Restarting HS2a

[350401]

as

The previous govt allegedly had a team working on dealing with the consequences of a truncated HS2 but thats all gobe quiet but one has to hope that with DfT and HS2 not exactly short staffed there is development of a strategy going on in the background.

There is a team working on it, but don’t expect to hear anything before late spring or early summer. The first priority will be drawing up the new proposed train service specification, given the one in the current business case has been torn apart by events. Then it’s a case of working out what infrastructure is needed to support that.

 

[stevieinselby]

What time factor would be required to perform that task?

The plan had always been to have trains splitting and joining en route so that the new sections of route could be served by 400m trains, splitting off to 200m trains for the sections continuing onto the classic lines, so it's definitely a viable proposition. Are you concerned about splitting and joining in general, or specifically platform capacity at Crewe?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The plan had always been to have trains splitting and joining en route so that the new sections of route could be served by 400m trains, splitting off to 200m trains for the sections continuing onto the classic lines, so it's definitely a viable proposition. Are you concerned about splitting and joining in general, or specifically platform capacity at Crewe?

Either Crewe or Preston which are large West Coast railway stations.

 

[cle]

Crewe would definitely have the platforms for it, it has that capacity today and more could be added.

Preston would too (less would split there - and you'd have less Pendos etc in their place) - and platforms are being added also (in theory)

 

[The Planner]

Crewe would definitely have the platforms for it, it has that capacity today and more could be added.

Preston would too (less would split there - and you'd have less Pendos etc in their place) - and platforms are being added also (in theory)

Theory is the operative word for Preston. Nothing is decided.

 

[Nottingham59]

There is a team working on it, but don’t expect to hear anything before late spring or early summer. The first priority will be drawing up the new proposed train service specification, given the one in the current business case has been torn apart by events. Then it’s a case of working out what infrastructure is needed to support that.

Let's hope the TSS is not artificially limited and thus miss the potential connectivity and economic benefits that HS2 will bring.

Given HS2 is limited to 10tph out of Euston, then I would propose a TSS as:

• 2 tph to Manchester via Stoke
• 4 tph to Curzon Street (two going forward to Manchester, one going forward to Liverpool, and one to Preston or Scotland)
• 1 tph to Liverpool / Wilmslow-Manchester, splitting at Crewe
• 1 tph to Edinburgh, calling at Preston (400m). Target timing 3h45m to Old Oak Common from Waverley.
• 1 tph to Glasgow / Edinburgh (splitting at Carlisle)
• 1 tph to Liverpool / and Wigan-Preston (splitting at Warrington BQ). Or to Victoria-Rochdale using Lumo's path.

Note this gives 4tph to Manchester (two direct, two via Curzon St), using existing paths through south Manchester.


Infrastructure needed to support this is:

1. 400m platforms at Crewe, Warrington, Preston, Carlisle.
2. Continue 2a to Hixon to join the Colwich-Stone line. If that were not acceptable politically, then a cheaper 5km 125mph chord from the WCML slows near Rugeley to Hixon would grade-separate Colwich instead.
3. Convert Hadfield/Glossop/Rose Hill/Marple to Metrolink tram-train to remove those services from Piccadilly main shed.
4. Build 3 x 400m platforms at Manchester Piccadilly on the East side of the main station (platforms 1, 0, -1). Needed to accommodate passenger growth.

[EDIT: It's 5tph to Manchester, including the via Wilmslow, and 6tph if the Warrington splitter is sent to Victoria]

 

[Tester]

What time factor would be required to perform that task?

Go to Morioka, Japan, and watch it happen day in, day out!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Go to Morioka, Japan, and watch it happen day in, day out!

What procedures are followed in Japan would not automatically be followed in the UK and I am sure that the UKrail unions would be examining such a proposal in some depth.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I think this is still the most recent thread on anything highly speculative about HS2 Phase 2, and I haven't seen this discussed elsewhere.

