.... and why exactly would a brand new Labour government "patriotically name" a new line after a former Tory PM???!
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Restarting HS2a
- Thread starter Elecman
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
HSTEd
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2011
- Messages
- 20,269
It's something like 25km of track for the benefit of the Scottish services. That's almost enough to get from Leeds to York.
It's an awful lot given the comparatively small saving in journey time vs proceeding onto the classic line at Crewe and the small number of affected passengers.
Does it create any space on Castlefield? They weren't going to build a Manchester to North facing chord as far as I know, which means it would be unable to divert traffic from the North onto the Manchester branch.
Topological
Established Member
I was thinking the present Manchester Airport to Scotland (via Castlefield) would become a via HS if they built the chord. Though as you say, that got chopped from the spec quite early. Be nice if they put it back really.
Without a chord the benefits are really only on the classic WCML and, unless there are plans to fill the classic WCML with new towns and stopping trains, that brings little benefit.
Trainbike46
Established Member
thank you for correcting me.
A rebuilt of Crewe and phase 2a are both projects that should go ahead in my view
Peter Sarf
Established Member
I would imagine the dhe detail of Crewe itself will depend on how the next Phase after 2a is planned or actioned.
Given their recent praise for Thatcher, naming a new line after Churchill wouldn't be implausible
Churchill would go down very badly in the NE and Wales in particular. Look at his role in breaking the General Strike in the 1920s.
If they fancied cosying up to the Yanks perhaps the "Eisenhower line".....
poffle
Member
Maybe the Wilson Line for Merseyside to Yorkshire. Harold Wilson grew up in Huddersfield and served as MP for Huyton in Merseyside for most of his parliamentary career.
Dr Hoo
Established Member
Precisely. It would make more sense to call the cancelled sections of HS2 the Wilson Lines as a memorial to his cancellation of the first Channel Tunnel project that was ‘in build’ too.
The statue of Wilson in Huddersfield, portraying him having turned his back on BR and walking away from it (having been elected on a manifesto that offered a ‘halt to major closures’) sums him up perfectly.
twpsaesneg
Member
- Joined
- 21 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 480
Whilst a separate project, a large chunk of it was directly funded by HS2.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,634
Treated as a NR renewal project.
Snow1964
Established Member
Looks like a you tube describing options and possible Hansacre junction layouts is now available
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,634
There is nothing new in that at all. Its the same two options that have been around for years. The third option of getting rid of Handsacre isnt actually on option without a seismic shift in terms of 2a in the next year or so. The option on the table is the slow line connection. It makes very little difference compared to the fast line connection which is much more expensive and disruptive to build.
Fazaar1889
Member
Do you think the King's speech will include some reference to hs2?
Does it need to? HS2 2a legislation has already been through, they can continue with the project tomorrow if the Treasury (or someone else) is willing to fund it.
Probably not.
Did the previous government, before parliament was dissolved, get round to cutting back the Bill for Phase 2b to the section in common with NPR (Rostherne to Piccadilly)? If it did, I predict nothing will be mentioned. If it didn't, maybe the new government will announce the same change.
Unlikely, the shortening of that section was salting the Earth as completing HS2 would have required another bill through parliament. Even if Labour were mad enough not to connect NPR and HS2, you could still use the existing bill and not build bits.
Fazaar1889
Member
Apologies, what exactly do these bill entails. I don't fully understand bills and acts and such. What was in that bill? And by not "cutting back", what does that imply?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
What bills would they have needed to write?
An act of parliament is known as a Bill until it is passed by parliament, then it becomes an Act (strictly, when it receives royal assent, but that's just a formality - the last time royal assent was denied was 300 years ago). An Act is a law.
The King's Speech is written by the government to say what bills they will bring forward over the new session of parliament (a year or so).
There was an act of parliament to authorise the construction of HS2 phase 1 (Euston to Birmingham and Handsacre) and another to authorise phase 2a (Handsacre, or strictly speaking Fradley, to just south of Crewe).
