Restarting HS2a

[snowball]

Only there's little point in building extra schools as where they are needed due to development the developer funds them and most other places are finding that the number of children is raking so over the next 20 years there'll be a need for fewer and fewer school places.

But there are a great many school buildings in urgent need of repair or replacement.

 

[Nottingham59]

There will be more HS2 services than that, they aren't opening that without flooding it.

How will these extra HS2 services get through Colwich? They must surely keep at least two WCML passenger services (1 slow, 1 fast to Chester), and some freight. How many more HS2 services do you think will be possible, with just Phase 1 open? Without risking reliability?

It. will. not. be. a. flat. junction.

Easiest would be to build a 2km viaduct around the outside of the curve at Baldwin's gate to carry the Up Fast over the spur from the HS2 alignment.


If that won't work, the the next place you could put a grade separated junction onto the fasts is at Madeley, which is 4km further along the route of 2a, including the 1km long Whitmore tunnel.



This would require building a 1km viaduct to take the southbound south from the Up Fast up to the HS2 alignment; 1km of new trackbed to slew the slows across; a new 1km viaduct to take the northbound spur over the WCML and under the HS2 alignment. Luckily the Madeley Viaduct on the HS2 alignment is 18m above the WCML, giving plenty of clearance.



But at this rate, it would be better to continue 2a all the way to Crewe. I don't see anyone paying for that.

 

[AndrewE]

But at this rate, it would be better to continue 2a all the way to Crewe. I don't see anyone paying for that.

Why not? Everywhere else in the developed world is improving their railways, and this is part of a much-needed capacity upgrade. Whether you want the green/decarbonising agenda to go ahead, or just to reduce lorry congestion on motorways, this is quite an important part of it.

 

[Nottingham59]

Why not?

Because, as far as I can tell, the full phase 2a won't buy any more capacity in the short term than just building 2a to Hixon. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I haven't seen any analysis yet that shows otherwise.

We're told there's no capacity to take more trains through Wilmslow to Manchester. 2a won't help that. There's limited capacity to take more paths through the two-track sections between Crewe and Weaver juntion, though ETCS signalling will help a bit.

2a will not be effectively utilised without a tunnel under Crewe, or a Crewe bypass line, or a complete rebuilding of Crewe to avoid the flat crossing at the North end of Crewe station where the lines from Chester, Weaver and Manchester all converge. And even then it will need a new line or lines all the way to central Manchester to deliver its full potential.

I note the HS2 Phase 2a Strategic Outline Business Case (Nov 2015) assumes that 2a will run the same HS2 timetable as phase 1. So even HS2 can't find more paths for their trains with 2a. The only economic benefits claimed for 2a are from time savings from speeding up journeys, and from releasing freight capacity between the West Midlands and Crewe.

And I can't see how those benefits will cut it politically in the current climate.

 

[Manutd1999]

Because, as far as I can tell, the full phase 2a won't buy any more capacity in the short term than just building 2a to Hixon. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I haven't seen any analysis yet that shows otherwise.

We're told there's no capacity to take more trains through Wilmslow to Manchester. 2a won't help that. There's limited capacity to take more paths through the two-track sections between Crewe and Weaver juntion, though ETCS signalling will help a bit.

2a will not be effectively utilised without a tunnel under Crewe, or a Crewe bypass line, or a complete rebuilding of Crewe to avoid the flat crossing at the North end of Crewe station where the lines from Chester, Weaver and Manchester all converge. And even then it will need a new line or lines all the way to central Manchester to deliver its full potential.

I note the HS2 Phase 2a Strategic Outline Business Case (Nov 2015) assumes that 2a will run the same HS2 timetable as phase 1. So even HS2 can't find more paths for their trains with 2a. The only economic benefits claimed for 2a are from time savings from speeding up journeys, and from releasing freight capacity between the West Midlands and Crewe.

And I can't see how those benefits will cut it politically in the current climate.

I wonder which is better/cheaper:

1) Building 2a to Hixon (for trains towards Manchester) + Handsacre Junction (to allow other HS2 trains to join the fast lines towards Crewe).

2) Building 2a to Hixon + a new chord from around Stone to the WCML (so all HS2 services go via Hixon), then scrapping Handsacre altogether?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The thread title talks of re-starting HS2a, but has any part of HS2a ever been physically started in the first place?

 

[Nottingham59]

I wonder which is better/cheaper:

1) Building 2a to Hixon (for trains towards Manchester) + Handsacre Junction (to allow other HS2 trains to join the fast lines towards Crewe).