The below seems to be a widely syndicated story sourced from PA Media.

MSN

Ministers looking at ‘pipeline of schemes’ to run HS2 north of Birmingham​

[Ruth Cadbury asked] “The last government panicked and mothballed much of the project over cost overruns on phase one, thus incurring yet further costs. And I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to get a grip on the phase one cost overruns.

“But what I want to know is does the Government plan to deliver a rail solution linking phase one north of Birmingham to the rest of the country, and thus delivering the Government’s vision to drive growth for the whole country.”

Ms Alexander replied: “I’m pleased that she raises the question of the mess that we inherited from the Conservative government on HS2 and rail connectivity in the north. When we entered government in July we did find that ragtag collection of half-baked, unfunded spending commitments for rail schemes up and down the country.”

She added: “We have started the hard work of identifying a realistic pipeline of schemes that is affordable and will deliver better connectivity in partnership with local leaders.”

Obviously these kinds of words are very easy to say, but it's the right sort of mood music when taken together with the lack of land sales on 2a, and the comments from HS2 leadership to Parliament before Christmas. i.e. if they can get HS2 back under control, then things might start to happen when the completion of Phase 1 is within site.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Obviously these kinds of words are very easy to say, but it's the right sort of mood music when taken together with the lack of land sales on 2a, and the comments from HS2 leadership to Parliament before Christmas. i.e. if they can get HS2 back under control, then things might start to happen when the completion of Phase 1 is within site.

The political-type statement of "We have started the hard work of identifying a realistic pipeline of schemes that is affordale....." says much whilst meaning nothing.

This week, world-wide economic forecasters said the aspirations of the new Government were under threat by global economic factors. Let us wait and see what the economy is like by the end of the first year term of the new Government.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

The political-type statement of "We have started the hard work of identifying a realistic pipeline of schemes that is affordale....." says much whilst meaning nothing.

Preparing to commence to begin.

 

[daodao]

It would remove planning blight if the proposed section of HS2 north of Crewe to Manchester, including the prohibitively expensive tunnel from Hale Barns to Piccadilly, is definitively cancelled, and government clarity on this would be widely appreciated. While there may be some benefit in reviving HS2 phase 2a as far as Crewe in some form, the proposed HS2 line north of Crewe is very poor value for money.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

the proposed HS2 line north of Crewe is very poor value for money.

Running 400m trains from the 3rd biggest city to the 2nd and 1st, as well as freeing paths on Piccadilly throat (which could allow for more services on local routes) is poor value? If it's not done now it'll be built eventually for even more money.

 

[Grimsby town]

It would remove planning blight if the proposed section of HS2 north of Crewe to Manchester, including the prohibitively expensive tunnel from Hale Barns to Piccadilly, is definitively cancelled, and government clarity on this would be widely appreciated. While there may be some benefit in reviving HS2 phase 2a as far as Crewe in some form, the proposed HS2 line north of Crewe is very poor value for money.

Meaning that the Stockport bottleneck remains a huge limitation on Manchester rail capacity. Phase 2a is certainly the priority but 2b is needed to free up capacity in Manchester and provide improved journey times between Manchester and Birmingham which is up there with some of the worst journeys in the UK between major cities. No matter what, billions will be needed to provide capacity on the Stockport corridor.

 

[daodao]

Running 400m trains from the 3rd biggest city to the 2nd and 1st, as well as freeing paths on Piccadilly throat (which could allow for more services on local routes) is poor value? If it's not done now it'll be built eventually for even more money.

It would be poor value for money because it would be incredibly expensive and isn't worth the cost.

Meaning that the Stockport bottleneck remains a huge limitation on Manchester rail capacity. Phase 2a is certainly the priority but 2b is needed to free up capacity in Manchester and provide improved journey times between Manchester and Birmingham which is up there with some of the worst journeys in the UK between major cities. No matter what, billions will be needed to provide capacity on the Stockport corridor.

