Restarting HS2a

[snowball]

So if it's unlikely that the tories edited the act, then it could be relatively easy to get built right?

The phase 2a act is still fully in place. The change that may or may not have been made is to the phase 2b bill, which is still a long way from being passed. But the question is whether Labour wants to go ahead with phase 2a, and whether it thinks it can afford it.

 

[Fazaar1889]

The phase 2a act is still fully in place. The change that may or may not have been made is to the phase 2b bill, which is still a long way from being passed. But the question is whether Labour wants to go ahead with phase 2a, and whether it thinks it can afford it.

I see thanks.

Thank you all for your kind answers. I fear too many on here belittle my questions.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think you mean Royal Assent.

Thanks, corrected.

I see thanks.

Thank you all for your kind answers. I fear too many on here belittle my questions.

Never be afraid to ask.

 

[chris2]

HS2 northern leg definitely dead – but new east-to-west links to go ahead

Following news in kings speech re Crewe - Manchester bill, what does this actually mean for HS2 north of Birmingham?

 

[The Planner]

HS2 northern leg definitely dead – but new east-to-west links to go ahead

Following news in kings speech re Crewe - Manchester bill, what does this actually mean for HS2 north of Birmingham?

It means that it isn't dead, but they won't be building it. Read into that what you will.

 

[takno]

HS2 northern leg definitely dead – but new east-to-west links to go ahead

Following news in kings speech re Crewe - Manchester bill, what does this actually mean for HS2 north of Birmingham?

It basically doesn't mean anything except that they aren't planning on suddenly recommitting the spend this year. As long as they take the land sales off the table and don't actively spike the Phase 2a act which is already law, then they have the option to investigate a public-private partnership for it, fully resurrect it, or resurrect it under NR as a capacity improvement when the case looks a bit stronger.

 

[Fazaar1889]

HS2 northern leg definitely dead – but new east-to-west links to go ahead

Following news in kings speech re Crewe - Manchester bill, what does this actually mean for HS2 north of Birmingham?

I didn't watch the speech. But is this article basically saying that because the king didn't mention hs2, therefore it's dead. That's a logical fallacy no?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2024 ==

It basically doesn't mean anything except that they aren't planning on suddenly recommitting the spend this year.

Yeah, that's all that really means...

 

[eldomtom2]

I didn't watch the speech. But is this article basically saying that because the king didn't mention hs2, therefore it's dead. That's a logical fallacy no?

No, Labour explicitly state they do not plan on uncancelling Phase 2 in the background briefing.

 

[Max]

Is it a coincidence that leaving the 2a Act on the statute and commitment to a (rebranded and tweaked) 2b Bill leaves the door open to fill in that Birmingham to Crewe gap later (however it's funded and delivered)? Presumably not.

 

[snowball]

The briefing notes say this:

High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill

● The High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill, will drive economic growth and
productivity by providing powers to construct and operate rail infrastructure that
is key to improving inter-regional and northern rail connectivity.
● We are repurposing the Bill to transform rail connectivity and services across the
north of England.

What does the Bill do?

● We are not reversing the decision to cancel the second Phase of HS2.
Instead, we are repurposing the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill to
provide powers to construct and operate rail projects which improve east to west
connectivity across the north of England.
● Using this Bill to enable delivery of key infrastructure ensures that we can deliver
on our manifesto commitment to improve rail connectivity in the north of
England at pace. The Bill includes powers for important rail infrastructure in
Manchester and the surrounding area, including new stations at Manchester
Piccadilly and Manchester Airport.
● Local leaders in the north of England have been vocal in calling for this Bill
to support ambitions to address the productivity gap in the north of England by
transforming rail connectivity between the region’s economic centres through
transformative infrastructure investment.

They're being a bit free with the facts here, on the support of northern leaders!
The briefing notes continue:

● Carrying this Bill over demonstrates commitment to making progress on rail
connectivity whilst we work with local leaders on an improved overall strategy.
Territorial extent and application
● The Bill will extend and apply GB-wide.

Key facts

● Northern cities are a key opportunity but lack scale to compete globally, with
economies more isolated than expected based on geography. These cities’ total
population is similar to Greater London (9.3 million vs 8.9 million), but their
combined economy c.50 per cent smaller. Joining our northern cities together
Joining our northern cities together is
critical to growth.
● Rail is the most effective, environmentally friendly way to improve transport
capacity between city centres, and journey times between them. The northern rail
network is largely two-track with less electrification, lower frequencies, and slower
speeds than in the south-east, compounded by poor reliability and high levels of
crowding.
● Rail is the most effective, environmentally friendly way to improve transport
capacity between city centres, and journey times between them. Improved rail
connectivity in the north could dramatically improve passengers’ travel
experience by providing faster and more frequent services between the north of
England’s key cities.
● This improved rail connectivity would have a region wide impact, directly serving
the biggest cities in the north of England and improving journey times into the
centre of major towns and cities where most jobs are located. It means increased
accessibility to jobs for workers across the north of England and more skilled
labour available for employers. It will also provide passengers greater flexibility
and choice around how they want to travel and support a greater shift to public
transport.