2) Building 2a to Hixon + a new chord from around Stone to the WCML (so all HS2 services go via Hixon), then scrapping Handsacre altogether?

I really don't know, but they need to make a decision about Handsacre soon!

My preference would be to stick to the original plans as much as possible, to keep open the possibity of 360kph running all the way to Manchester - eventually. So keep Handsacre, with a short chord at Hixon (with passive provision only for future grade separation)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2024 ==

The thread title talks of re-starting HS2a, but has ever HS2a ever physically started in the first place?

I don't think so, but they have spent £200m buying property

£600m of public money spent buying up property in north of England for HS2

Homes and land purchased to make way for line that now appears to be in doubt, as Rishi Sunak refuses to commit to it

www.theguardian.com

So far, almost £423m has been spent buying up 424 properties on the western leg from Birmingham to Manchester, despite no spades yet being in the ground on that now-imperilled section.

Of that, £219m has been spent on the Birmingham to Crewe section (phase 2a) and £204m on Crewe to Manchester (phase 2b west), the Guardian has learned. Among those to sell up include the comedian John Bishop, who reportedly sold his mansion in the Cheshire village of Whatcroft for £6.8m in 2019.

 

[mkjcal]

That would be good, assuming electrification. I reckon it would cut 15 minutes off the time from London to Derby and to Sheffield, and would get HS2 trains to Yorkshire. And the platforms at Derby and (I think) Sheffield could be extended to 400m, which would double capacity at little cost.

EDIT: And it would also release much-needed capacity on the MML

And make much better use of HS2.

 

[350401]

The thread title talks of re-starting HS2a, but has ever HS2a ever physically started in the first place?

Yes the ground investigation works was well underway, with a lot of bore holes being drilled. Additionally, the contracts for the pre construction works and for the main works design contract were literally about to be to let.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2024 ==

I wonder which is better/cheaper:

1) Building 2a to Hixon (for trains towards Manchester) + Handsacre Junction (to allow other HS2 trains to join the fast lines towards Crewe).

2) Building 2a to Hixon + a new chord from around Stone to the WCML (so all HS2 services go via Hixon), then scrapping Handsacre altogether?

Whatever is done, realistically needs to be within the powers of the existing 2a Act, or be able to be done with a Transport and Works Order, otherwise it will take a very long time. For this reason, I’m quite in favour of the Baldwins Gate option, building 2a to the WCML south of Crewe, and not building the expensive Crewe tunnel.

A fair amount of benefit could also be realised by adding 400m platforms to Piccadilly, as discussed in an older thread, and using SDO at the intermediate stations. This would give the benefit of 400m trains and journey time savings, whilst avoiding the cost of 2b.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The thread title talks of re-starting HS2a, but has ever HS2a ever physically started in the first place?

Yes, in terms of buying land, erecting fencing, moving utilities and doing ground surveys - you can see some of the work on Google Maps.
As it had parliamentary approval and government go-ahead, there was a lot of detailed design and planning work done, with some enabling contracts let.
Network Rail had HS2-related work at Crewe in hand and there is a now-empty Balfour Beatty work site at Crewe (next to the Manchester junction).
No major civils contracts were let, although perversely the one railway contract to be let for Phase 1, for switches and crossings, was also scoped to include Phase 2a.
The aim was for all railway contracts to cover Phase 1 and 2a, but apart from this none have been let yet.

BBC R4 has just had Andy Burnham and Lord Berkeley on, discussing the National Audit Office report* that HS2 trains will be "slower than now" to Manchester.
Burnham wants his/Andy Street's lower cost line built, and is hopeful of the new government progressing this idea.
Berkeley (a long-time opponent of the HS2 design and project) wants the trains reconfigured and Chris Gibb's plan adopted (ie Pendolinos on HS2) before any new line is built.
But really, no-one has a clue how to get out of the current abject state of the project.
The government is not ready to say anything positive about HS2, until it has reviewed all the costs and its other priorities.

Reading Modern Railways (Aug), it says the old DfT/Treasury had approved the construction of the OOC-Euston tunnels, but election purdah meant it could not be announced.
The new government will take its time to review all HS2 work before making a decision.