In the light of the state of the UK economy, which has deteriorated significantly in the last 6 months, those billions will not be available for the foreseeable future. It will have to be make do and mend for public transport in and to/from Greater Manchester for many years to come - that doesn't mean that cheaper local schemes with higher BCRs, like some Metrolink expansion proposals, shouldn't be progressed.

 

[Grimsby town]

It would be poor value for money because it would be incredibly expensive and isn't worth the cost.


In the light of the state of the UK economy, which has deteriorated significantly in the last 6 months, those billions will not be available for the foreseeable future. It will have to be make do and mend for public transport in and to/from Greater Manchester for many years to come - that doesn't mean that cheaper local schemes with higher BCRs, like some Metrolink expansion proposals, shouldn't be progressed.

It's not going to be built within the next 6 months so the current financial position is largely irrelevant. Phase 2a might start at the end of this parliament as resources from Phase 1 are freed up. Phase 2b won't even be built during this parliament but the country needs a long term plan for rail infrastructure. We're not going to solve economic issues as a country by having local rail services operate hourly in our major cities or rail between our 2nd/3rd largest cities having only being slightly quicker than car for a journey between thr respective centres.

Edit:
In fact the lack of announcement on infrastructure investment might be causing some of the financial issues. Labour has increased taxes on business but it hasn't yet said what they are getting in return. A long term plan for infrastructure investment would likely improve confidence.

 

[daodao]

We're not going to solve economic issues as a country by having local rail services operate hourly in our major cities or rail between our 2nd/3rd largest cities having only being slightly quicker than car for a journey between their respective centres.

There's plenty of scope to increase local rail services to half hourly in and around English provincial cities/conurbations using existing infrastructure; in several instances services have been reduced to hourly on such routes in the last 5 years.

As for the Manchester-Birmingham service, 2 tph using 4-coach diesel Voyagers is currently deemed adequate for the service; greater capacity and speed could easily be achieved by running 8-coach electric multiple unit trains half hourly on existing lines, much sooner and at far less cost than building HS2 phase 2.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Running 400m trains from the 3rd biggest city to the 2nd and 1st, as well as freeing paths on Piccadilly throat (which could allow for more services on local routes) is poor value? If it's not done now it'll be built eventually for even more money.

In which direction are you referring to. 3rd city to the 2nd and 1st translates as Manchester to Birmingham and London to my way of understanding.

 

[Grimsby town]

There's plenty of scope to increase local rail services to half hourly in and around English provincial cities/conurbations using existing infrastructure; in several instances services have been reduced to hourly on such routes in the last 5 years.

As for the Manchester-Birmingham service, 2 tph using 4-coach diesel Voyagers is currently deemed adequate for the service; greater capacity and speed could easily be achieved by running 8-coach electric multiple unit trains half hourly on existing lines, much sooner and at far less cost than building HS2 phase 2.

So why aren't those services running now or at least before covid? An additional 3 services per hour were promised by Nothern through the Stockport corridor and none of them ever appeared Why are network rail saying the Stockport corridor is full.

I agree more rollingstock would be a good start but it's the short term fix . More and better infrastructure is the long term fix. The two aren't mutually exclusive and CrossCountry is getting more rollingstock this year so clearly the current capacity isnt deemed adequate. Electric units aren't going to improve journey times much over Voyagers.

 

[The Planner]

As for the Manchester-Birmingham service, 2 tph using 4-coach diesel Voyagers is currently deemed adequate for the service; greater capacity and speed could easily be achieved by running 8-coach electric multiple unit trains half hourly on existing lines, much sooner and at far less cost than building HS2 phase 2.

Stops any increase for local stations north of Stoke etc. The journey time is unlikely to decrease significantly if you stuck 8 car 350s on the route either.