So no change from the Tory policy as far as I can see.

 

[Krokodil]

So this new bill will get the expensive bit done anyway? Connecting the middle bit later should be pretty straightforward then.

 

[Fazaar1889]

No, Labour explicitly state they do not plan on uncancelling Phase 2 in the background briefing.

Oh OK thanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2024 ==

We are not reversing the decision to cancel the second Phase of HS2.
Instead, we are repurposing the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill to
provide powers to construct and operate rail projects which improve east to west

So is this another iteration of npr but still with a connection between crewe and Manchester? Hmm, when could we get more detail on this?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2024 ==

Is it a coincidence that leaving the 2a Act on the statute and commitment to a (rebranded and tweaked) 2b Bill leaves the door open to fill in that Birmingham to Crewe gap later (however it's funded and delivered)? Presumably not.

That's what I'm thinking...

 

[Backroom_boy]

Is it a coincidence that leaving the 2a Act on the statute and commitment to a (rebranded and tweaked) 2b Bill leaves the door open to fill in that Birmingham to Crewe gap later (however it's funded and delivered)? Presumably not.

Yes but I'd say they were hedging their bets; Labour need to either work out a plan and how to sell it (HS2 brand being a bit toxic) or they might quietly leave it cancelled and blame it all on Sunak

 

[Fazaar1889]

Yes but I'd say they were hedging their bets; Labour need to either work out a plan and how to sell it (HS2 brand being a bit toxic) or they might quietly leave it cancelled and blame it all on Sunak

Stafford bypass?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jul 2024 ==

And market as to improve capacity rather than speed

 

[Topological]

Yes but I'd say they were hedging their bets; Labour need to either work out a plan and how to sell it (HS2 brand being a bit toxic) or they might quietly leave it cancelled and blame it all on Sunak

Blaming Sunak for not having enough money works, but assuming that the Manchester to Manchester Airport* is built, then as noted the gap is the cheaper part is the part that is left.

It seems somewhat remiss to not then join the gap having built the expensive part. That will be Labours decision. I think that they will build the line once it becomes clear how sensible it is. Probably after a few years "lobbying" from the Labour mayors and just before the next mayoral elections.

Either way, having some clarity on how Labour approach the Liverpool to Manchester line is very welcome.

 

[snowball]

So is this another iteration of npr but still with a connection between crewe and Manchester? Hmm, when could we get more detail on this?

As far as I can see they do not propose a connection between Crewe and Manchester. They have merely not mentioned any intention to change the name of the bill, which still has "Crewe to Manchester" in its name, but the Crewe to Rostherne part will be dropped.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Blaming Sunak for not having enough money works, but assuming that the Manchester to Manchester Airport* is built, then as noted the gap is the cheaper part is the part that is left.

It seems somewhat remiss to not then join the gap having built the expensive part. That will be Labours decision. I think that they will build the line once it becomes clear how sensible it is. Probably after a few years "lobbying" from the Labour mayors and just before the next mayoral elections.

Either way, having some clarity on how Labour approach the Liverpool to Manchester line is very welcome.

Remember its early days for Labour here and until they have done a comprehensive spending review and made sure there are no skeletons in the cupboard they would be foolish to commit to anything that will run into billions - yet. I suspect once the likes of Hendy have had to time get their feet under the table and bring stability back to the railway we will see a reassessment over phase 2A.

 

[Fazaar1889]

the Crewe to Rostherne part will be dropped.

Wait, where is the notes does it say this??

 

[Topological]

Wait, where is the notes does it say this??

Point 2 from @snowball post

● Using this Bill to enable delivery of key infrastructure ensures that we can deliver
on our manifesto commitment to improve rail connectivity in the north of
England at pace. The Bill includes powers for important rail infrastructure in
Manchester and the surrounding area, including new stations at Manchester
Piccadilly and Manchester Airport.

The only stations mentioned are Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport, whilst the rail infrastructure is "in Manchester"

Even stretching it to say no new station at Crewe, there is little to say Crewe at all. The HS2 plan does have as much of a new station at Crewe as it has at Manchester Piccadilly.

Rostherne is not mentioned, but is implicit from the planned route out of Manchester.

 

[snowball]

Wait, where is the notes does it say this??

The first two bullet points.