*

HS2: update following cancellation of Phase 2 - NAO report

Government must reset the HS2 programme successfully to avoid repeating past failures and to maximise value for money.

www.nao.org.uk

Key Facts:
October 2023 the government announced decisions on the High Speed Two (HS2) programme to:
• complete Phase 1 (London to Birmingham);
• cancel the rest of the railway (Phase 2); and
• revise how it will fund and deliver the London terminus station at Euston
Between 2029 and 2033 when the Department for Transport (DfT) expects Phase 1 of the programme to start running between Birmingham and Old Oak Common, as the interim London terminus. DfT has not yet set a revised date for when it expects HS2 services to run from London Euston
£30.1 billion (2019 prices) DfT’s and High Speed Two Limited’s (HS2 Ltd’s) total spend on the programme as at the end of March 2024 (£27.8 billion on Phase 1)
£44.6 billion (2019 prices) current funding envelope for Phase 1, which both HS2 Ltd and DfT estimate will not be sufficient
£45 billion to £54 billion (2019 prices) DfT’s range for the estimated total cost to complete Phase 1 (prior to the October 2023 decisions). HS2 Ltd’s estimate is £49 billion to £57 billion (2019 prices)
£592 million programme spend on land and property along the Phase 2 route as at the end of March 2024, that is no longer needed for HS2
179 parcels of agricultural land, across 63 farms, that HS2 Ltd will potentially dispose of in its first phase of disposals
Up to £100 million (2024 prices) HS2 Ltd’s estimate of the cost of remediation to close down sites where early works had already begun on Phase 2.

Edit:
There's this summary on page 21 of HS2 Ltd spend on land/property purchases (to March 2024):

Phase 1: £3075 million, 700 properties, land 59 sq km
Phase 2 (west and east): £592m 1001 properties, land 17 sq km
Of which Phase 2a was £224m, 251 properties, and all 17 sq km of land
Phase 2b west (ie Crewe-Manchester) was £205m, 195 properties, no land
Phase 2b east (ie Water Orton-Leeds) was £164m, 555 properties, no land

So that's £369m spent on property on Phase 2b (west and east) before any parliamentary approval for the project.
On the west side, that probably includes land for Piccadilly HS2 station (the BT/old post office building, I think).
What can they have possibly bought on the eastern leg for £164 million, when the route was not even properly defined?

 

[mkjcal]

Because, as far as I can tell, the full phase 2a won't buy any more capacity in the short term than just building 2a to Hixon. I'd love to be proved wrong, but I haven't seen any analysis yet that shows otherwise.

We're told there's no capacity to take more trains through Wilmslow to Manchester. 2a won't help that. There's limited capacity to take more paths through the two-track sections between Crewe and Weaver juntion, though ETCS signalling will help a bit.

2a will not be effectively utilised without a tunnel under Crewe, or a Crewe bypass line, or a complete rebuilding of Crewe to avoid the flat crossing at the North end of Crewe station where the lines from Chester, Weaver and Manchester all converge. And even then it will need a new line or lines all the way to central Manchester to deliver its full potential.

I note the HS2 Phase 2a Strategic Outline Business Case (Nov 2015) assumes that 2a will run the same HS2 timetable as phase 1. So even HS2 can't find more paths for their trains with 2a. The only economic benefits claimed for 2a are from time savings from speeding up journeys, and from releasing freight capacity between the West Midlands and Crewe.

And I can't see how those benefits will cut it politically in the current climate.

The current Wilmslow Line timetable is a bit of a mash, probably extra paths could be found? I assume any extension to Crewe (HS2 Phase 2a) would include some Crewe bypass for HS2, otherwise what’s the point? Extending, HS2 to Crewe makes a 2tph Curzon St. to Manchester service MUCH more attractive (and Liverpool/Glasgow). But, the elephant in the room is capacity IN Manchester. Would making the service to Manchester Airport a shuttle (say from Manchester Victoria) rather than sending direct trains there, alleviate the problem? Manchester is where most people want to get to, not its airport…

 

[The Planner]

Yes the ground investigation works was well underway, with a lot of bore holes being drilled. Additionally, the contracts for the pre construction works and for the main works design contract were literally about to be to let.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2024 ==


Whatever is done, realistically needs to be within the powers of the existing 2a Act, or be able to be done with a Transport and Works Order, otherwise it will take a very long time. For this reason, I’m quite in favour of the Baldwins Gate option, building 2a to the WCML south of Crewe, and not building the expensive Crewe tunnel.

Crewe tunnel was a 2B deliverable.

