Restarting HS2a

[LNW-GW Joint]

Most of those 'Network North' ideas were purely just ideas thought up the day before and weren't grounded in reality at all.

Maybe not, but the Treasury and DfT wonks have had 10 months to pivot spend and energy away from HS2 and on to the Network North agenda, however flimsy.
They now have to pivot to whatever agenda Labour sets.
I understand Rachel Reeves was asked a direct question on HS2 today, after her first speech as Chancellor, and answered basically to say spending priorities have not been agreed yet.
The distinct impression I got was that she is in no rush to restart HS2 Phase 2, not least because the total costs of even Phase 1 are not understood yet.

 

[Howardh]

Maybe EES will streamline border formalities and encourage Eurostar to bring back the more marginal parts of their former service.

Possibly, although those two stations could only accept those already "in the system" as I doubt there would be the facilities there to take your prints and iris scan; or at least not in the near future while we all have to have that done therefore excessive demand.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Though of course that could have been achieved by running longer trains on the WCML.

I think the WCML is at its limit in many ways. The trains are already maximum length so money would need spending on longer platforms and moving any junctions/pointwork in the way. Euston platform lengthening would be a nightmare, same at Liverpool.

Slightly off topic but what to do about HS2 to Leeds? I get the feeling there's been a lot more noise over the cancellation of Birmingham-Manchester than Birmingham-Leeds. If we're not getting HS2 to Leeds/York then what should be done instead?

NPR (Northern Powerhouse Rail) aims for a high speed line from Liverpool through/under Manchester to Leeds. Latch onto that as HS2 as currently survives almost reaches Manchester - and should reach Manchester.

 

[Krokodil]

Birmingham to Leeds (and hence onwards to Newcastle) would have been the biggest gain in services. HS2 would have halved journey times and brought 200m long electric trains to a route currently poorly served by 100m long Voyagers. Birmingham to Manchester and Birmingham to Scotland would have gained significantly too, more routes plagued by Crosscountry's finest (sorry Wolves, you'll have to make do with whatever LNW put on in the old paths).

 

[Pete_uk]

Just build it to Manchester. Worry about Leeds later. Maybe just a 150mph spur, perhaps

 

[Energy]

Just build it to Manchester. Worry about Leeds later. Maybe just a 150mph spur, perhaps

HS2/NPR/DfT/etc. will be thinking about Leeds though as putting a through station in Manchester to connect to Leeds is better, but more expensive, than reversing.

 

[JonathanH]

HS2/NPR/DfT/etc. will be thinking about Leeds though as putting a through station in Manchester to connect to Leeds is better, but more expensive, than reversing.

Are they really going to pick up the through station idea even though planning to date has been based on the reversal idea? Doesn't the through station come with a huge price tag?

 

[HSTEd]

HS2/NPR/DfT/etc. will be thinking about Leeds though as putting a through station in Manchester to connect to Leeds is better, but more expensive, than reversing.

Reversal is likely adequate with ETCS and the "autoreverse" concept.

The train can reverse under computer control whilst the crew changes ends. Or NPR could just be operated without a true driver using 'Grade of Automation 3'

GoA3 high speed services are in operation in China today, after all.

 

[Energy]

Doesn't the through station come with a huge price tag?

GM Partners (a group of various Manchester authorities) said up to £2.5bn more but comes with £3.6bn of benefits. [source]

The problem is that previous proposals have had HS2 services (3tph) either terminating underground or going to a special turnback facility (which adds £2.5bn to what the DfT believes it costs). Running all HS2 services instead as London - Manchester - Leeds solves this.

Reversal is likely adequate with ETCS and the "autoreverse" concept.

The train can reverse under computer control whilst the crew changes ends. Or NPR could just be operated without a true driver using 'Grade of Automation 3'

GoA3 high speed services are in operation in China today, after all.

Automation is an option. The safety case in the UK for a train with no one driving and passengers on board would be interesting.

 

[HSTEd]

The problem is that previous proposals have had HS2 services (3tph) either terminating underground or going to a special turnback facility (which adds £2.5bn to what the DfT believes it costs). Running all HS2 services instead as London - Manchester - Leeds solves this.