We are not reversing the decision to cancel the second Phase of HS2.
Instead, we are repurposing the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill to
provide powers to construct and operate rail projects which improve east to west
connectivity across the north of England.
● Using this Bill to enable delivery of key infrastructure ensures that we can deliver
on our manifesto commitment to improve rail connectivity in the north of
England at pace. The Bill includes powers for important rail infrastructure in
Manchester and the surrounding area, including new stations at Manchester
Piccadilly and Manchester Airport.

Crewe to Rostherne is not part of any east-west route; Rostherne to Piccadilly via the airport is, but is not much use without, at minimum, the Liverpool to Rostherne bit, not yet published.

 

[Bradford1]

Perhaps the strategy is to wait for the HS2 line from London to Birmingham to become operational. Once open, support for HS2 should increase, making it more of a vote winner to continue the line to Manchester and eventually Leeds. It's not ideal.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Point 2 from @snowball post



The only stations mentioned are Manchester Piccadilly and Manchester Airport, whilst the rail infrastructure is "in Manchester"

Even stretching it to say no new station at Crewe, there is little to say Crewe at all. The HS2 plan does have as much of a new station at Crewe as it has at Manchester Piccadilly.

Rostherne is not mentioned, but is implicit from the planned route out of Manchester.

The first two bullet points.


Crewe to Rostherne is not part of any east-west route; Rostherne to Piccadilly via the airport is, but is not much use without, at minimum, the Liverpool to Rostherne bit, not yet published.

Ooh OK, thanks. Didn't catch that. Ffs. So birmingham to Rostherne is pretty much gone then...

 

[takno]

Ooh OK, thanks. Didn't catch that. Ffs. So birmingham to Rostherne is pretty much gone then...

Not at all. Half of it is already enacted in the HS2 2a Act, and it's unclear from the briefing notes whether the Rostherne to Crewe will actively be removed from the new bill, or included but left without firm plans for implementation.

Furthermore, nobody was planning on putting shovels in the ground on that bit for years anyway, so in practice it's not especially urgent to have the act in place. The Kings Speech has 40ish bills in it, so there isn't a massive amount of time in the first year to spend on stuff that isn't urgent and which the money doesn't currently exist for.

 

[weeklycommuter]

Is it a coincidence that leaving the 2a Act on the statute and commitment to a (rebranded and tweaked) 2b Bill leaves the door open to fill in that Birmingham to Crewe gap later (however it's funded and delivered)? Presumably not.

The 2a Act is still on the statute book but the real issue is the statement in the Labour Party 2024 manifesto "There will be a duty to promote and grow
the use of rail freight." They cannot deliver that without bypassing the Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck. They could just build the part of 2a from Streethay Junction to the West Coast Mainline about 11 miles South of Crewe and join the two 2a tracks to the two fast tracks on the East side with a flat junction but they cannot deliver the manifesto commitment to promote and grow the use of rail freight if they just put all of the HS2 trains North of Birmingham on to the West Coast Mainline at Handsacre Junction. They will also have to deliver some other key infrastructure projects including at Ely North Junction and Haughley Junction in East Anglia.

 

[chris2]

and it's unclear from the briefing notes whether the Rostherne to Crewe will actively be removed from the new bill, or included but left without firm plans for implementation.

Unfortunately, the previous government already stripped out the bit from Crewe -> Rostherne.

In a vote passed by 323 votes to seven, the House of Commons instructed the High Speed Rail (Crewe – Manchester) Bill Select Committee to leave out of ‘provision relating to a railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and a point in the vicinity of the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire’ and to instead to treat the Bill as ’the provision of a high speed railway between a point in the vicinity of the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire and Manchester Piccadilly station’.

From Railway Gazette article on 31/5/24

It seems to me therefore that Labour are simply continuing with this plan rather than trying to reconstruct the bill into its former state that still included the whole 2b route.

This isn’t great news, but it’s not really that this part is being cancelled, rather, it’s not being un-cancelled.

Also, the previous government had an explicit plan to sell off the land needed for 2a and the bit of 2b that wouldn’t be built.

Has anyone caught Labour saying anything today either way on that?

If Labour quietly shelve this plan, it could be said today is a slight improvement. Except that the media are framing the narrative that the HS2 extension to the north is most definitely dead. And narratives do matter here.

All that being said, the Stafford / Colwich capacity issue is not going away. I’m all for the new east-west infrastructure but I don’t see how they can leave HS2 as it is. The links to London are still really important and the point of HS2 was to increase capacity: not only will it fail to do this as things stand, it might actually reduce it. There is no released capacity on the WCML without a bypass of Colwich / shugborough etc and in my view it would be wholly unsatisfactory to wait until HS2 has already made a complete mess of the WCML before something is done. An extension to rejoin the WCML at a point north of Stafford after the line becomes 4 tracks once more is surely the minimum here.

Exactly how far along 2a you need to go is to be debated. But it must be further than Handsacre.