 

[SynthD]

It would remove planning blight if the proposed section of HS2 north of Crewe to Manchester, including the prohibitively expensive tunnel from Hale Barns to Piccadilly, is definitively cancelled

What is planning blight? People affected by the proposed route and tunnel can't conflict with the tunnel because it's a safeguarded route? Almost the entire above ground route is countryside, so I'm interested in where the affected people are.

In the light of the state of the UK economy, which has deteriorated significantly in the last 6 months, those billions will not be available for the foreseeable future.

The economy hasn't deteriorated. The funding for HS2 is HS2 debt.

 

[cle]

In which direction are you referring to. 3rd city to the 2nd and 1st translates as Manchester to Birmingham and London to my way of understanding.

Does it matter? No need to pick city-sectarian fights. They are clearly the two busiest routes out of Euston. But yes this was framed as a 2a and ex-Manchester perspective. Unless it was one of those gags.

Overall, getting to Crewe would be ideal. Cuts journey times further for all services (critically re flight goals, for Scottish routes) - but it's fair to Liverpool, helps North Wales, all of the gripes. Plus a big station with platforms to split and spare, and room to expand - and plenty of connections.

However, it really isn't helpful for the Stockport squeeze. Stoke and Macclesfield will want a Handsacre service - so that is one of today's paths. But the Euston - MKC - Manchester will take up another. So we really only have the Wilmslow Pendo to give to HS2.

Next we can consider the Birmingham-Manchester service. 2tph via Stoke, so again those paths are there - and don't allow a Curzon St - Crewe - MCR which would be much quicker. So we can cut one of those, fine.

So we end up with much the same frequency - and way less consistent:
1tph Manchester traditional (via MKC, Stoke)
1tph Manchester HS2 (via Stoke)
1tph Manchester HS2 faster (Crewe)

1tph Brum-Mcr (as today)
1tph Brum-Mcr (HS2 / via Crewe)

options for growth being:
> extend the Manchester-Stoke stopper to Curzon St via Handsacre (fine, but slow - adds a Macc/Stoke Brum frequency back)
> cut local services in the Manchester area to enable additional HS2 < -- what goes and how is it compensated?
> Could a rebuild at Stockport with southern facing bays/new platforms enable a few more local starters? With forced changes onto longer (distance and carriages) services across the viaduct
> Stafford isn't really mentioned but via Handsacre most likely.
> Levenshulme and Heaton Chapel may need some consideration if locals are cut
> Could other services (the Cardiff) be evaluated? Anything under 6 cars and diesel is worth reviewing.

Liverpool likely has capacity for growth, at least, ie keep the Brum trundles but also some Curzon St service via HS2 and Crewe.

 

[HSTEd]

I can't see a scenario where the increase in costs associated with running all these extra "local" trains is going to be smaller than the increase in revenue.

Without Phase 2B there can be no step change in capacity provided on the London-Manchester or other corridors in the North West. So you can't drive drastically higher revenue or take advantage of various efficiencies available with a full new route.

Consequently, these proposals do not just ask the Treasury to sign up for the construction cost - they require the Treasury to sign up to significant ongoing subsidy, to be paid for the forseable future.
Those subsidies could easily exceed the up front cost of the scheme.

 

[CdBrux]

Edit:
In fact the lack of announcement on infrastructure investment might be causing some of the financial issues. Labour has increased taxes on business but it hasn't yet said what they are getting in return. A long term plan for infrastructure investment would likely improve confidence.

I highly doubt it. Borrowing costs are going up as the government is borrowing more but not predicting growth and there was virtually no fiscal headroom as the 40billion (if it ever gets that much) was all swallowed up already. The markets can see this and they can see that there isn't any headroom to give business good news, i.e. what do they get in return? Nothing.
At some point the country will learn that increasing productivity (or reversing the big public sector drop in the last 4 years) is the best way to generate funds to then invest in other ways to further improve productivity

 

[Grimsby town]