A fair amount of benefit could also be realised by adding 400m platforms to Piccadilly, as discussed in an older thread, and using SDO at the intermediate stations. This would give the benefit of 400m trains and journey time savings, whilst avoiding the cost of 2b.

That is a tad difficult without redesigning Piccadilly throat.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think so, but they have spent £200m buying property

Would that be counted as an asset that can be sold?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Jul 2024 ==

Yes the ground investigation works was well underway, with a lot of bore holes being drilled. Additionally, the contracts for the pre construction works and for the main works design contract were literally about to be to let.

But at the time of cancellation, had anything concerning the main works design contract legally been signed, sealed and delivered. I was of the opinion that no contracts has been actually let.

 

[HSTEd]

BBC R4 has just had Andy Burnham and Lord Berkeley on, discussing the National Audit Office report* that HS2 trains will be "slower than now" to Manchester.
Burnham wants his/Andy Street's lower cost line built, and is hopeful of the new government progressing this idea.

Does the top speed of the trains really matter much?
There is no chance at all that the trains are going to be slower (in terms of travel time) between Manchester and London than today.
I worry politicians are trying to mislead the public about journey times by referring to train speeds in terms of "slower" and "faster"

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

But at the time of cancellation, had anything concerning the main works design contract legally been signed, sealed and delivered. I was of the opinion that no contracts has been actually let.

No main contracts were let.
But there were several enabling contracts signed for land purchase, clearing, protection and investigation.
Utilities were being diverted and works compounds set up for the advance works.
Design work was in progress, but no construction work had started.

 

[Fazaar1889]

x.com

x.com

Louise Haigh: The Tories recklessly mismanaged HS2 and allowed the costs to spiral out of control. This report lays bare the sheer scale of Conservative incompetence.
We won’t make the same mistakes. We’re assessing the books and will set out next steps in due course.

Sunak scrapping HS2 will cost £100m and take up to three years, NAO warns

The National Audit Office (NAO) laid bare the cost of Mr Sunak’s decision to scrap phase 2 of the high-speed rail plan, first revealed by The Independent last September

www.independent.co.uk

It's genuinely silly now. They know. They fully well know we need phase 2a. For what genuine reason are they delaying it? It can't be budget constraints, it's funded through a loan...

Just build it. Please. Just build it.

 

[HSTEd]

It's genuinely silly now. They know. They fully well know we need phase 2a. For what genuine reason are they delaying it? It can't be budget constraints, it's funded through a loan...

Just build it. Please. Just build it.

Because the HS2 project has gone very badly and the politicians no longer believe it can deliver what it promises for the costs it claims.
They just want the project to go away and for the spending to stop.

£100m is about ~1.5% of the cost of building the line, it's a negligible sum in the scheme of things.
They might be persuadable that something needs to be built, but they are not going to approve the £4-7bn HS2 would admit to in 2022 to do it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's genuinely silly now. They know. They fully well know we need phase 2a. For what genuine reason are they delaying it? It can't be budget constraints, it's funded through a loan...

Just build it. Please. Just build it.

I am sure that comments such as this will be made by those flying the flag for defence spending improvements, NHS increased budget spending, education budget large increases, just to name three.

 

[JamesT]

It's genuinely silly now. They know. They fully well know we need phase 2a. For what genuine reason are they delaying it? It can't be budget constraints, it's funded through a loan...

Just build it. Please. Just build it.

A loan is still a budget constraint. Labour were elected on a commitment to fiscal prudence, although borrowing to invest is considered in a favourable light, the overall level of borrowing (and the interest payments on it) will be a concern for the Treasury.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Taking over from Labour in 2010, the Coalition paused all major infrastructure projects until their finances had been analysed.
It took about 6 months before the big projects were gradually (re-) authorised - notably Crossrail and the GW and NW electrification projects.
Crossrail to Maidenhead got the first nod, then GW on to Newbury/Oxford, then on to Bristol/Cardiff/Swansea (culled before completion, of course).
The NW project eventually had 5 phases approved one-by-one, the last of which (to Stalybridge) is just being completed.
I'd expect a similar timescale this time for rail project approval, and not all of them will get the go-ahead.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Taking over from Labour in 2010, the Coalition paused all major infrastructure projects until their finances had been analysed.
It took about 6 months before the big projects were gradually (re-) authorised - notably Crossrail and the GW and NW electrification projects.
Crossrail to Maidenhead got the first nod, then GW on to Newbury/Oxford, then on to Bristol/Cardiff/Swansea (culled before completion, of course).
The NW project eventually had 5 phases approved one-by-one, the last of which (to Stalybridge) is just being completed.
I'd expect a similar timescale this time for rail project approval, and not all of them will get the go-ahead.