 

[350401]

The 2a Act is still on the statute book but the real issue is the statement in the Labour Party 2024 manifesto "There will be a duty to promote and grow
the use of rail freight." They cannot deliver that without bypassing the Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck. They could just build the part of 2a from Streethay Junction to the West Coast Mainline about 11 miles South of Crewe and join the two 2a tracks to the two fast tracks on the East side with a flat junction but they cannot deliver the manifesto commitment to promote and grow the use of rail freight if they just put all of the HS2 trains North of Birmingham on to the West Coast Mainline at Handsacre Junction. They will also have to deliver some other key infrastructure projects including at Ely North Junction and Haughley Junction in East Anglia.

That is the key. There are two big issues that ministers will need to decide on soon - 1) what Handsacre link is built; fast or slow lines, with out without grade separation 2) Whether to sell off the 2a land or hold on to it for the foreseeable. Once those are decided, the decision of what to do about Colwich can wait a bit, as services via Handsacre won’t start until 2031/2032 at least.

 

[The Planner]

That is the key. There are two big issues that ministers will need to decide on soon - 1) what Handsacre link is built; fast or slow lines, with out without grade separation 2) Whether to sell off the 2a land or hold on to it for the foreseeable. Once those are decided, the decision of what to do about Colwich can wait a bit, as services via Handsacre won’t start until 2031/2032 at least.

It will take that long to develop and build whatever mitigation measure for Colwich anyway. Handsacre will not be a flat junction.

 

[HSTEd]

All that being said, the Stafford / Colwich capacity issue is not going away. I’m all for the new east-west infrastructure but I don’t see how they can leave HS2 as it is. The links to London are still really important and the point of HS2 was to increase capacity: not only will it fail to do this as things stand, it might actually reduce it. There is no released capacity on the WCML without a bypass of Colwich / shugborough etc and in my view it would be wholly unsatisfactory to wait until HS2 has already made a complete mess of the WCML before something is done. An extension to rejoin the WCML at a point north of Stafford after the line becomes 4 tracks once more is surely the minimum here.

Exactly how far along 2a you need to go is to be debated. But it must be further than Handsacre.

There are several options, and I think asking for a new line to a 4-track section north of stafford is probably asking too much.
Given that the government is not interested in resurrecting HS2 Phase 2, the project that is most likely to get funded is the one that costs the minimum to eliminate this bottleneck.

The way I see it the options are:

1. An attempt to build HS2-2A as far as the crossing with the Stone-Colwich line
2. Totally new alignment heading up towards Uttoxeter, then electrification to Stoke - possibly with a chord and electrification towards Derby
3. Attempt to redesign Handsacre, rebuild Rugeley and deconflict Colwich.

1 is probably the easiest from a "planning" view, but is tainted by association with HS2
2 is intruiging to me but probably the most expensive option
3 might work out cheap or might turn into a total debacle (That the railway cannot afford politically), upgrades seem to go either way.

 

[350401]

There are several options, and I think asking for a new line to a 4-track section north of stafford is probably asking too much.
Given that the government is not interested in resurrecting HS2 Phase 2, the project that is most likely to get funded is the one that costs the minimum to eliminate this bottleneck.

The way I see it the options are:

1. An attempt to build HS2-2A as far as the crossing with the Stone-Colwich line
2. Totally new alignment heading up towards Uttoxeter, then electrification to Stoke - possibly with a chord and electrification towards Derby
3. Attempt to redesign Handsacre, rebuild Rugeley and deconflict Colwich.

1 is probably the easiest from a "planning" view, but is tainted by association with HS2
3 is intruiging to me but probably the most expensive option
2 might work out cheap or might turn into a total debacle (That the railway cannot afford politically), upgrades seem to go either way.

1 is the most practical option IMHO. The legislation is there and it would only require a Transport and Works Act order to create a junction where the lines cross. It won’t get called HS2 but it will do pretty much the same thing. It could even be relatively high speed (250-300kph).

 

[The Planner]

There are several options, and I think asking for a new line to a 4-track section north of stafford is probably asking too much.
Given that the government is not interested in resurrecting HS2 Phase 2, the project that is most likely to get funded is the one that costs the minimum to eliminate this bottleneck.

The way I see it the options are:

1. An attempt to build HS2-2A as far as the crossing with the Stone-Colwich line
2. Totally new alignment heading up towards Uttoxeter, then electrification to Stoke - possibly with a chord and electrification towards Derby
3. Attempt to redesign Handsacre, rebuild Rugeley and deconflict Colwich.

1 is probably the easiest from a "planning" view, but is tainted by association with HS2
3 is intruiging to me but probably the most expensive option
2 might work out cheap or might turn into a total debacle (That the railway cannot afford politically), upgrades seem to go either way.

2 is bonkers.