the WCML between Crewe and Manchester? Or is this pedantry about what counts as WCML versus the branches?

2B is far more beneficial than 2A. 2A is however the cheapest bit by far and thus may as well be done.

 

[Energy]

2B is far more beneficial than 2A. 2A is however the cheapest bit by far and thus may as well be done.

It would be fairly stupid to have to rejoin the WCML for such a short section.

 

[The Planner]

Building phase 2a of HS2, which I support, would release freight paths on the WCML; phase 2b provides no relief to the WCML.

Apart from Winsford Weaver and Crewe Wilmslow.

 

[daodao]

2B is far more beneficial than 2A.

Please explain why, as it won't be carrying trains to Lancashire/Cumbria/Scotland now that the Golborne link has been scrapped, nor trains to Liverpool, but just a few trains to Manchester.

 

[Trainbike46]

Please explain why, as it won't be carrying trains to Lancashire/Cumbria/Scotland now that the Golborne link has been scrapped, nor trains to Liverpool, but just trains to Manchester.

For starters, the golborne link should be reinstated

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

In addition, it takes some trains of the approaches to Picadilly, which are full to capacity

Furthermore, it will form part of the NPR line from Liverpool to Leeds via Manchester, so will have trains that aren't on phase 2A

 

[Greybeard33]

2 tph from London just for Manchester/Stockport running via Chelford should be adequate if the trains are of at least equivalent capacity to the existing Pendolinos, with 1 tph of equivalent length for Stafford/Stoke/Macclesfield.

But according to @The Planner:

There won't be any Manchester to London via Stoke and HS2 services if 2A happens.

I assume this means there would be 3tph 200m classic compatibles Manchester to London via Chelford and 2A, to get the maximum benefit from the Phase 2A investment, plus 1tph Macclesfield to London via Stafford, Handsacre and Phase 1.

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

2B is far more beneficial than 2A. 2A is however the cheapest bit by far and thus may as well be done.

Without Phase 2A, the 2B Crewe - Manchester line would surely have an abysmal BCR, even if combined with NPR, because the costly new stations at Piccadilly and the Airport, and the tunnel between them, would only carry one London train per hour. I believe the other two London - Manchester HS2 trains would have to continue running via Stockport and Stoke into the classic Piccadilly station, due to the limited WCML capacity between Colwich and Crewe.

 

[350401]

That is also my understanding of the proposed 2A service pattern; 3tph via Chelford and Crewe, with all calling at Stockport and 1tph calling at Wilmslow. These would have to be 200m units, although the platforms could accommodate trains up to 260m, so I'd expect some reconfiguration of train lengths if 2B is axed. There would also be 1 tph starting at Macclesfield to London via the Handsacre link, calling at Stoke and Stafford.

To save costs/line capacity, could the 1tph that starts at Macclesfield, be extended back to Manchester, with 1 of the 3 tph via Crewe being scrapped instead? That would lead to a similar service pattern as at the moment, with 1 tph via Stoke/Handsacre serving Macclesfield, 1tph via Crewe/2A serving Wilmslow and one train being "fast"via Crewe/2A.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please explain why, as it won't be carrying trains to Lancashire/Cumbria/Scotland now that the Golborne link has been scrapped, nor trains to Liverpool, but just a few trains to Manchester.

The removal of two fast trains per hour will allow a considerably improved local service south of Manchester, one option being 4tph to Hazel Grove. This sort of gain is part of the purpose of HS2.

 

[daodao]

The removal of two fast trains per hour will allow a considerably improved local service south of Manchester, one option being 4tph to Hazel Grove. This sort of gain is part of the purpose of HS2.

HS2 phase 2b really can't be justified for this reason. The Hazel Grove line also has to accommodate the fast trains to Sheffield. As I pointed out in post 2230:

The existing commuter services over the electrified ex-LNW network in the southern half of Greater Manchester are adequate - every station on this network within Greater Manchester itself has at least 2 tph on Mon-Sat daytimes, with the exception of Bramhall.

 

[The Planner]

That is also my understanding of the proposed 2A service pattern; 3tph via Chelford and Crewe, with all calling at Stockport and 1tph calling at Wilmslow. These would have to be 200m units, although the platforms could accommodate trains up to 260m, so I'd expect some reconfiguration of train lengths if 2B is axed. There would also be 1 tph starting at Macclesfield to London via the Handsacre link, calling at Stoke and Stafford.

