Right but it still needs to be faster than just taking the northern Liverpool Manchester line, using the fiddlers ferry line, then going into Stockport and Piccadilly is circuitous. with the original proposals they went into the hs2 Manchester tunnel which was very fast, but hs2 no longer exists.
Doesnt materially matter currently what we now have is far more sensible spread of improvements across a broader section of the populous and if rail travel somehow bounces back beyond the current plateau then thats time to deal with reopening phase 2 again.
https://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1879-Liverpool-and-Manchester gives some distances and times for the routes when HS2 was still on. To hit the 26 minute target you would need faster than 125mph, but if that was relaxed slightly then a conventional rail line would do. If you're wanting to go to Piccadilly, isn't a line that goes there going to be quicker than one that goes to Victoria?
Because the capacity arguments no longer matter.
Yes, I think the kick-back over the past few days has saved them.
I'm sure most know this but this a good account of how well moving block for the west coast went last time round
www.theguardian.com
But everything is going to leave HS2 infrastructure apart from London to Birmingham services, so why waste money on 400m trains and platforms which will only be used on the 3tph to Birmingham, and will actually disadvantage everywhere else by having to run shorter trains than the existing Pendolinos?
It's because there's a not insignificant chance that a future government realises this cancellation was a bad idea and decides to build further sections. There's loads of examples of infrastructure projects that got part-cancelled and then later extended back to something resembling the original plan.
HS2 or something like it is built by 2070, we are just doing it the moronic way, but that's still better than not doing it.
By the next election 2a/2b and the Eastern line will have been unsafeguarded and the land sold off.
Labour should do something, they should write a publicised message to Sunak asking him to atleast leave hs2 in a buildable position, if they decline they are openly going scorched earth and labour would likely have the support to threaten prospective purchasers. They control Camden, they control the planning decisions in Camden, they can refuse to consider developing the plot.
If HS2 is a national scheme, I can't recall the specific wording but it wouldn't be classed as a local scheme but a nationally important one so councils can't really do anything about it, aside from petition and work with stakeholders
HS2 requires planning permission from all the places it goes through I believe, one of the many faults of the planning system. But if they want to change the development at Euston to include more buildings and less platforms, they would surely require planning permission for that at least. Camden council can endlessly delay the decision at Euston, buying time for Labour to get in.
I'm not sure that is true though - because I believe it's an NSIP (nationally significant infrastructure project), local government are a stakeholder and work/plan within their local plans and needs but don't have legal authority to refuse something on their own - they can say no until blue in the face but it is central govt decision. If I am wrong by the way someone please correct me, I am newish to local govt planning!..
Im not 100% sure but I think they must need some form of local approval, or at least local approval has the ability to delay them, because here: https://assets.publishing.service.g...nning_Regime_-_Heritage_Subgroup_Mar_2016.pdf "The Nominated Undertaker building HS2 will have to obtain a range of approvals from local authorities"
Some of this process has been conducted through Bill Committee and Parliamentary processes, you can get assurances as part of the bill for X, Y, Z through legislation rather than just doing it in planning. For example if you look at the recent AP2 docs it shows who has sought these assurances at this stage. Locally, you do work with the HS2 teams and Local Authorities on stuff like traffic plans so you are right but it's not "technically" planning permission
That makes sense, thanks
Leaving it in a buildable position means holding a huge amount of land and not getting the savings from selling it.
I don't even think they require that, ultimately.
Unfortunately that is an eternal reduction of 25% in capacity that essentially can never be undone,
The land being sold off is not that big a roadblock, given that the powers to seize it don't sunset until 2026.
6 platform station doesn't kill 18tph.
Genuinely curious, any examples?
You keep saying this, but the simple fact is it does. The compromises are performance. It isnt a commuter network that runs trains to Southend at its extremities.
Well, if that happens there is no reason a future government couldn't choose to undo it. It would of course be much more expensive than not cancelling the project, but as I said history is full of examples of projects being cancelled and uncancelled repeatedly, leading to escalating costs
I hope so too!
The HS2 works themselves may not require planning permission, but anything that may get build on land sold of would require it. So the council could prevent development that would be in the way of a future expansion if the government actually sells of land next to the future Euston
MML electrification is one. It was proposed to be electrified in the 70s, and electrification to Bedford was finished in 1983. The rest was delayed, then privatisation hit. Then it was going to be electrified under the Electric spine project, and it was electrified to Corby. Then the electric spine faded into dead, then it got reinstated, and it is currently under construction at least partially beyond kettering
They can only do things that aren’t going to bankrupt them in losing court cases.