As much as I would love to have a two platform station and run HS2 like the ultimate metro, such a concept is probably too radical to get approval in the UK as it stands.
Four platforms is more conventional but probably still too aggressive to many.

Automation is an option. The safety case in the UK for a train with no one driving and passengers on board would be interesting.

Given GoA 3 has a long history in the UK and the likelihood that a high speed railway line is a highly controlled environment, especially near a station, I wouldn't expect too much trouble.
Your mileage may vary, of course.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Reversal is likely adequate with ETCS and the "autoreverse" concept.

The train can reverse under computer control whilst the crew changes ends. Or NPR could just be operated without a true driver using 'Grade of Automation 3'

GoA3 high speed services are in operation in China today, after all.

But reversal would lower capacity, as trains would have to pass the same junction twice, blocking other trains at least once.
You could timetable around it but it probably wouldn't be desirable, and could eventually become a bottleneck

 

[WAO]

I've never thought that HS2 as it stands was a good idea: it doesn't reach the real market for an LGV - Scotland, the intermediate places like Brum, Manc and Leeds are too close to the Smoke for the saving to be worthwhile, it's difficult to imagine enough full fare business passengers to fill the services planned and there is no enthusiasm to improve the displaced services (and those around the regional cities that need electrification) which will wither or be filled with reduced fare customers and it will vacuum up rail investment and operating subsidies for three decades. It was also meant to be separate from NR (to avoid another WCML PUG disaster) so is really an unintegrated, parallel railway with separate termini, wasting the customers' time in transfers, so expensively otherwise gained.

However, we will have it to Brum and Handsacre, short of Rugeley, so lets enjoy and make the best of it. I would upgrade the WCML to Weaver Jn to 125mph after Stafford and also connect HS2a to the existing line to Derby through BoT, most of which is already 125mph, together with other loops/bits that aren't expensive. When the economy can afford it I would plan for Scotland, probably via the planned Leeds route but using existing rights of way where practicable.

I hope to be there to enjoy it, on the first train, a class 87 + 12 Mark 3's!

WAO

 

[HSTEd]

But reversal would lower capacity, as trains would have to pass the same junction twice, blocking other trains at least once.
You could timetable around it but it probably wouldn't be desirable, and could eventually become a bottleneck

AIUI, this is entirely dependent on the junction design.
Assuming the junction is directly connected to the station, it is possible to design a junction that has a capacity equivalent to either of the plain line approaches. In that case the junction is not a limit on capacity.

 

[fishwomp]

Birmingham to Leeds (and hence onwards to Newcastle) would have been the biggest gain in services. HS2 would have halved journey times and brought 200m long electric trains to a route currently poorly served by 100m long Voyagers. Birmingham to Manchester and Birmingham to Scotland would have gained significantly too, more routes plagued by Crosscountry's finest (sorry Wolves, you'll have to make do with whatever LNW put on in the old paths).

To point out the obvious, 100m long voyagers can easily be replaced for less money - and in less time - by procuring new rolling stock, or shifting around other rolling stock like the off-lease 222s or 221s.

 

[takno]

I've never thought that HS2 as it stands was a good idea: it doesn't reach the real market for an LGV - Scotland, the intermediate places like Brum, Manc and Leeds are too close to the Smoke for the saving to be worthwhile, it's difficult to imagine enough full fare business passengers to fill the services planned and there is no enthusiasm to improve the displaced services (and those around the regional cities that need electrification) which will wither or be filled with reduced fare customers and it will vacuum up rail investment and operating subsidies for three decades. It was also meant to be separate from NR (to avoid another WCML PUG disaster) so is really an unintegrated, parallel railway with separate termini, wasting the customers' time in transfers, so expensively otherwise gained.

However, we will have it to Brum and Handsacre, short of Rugeley, so lets enjoy and make the best of it. I would upgrade the WCML to Weaver Jn to 125mph after Stafford and also connect HS2a to the existing line to Derby through BoT, most of which is already 125mph, together with other loops/bits that aren't expensive. When the economy can afford it I would plan for Scotland, probably via the planned Leeds route but using existing rights of way where practicable.

I hope to be there to enjoy it, on the first train, a class 87 +12 Mark3's!

WAO

Of course Scotland is a sensible eventual target. That doesn't mean it's not worth serving places which aren't as far away as Scotland, or that a line which only goes part-way doesn't provide any benefit to Scotland, as long as it gets close enough to Scotland to speed up journey times.