There was a bill for phase 2b which originally covered from just south of Crewe to Golborne (just south of Wigan) with a turnoff to Manchester Piccadilly. First the Golborne link was deleted a few years ago, leaving Crewe to Manchester.
Then last year Sunak cancelled phase 2a and part of 2b, leaving just the part nearest Manchester, because that also forms part of NPR.
The outgoing government was proposing to delete the southern part of phase 2b from the bill, but I can't remember whether they got as far as doing so before parliament was dissolved for the general election.
If I remember correctly, the north-eastern arm of HS2, from east of Birmingham to Leeds and Church Fenton, later cut back to East Midlands Parkway, never even got as far as having a Bill published.
Last edited:
mkjcal
Member
BTW we’re talking about HS2 2a/2b here. HS2 1 is what’s being currently built to Curzon Street and Handsacre.
Peter Sarf
Established Member
To build a new railway you have to have an act of parliament. Basically giving the developer/sponsor legal powers to do the job. Things like compulsory purchase if I remember correctly cannot go ahead without an act of parliament. An act of parliament starts life as a "Bill" until it has been through parliament and authorised. The act of parliament finally has to receive Royal Assent - permission (a formality).
Last edited:
Nowadays only a very major new railway, such as a phase of HS2, requires its own act. Smaller schemes can be authorised by a Development Consent Order (the same process used for major road schemes in England) and smaller ones still by an order under the Transport and Works Act.
poffle
Member
And the HS2 Phase 1 & Phase 2a have been passed into law.
These give compulsory purchase rights to HS2 for the corridors identified.
Sunak announced he was dropping 2a but never passed legislation repealing 2a. They were threatening to sell off land which had been CPOed for 2a but I don't think this happened.
Fazaar1889
Member
So who in parliament deals with this? I can't imagine them getting all the mps together to vote on this.
Same as any other bill - it gets voted on by the whole parliament a couple of times, with a debate each time. In between there is a committee stage where a smaller number of MPs look at the bill in detail and propose amendments.
For less-controversial bills you'd expect the whole-parliament debates to be quite short - I think you could probably do each of them in a couple of hours. The debates themselves in this case would likely be poorly-attended, with most MPs getting on with other business (or their lives). The votes at the end would be better-attended, with MPs magically appearing at the sound of the division bell.
For very uncontroversial bills you wouldn't necessarily even get a large turnout for the vote, since the opposition may not be voting against it so there is little risk, or a substantial number of MPs being paired with somebody voting the other way so that neither need to turn up.
So in short, yes the whole of parliament gets together to vote on it, but the whole of parliament isn't exactly an almighty exercise in active participation.
In the case of a bill like HS2 the committee stage spends a lot of time interviewing objectors (known in this context as "petitioners").
Also a lot of it happens twice, in the Commons and the Lords, and a final version has to be agreed by both.
Also a lot of it happens twice, in the Commons and the Lords, and a final version has to be agreed by both.
Acts to construct railways were generally necessary in order to force the sale of the land required. These were usually private members bills.
Not all railways required an Act, the Snowdon Mountain for example managed to persuade the landowners to sell.
SamYeager
Member
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 352
I think you mean Royal Assent.
Fazaar1889
Member
Thanks guys.
So if it's unlikely that the tories edited the act, then it could be relatively easy to get built right? The only problem I can think of is the media. BBC just released an article about how HS2 "destroyed" a ditch and all the comments on Instagram were just repeating the same hate.
It may be better to perhaps rename it as mentioned previously in this thread... But I'm not sure, I'm not a politician. I'm just a lab tech.
So if it's unlikely that the tories edited the act, then it could be relatively easy to get built right? The only problem I can think of is the media. BBC just released an article about how HS2 "destroyed" a ditch and all the comments on Instagram were just repeating the same hate.
It may be better to perhaps rename it as mentioned previously in this thread... But I'm not sure, I'm not a politician. I'm just a lab tech.
- Status