To save costs/line capacity, could the 1tph that starts at Macclesfield, be extended back to Manchester, with 1 of the 3 tph via Crewe being scrapped instead? That would lead to a similar service pattern as at the moment, with 1 tph via Stoke/Handsacre serving Macclesfield, 1tph via Crewe/2A serving Wilmslow and one train being "fast"via Crewe/2A.

No, it doesnt work over Cheadle Hulme. It was a happy by-product of getting to Stoke, Macclesfield could be done with little issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 phase 2b really can't be justified for this reason. The Hazel Grove line also has to accommodate the fast trains to Sheffield. As I pointed out in post 2230:

You said it but it doesn't make it right. 4tph is the benchmark for an urban "turn up and go" service.

 

[GJMarshy]

Ultimately the entire "Full Y" network needs completing to fully realise the benefits and for the business case to make sense. Ditching the eastern leg was the first, and worst act of vandalism on the project. Without it, the East Midlands and South Yorkshire see no real uplift in capacity and reliability. Dropping Golborne was the second act, taking Scotland off the high speed map, meaning the retention of domestic flight to Heathrow for the foreseeable. Delaying 2b was just strange, because delay won't save any money at all, and it wasn't done to make modifications either. It was ready-to-go.

Where we are now with 2a, 2b, and even Euston potentially being dropped makes the whole project ineffective at doing anything it was designed to achieve. There's likely a lot of political strategy at play making it seem all things are on the table, when in fact many who don't even support the project want its to get to Euston at this point.

To me the most logical way forward is to at least commit to Euston and 2a, even if it means 2b gas to take the hit for the time being. Of course being from the Manchester/North Cheshire area personally I'm quite invested in seeing it done. The delays/limitations through Stockport are a huge hinderance to the overall network. 2b Solves this.

I don't truly believe NPR would ever utilise 2b infrastructure anyway unless it's part of a true East-West high speed line. It'll definitely involve using the existing transpennine route, possibly with a few cut-offs and a new route through Mar city centre at most. So by that logic (where 2b is just for HS2) it's still vital to unlocking capacity in South Manchester, but not make-or-break for other northern cities. In fact Scotland would benefit far more than Liverpool.

Commit to Euston and 2a, leaving it open for future phases. Start building it and concentrate on east-west capacity improvements, whether that's a Castlefield bypass, a new route into Liverpool from Eccles (avoiding the densely populated L&M line) and getting that through station in Bradford connected to the TRU route via a new stretch of line. Each of those projects can be delivered independently, are controlled in scope and geography, and still things politicians can "cut ribbons" for.

The mismanagement on the government's behalf of HS2 has been shocking, without that we'd be in a much better place. We are where we are though, and a level of strategic pragmatism might be necessary to get things moving, rather than being stuck in limbo.

 

[Dan G]

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.

That's a bit harsh on everywhere north of Crewe!

One of the main benefits of the full phase 2 would be bringing Manchester and Birmingham within commuting time; 41 minutes instead of 83 minutes. Much/most of that gain is via phase 2b.

Plus everything else everyone else has told you

 

[matacaster]

What is the purpose of HS2 going to Manchester airport? Surely people able to make a quicker journey south would go to Heathrow which has more destinations and is cheaper once you get there. Are people from Watford really going to go to Manchester airport?
Please advise!

 

[HSTEd]

What is the purpose of HS2 going to Manchester airport? Surely people able to make a quicker journey south would go to Heathrow which has more destinations and is cheaper once you get there. Are people from Watford really going to go to Manchester airport?
Please advise!

To provide a secondary collection station for Manchester, analogously to the ones proposed for Birmingham International and Old Oak Common

Manchester Airport is much easier for people in Stockport/Wilmslow et al (or anyone near the M60 generally) to reach than Piccadilly, it is also next to lots of open terrain and has a bunch of existing transport links to it. It's a premade transport hub.

 

[Trainbike46]

What is the purpose of HS2 going to Manchester airport? Surely people able to make a quicker journey south would go to Heathrow which has more destinations and is cheaper once you get there. Are people from Watford really going to go to Manchester airport?
Please advise!

It's both a "Manchester Parkway" station, a potential interchange to other services, and to serve the airport, for some flights Manchester airport might be more useful. The first one is the most important one though