A line reaching as far as Wigan provides real journey time benefits, and removes the Scotland trains from the congestion down South. A line reaching as far as Stafford provides minor benefits to Glasgow and essentially no benefits to Edinburgh, so won't result in any reduction in London trains on the existing lines.

The full-fare business passengers are a red herring. They don't exist, have largely never existed, and the business case and rationale for HS2 is not built on them.

 

[The Planner]

However, we will have it to Brum and Handsacre, short of Rugeley, so lets enjoy and make the best of it. I would upgrade the WCML to Weaver Jn to 125mph after Stafford and also connect HS2a to the existing line to Derby through BoT, most of which is already 125mph, together with other loops/bits that aren't expensive. When the economy can afford it I would plan for Scotland, probably via the planned Leeds route but using existing rights of way where practicable.

I hope to be there to enjoy it, on the first train, a class 87 + 12 Mark 3's!

WAO

The line towards Derby would need loads of upgrades, signalling and electrification. Where are the trains going after Derby? Handsacre is an appaling place to end it and any money should be spent on sorting that.

 

[Krokodil]

To point out the obvious, 100m long voyagers can easily be replaced for less money - and in less time - by procuring new rolling stock, or shifting around other rolling stock like the off-lease 222s or 221s.

You'll still be stuck on some DMU doing an average speed of something like 60mph between Birmingham and Leeds. That might have been impressive in 1923, it isn't today. The existing timings are not competitive with cars.

 

[snowball]

But reversal would lower capacity, as trains would have to pass the same junction twice, blocking other trains at least once.
You could timetable around it but it probably wouldn't be desirable, and could eventually become a bottleneck

AIUI, this is entirely dependent on the junction design.
Assuming the junction is directly connected to the station, it is possible to design a junction that has a capacity equivalent to either of the plain line approaches. In that case the junction is not a limit on capacity.

The HS2 phase 2b proposals include a flyover box structure close to Piccadilly which would remove conflicts for reversing trains. A train leaving Picc towards Leeds would depart on the south side of the HS2 station (the same side where trains arrive from London, Birmingham and Liverpool) and fly over both the lines to/from HS2 and the route of a train arriving from Leeds.

 

[WAO]

A line reaching as far as Wigan provides real journey time benefits, and removes the Scotland trains from the congestion down South.

I'd be more convinced if it had joined the well aligned route North of the Wigan NW kink. Hard to crayon a route though.

The full-fare business passengers are a red herring. They don't exist, have largely never existed, and the business case and rationale for HS2 is not built on them.

The passenger railway lives off them, surely?

WAO

 

[Energy]

I've never thought that HS2 as it stands was a good idea: it doesn't reach the real market for an LGV - Scotland, the intermediate places like Brum, Manc and Leeds are too close to the Smoke for the saving to be worthwhile, it's difficult to imagine enough full fare business passengers to fill the services planned and there is no enthusiasm to improve the displaced services (and those around the regional cities that need electrification) which will wither or be filled with reduced fare customers and it will vacuum up rail investment and operating subsidies for three decades.

London - Scotland doesn't have the same masses of passengers that Birmingham and Manchester get and isn't the priority for more capacity. Once HS2 services are running the classic equivalents will not run aside from a few to serve stations which HS2 services will not cover. As such a HS2 price premium is not intended. By displacing the fast trains to HS2 there is much more space for local trains, and reliability should improve as less trains are squeezed in on existing tracks.

Current Service: London - Glasgow
1tph Avanti
1tp2h Avanti via Birmingham (noticeably slower)

Current Service: London - Edinburgh
2tph LNER
5tpd Lumo
1tp2h Avanti via Birmingham (noticeably slower)

HS2 hasn't been as successful in the Coventry corridor. It is only double track and as such is fairly full but after HS2 a 2tph Avanti service will still have to run on classic lines to serve Coventry. Had HS2 gone via Coventry the local lines would only need to take the LNWR local services and a couple XC.