Crossrail 2?? O_O

I kid I kid. 6 months sounds reasonable. The new Secretary of transport does seem to care about HS2. I suspect this new audit will be an eye opener and a topic of many discussions/meetings.

 

[AndrewE]

What worries me is the statement near the end of the Indie article

HS2’s first phase of disposals will focus on 179 plots of agricultural land across 63 farms which it bought to complete the northern leg.

A spokesperson for HS2 Ltd said: “This is a project of unprecedented scale and complexity, and the cancellation of phase 2 has increased our cost challenges.

which is extremely short-sighted, and just part of the previous govt's salting-the-earth policy. Selling land already acquired can't be a very big priority, and hopefully the new masters will tell them to stop that charade forthwith.

 

[The Ham]

That reply does not answer the third of the raised queries, that of prisons. I specifically made mention of prisons, as one of the Labour Party statements in the first few days of being in office was the matter of early prisoner release to reduce the pressure caused by the size of the prison population.

Prisons are needed, however at around £300 million for 1,700 spaces you could double the prison capacity for £17bn and so even £9bn (+50% of prison capacity) would be excessive, especially given that you'd still have the issue of the costs of running them.

But there are a great many school buildings in urgent need of repair or replacement.

Which is why I said extra schools and not new schools. However, over time you can find the replacement of some of the schools by selling off school sites which are no longer needed (bearing in mind that it's there's new developments which increase the overall population they will be fundimg school places).

 

[TomTankEngine]

What worries me is the statement near the end of the Indie article

which is extremely short-sighted, and just part of the previous govt's salting-the-earth policy. Selling land already acquired can't be a very big priority, and hopefully the new masters will tell them to stop that charade forthwith.

Exactly, they are renting the land back currently anr making some money, why wouldn't the current government just keep this land for the next few centuries if it's identified as a good route for a railway for future generations?

Why are we so against the government owning anything in this country?

 

[InTheEastMids]

What worries me is the statement near the end of the Indie article

which is extremely short-sighted, and just part of the previous govt's salting-the-earth policy. Selling land already acquired can't be a very big priority, and hopefully the new masters will tell them to stop that charade forthwith.

This disposal probably can be paused/ stopped by a ministerial instruction and, given the current situation, the Secretary of State would be colossally stupid to not do this whilst she evaluates the alternative options

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which is why I said extra schools and not new schools. However, over time you can find the replacement of some of the schools by selling off school sites which are no longer needed (bearing in mind that it's there's new developments which increase the overall population they will be fundimg school places).

My original posting was referring to new schools.

That matter of selling off school sites was blamed quite some years ago for the lack of outdoor sports grounds for schoolchildren.

 

[The Ham]

My original posting was referring to new schools.

That matter of selling off school sites was blamed quite some years ago for the lack of outdoor sports grounds for schoolchildren.

The issue was the selling of school playing fields so there was then no space for the pupils to use.

Whilst the selling of a whole site would include the playing fields they would then be replaced at the new school site and so there would still be playing fields for the pupils.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What worries me is the statement near the end of the Indie article
which is extremely short-sighted, and just part of the previous govt's salting-the-earth policy. Selling land already acquired can't be a very big priority, and hopefully the new masters will tell them to stop that charade forthwith.

I think that statement reflects the instructions HS2 Ltd were given by the last government, as the report was completed before the change of government.
No land has yet been sold off.
I would expect the Labour DfT to review the sale process very carefully before pressing ahead with it.

Elsewhere in the report, some HS2 Phase 1 land, needed for the construction process, will soon be offered back as always planned.
That will be around, for instance, the Colne Valley Viaduct nearing completion and the two tunnels already completed, which no longer need the footprint originally taken.

 

[snowball]

Burnham has just been on Newsnight on BBC2. I think it was the first item on the programme but I only caught the end of the item.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Burnham has just been on Newsnight on BBC2. I think it was the first item on the programme but I only caught the end of the item.

Not a very edifying debate, just same-old same-old sound bites from him and Houchen, with sound problems as Burnham was remote.
I think Burnham is expecting a grown-up review of how to move on with HS2, but those mayors at the end of the day are more interested in NPR.
The next bad news will be HS2 Ltd's estimates of cost to completion of Phase 1, which will eat into any Phase 2 options.