 

[WAO]

London - Scotland doesn't have the same masses of passengers that Birmingham and Manchester get and isn't the priority for more capacity. Once HS2 services are running the classic equivalents will not run aside from a few to serve stations which HS2 services will not cover. As such a HS2 price premium is not intended. By displacing the fast trains to HS2 there is much more space for local trains, and reliability should improve as less trains are squeezed in on existing tracks.

Isn't that because at present it's quicker (and possible for a day trip) by air to/from Scotland?
Which services/lines will close after HS2 opens?
WAO

 

[HSTEd]

I'm not sure I can see much of a case for hS2 continuing north of Piccadilly on the west side of the Pennines.

The Golborne section doesn't really serve many people because there is only one significant settlement between Preston/Lancaster and the Central Belt (Carlisle).
You will never build a business case for a high speed line on Scotland traffic

Every kilometre built there is a kilometre that we can't have on the eastern coast, which is where the people (and thus passengers) are.

 

[Energy]

Isn't that because at present it's quicker (and possible for a day trip) by air to/from Scotland?

That's unclear, someone else may be able to give a better answer.

HS2 would still provide a significant speed advantage anyway and if in full should bring it competitive to air travel.

Which services/lines will close after HS2 opens?
WAO

I believe the plan was:

1tph London - Manchester via Stoke*
1tph London - Wolverhampton via Birmingham
1tph London - Preston via Birmingham
1tph London - Holyhead

*there was also a stoke/macclesfield service planned via Handsacre so I'm doubtful this service would survive

This compares to 10+tph on HS2. What the service pattern will be now is unclear.

 

[Topological]

I'm not sure I can see much of a case for hS2 continuing north of Piccadilly on the west side of the Pennines.

The Golborne section doesn't really serve many people because there is only one significant settlement between Preston/Lancaster and the Central Belt (Carlisle).
You will never build a business case for a high speed line on Scotland traffic

Every kilometre built there is a kilometre that we can't have on the eastern coast, which is where the people (and thus passengers) are.

Golborne allows the Manchester to Scotland service onto HS2 and provides options for more local services on the legacy WCML south of Wigan.

The former has benefits in creating capacity for trains through Manchester so that locals can get to HS2, the latter arguably could too with the right planning of new developments and connections at Crewe/Preston.

Certainly anything which makes space in Castlefield is welcomed on the Manchester side. Golborne is probably a cheaper way to make space than many other suggestions for Castlefield.

 

[WAO]

The line towards Derby would need loads of upgrades, signalling and electrification. Where are the trains going after Derby? Handsacre is an appaling place to end it and any money should be spent on sorting that.

The point is that the East Midlands could have something of a TGV service without the cost of the entirely new route through Polesworth.
The Midland line is quite good already and further improvements would be shared with other important services. I agree having to adapt HS2 is mess but that is where we are. I am reminded of Luke 14:28-30.
WAO

 

[Snow1964]

Quite a good summary and review in Construction Briefing article (quite long so not quoting it)

Could part of the billion-dollar HS2 rail project be revived?

With the UK’s Labour Party now in power, what might happen with the problematic HS2 project?

www.constructionbriefing.com

 

[Nottingham59]

Handsacre is an appaling place to end it and any money should be spent on sorting that.

But once you've sorted Handsacre by building 2a, or the first 30km of it, then what happens? 2a will unlock capacity to Crewe, which will be great for freight heading to Basford Hall. But there doesn't seem to be space on any of the lines north of Crewe to allow more paths, and there are no 400m platforms to take longer trains.

 

[The Planner]

It allows a load more released capacity on the Trent Valley. As it stands, you will be very unlikely to increase the status quo.

 

[Trainbike46]

But once you've sorted Handsacre by building 2a, or the first 30km of it, then what happens? 2a will unlock capacity to Crewe, which will be great for freight heading to Basford Hall. But there doesn't seem to be space on any of the lines north of Crewe to allow more paths, and there are no 400m platforms to take longer trains.

phase 2a included a rebuilt of Crewe station, to provide it with more 400m platforms, and a phase 2a should come with an upgrade of Crewe to allow 400m trains to serve it as well as split there

 

[The Planner]

phase 2a included a rebuilt of Crewe station, to provide it with more 400m platforms, and a phase 2a should come with an upgrade of Crewe to allow 400m trains to serve it as well as split there

No it didnt, Crewe was entirely seperate. 2A ended at Basford Hall.