I highly doubt it. Borrowing costs are going up as the government is borrowing more but not predicting growth and there was virtually no fiscal headroom as the 40billion (if it ever gets that much) was all swallowed up already. The markets can see this and they can see that there isn't any headroom to give business good news, i.e. what do they get in return? Nothing.
At some point the country will learn that increasing productivity (or reversing the big public sector drop in the last 4 years) is the best way to generate funds to then invest in other ways to further improve productivity

How do you increase productivity? You invest which includes government investment. The government are yet to announce their infrastructure plans, they've just said they're going to borrow to invest. The £40 billion from tax rises was to cover current spending, its separate from investment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2025 ==

I can't see a scenario where the increase in costs associated with running all these extra "local" trains is going to be smaller than the increase in revenue.

Without Phase 2B there can be no step change in capacity provided on the London-Manchester or other corridors in the North West. So you can't drive drastically higher revenue or take advantage of various efficiencies available with a full new route.

Consequently, these proposals do not just ask the Treasury to sign up for the construction cost - they require the Treasury to sign up to significant ongoing subsidy, to be paid for the forseable future.
Those subsidies could easily exceed the up front cost of the scheme.

As I've said a few times to you now, you're vastly overestimating the cost of subsidy. The latest figures for subsidy put northern down as reciving slightly over £500 million per year in subsidy. That includes operation costs and track access charges so accounts for some infrastructure investment.

Northern operate 2,500 services a day according to the Internet. An additional 10 trains per hour translates to slightly an additional 250 services a day so you'd be looking at an additional £50 million in subsidy. To get anywhere near the cost of phase 2bs infrastructure cost would take 300 years. £50 million is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of government budgets.

 

[JamesT]

How do you increase productivity? You invest which includes government investment. The government are yet to announce their infrastructure plans, they've just said they're going to borrow to invest. The £40 billion from tax rises was to cover current spending, its separate from investment.

However, the Government has said it will limit how much borrowing it will do regardless of being current or capital. As @CdBrux noted, they haven’t got a lot of spare borrowing they can make for investment and stick to those limits.

 

[HSTEd]

How do you increase productivity? You invest which includes government investment. The government are yet to announce their infrastructure plans, they've just said they're going to borrow to invest. The £40 billion from tax rises was to cover current spending, its separate from investment.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jan 2025 ==


As I've said a few times to you now, you're vastly overestimating the cost of subsidy. The latest figures for subsidy put northern down as reciving slightly over £500 million per year in subsidy. That includes operation costs and track access charges so accounts for some infrastructure investment.

Track access charges that cover about a quarter of the actual costs of Network RAil.
They don't even cover NEtwork Rail's ongoing day to day expenses, let alone infrastructure investment.

The figure of operating expenditure less income is currently given as ~£630m. Adjusting access charges to match Network Rail's actual costs puts the true cost of subsidy at something more like ~£1.2bn/yr.

Northern operate 2,500 services a day according to the Internet. An additional 10 trains per hour translates to slightly an additional 250 services a day so you'd be looking at an additional £50 million in subsidy.

The subsidy, if we use this somewhat dicey method of estimation, would be over £100m/yr.
Over decades this will add up quickly.

To get anywhere near the cost of phase 2bs infrastructure cost would take 300 years. £50 million is absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of government budgets.

I wasn't talking about Phase 2B, I was talking about Phase 2a, which is the purpose of this thread.

 

[Grimsby town]

Track access charges that cover about a quarter of the actual costs of Network RAil.
They don't even cover NEtwork Rail's ongoing day to day expenses, let alone infrastructure investment.

The figure of operating expenditure less income is currently given as ~£630m. Adjusting access charges to match Network Rail's actual costs puts the true cost of subsidy at something more like ~£1.2bn/yr.

But the infrastructure needs to be operated and maintened independently of the services that operate. Yes there'll be some additional costs to running additonal services but not much so it's not relevant to include the full network rail infrastructure costs to a variation in service.

But let's assume £1.2bn is correct. It would still only be £120 million per year for am additional 10 trains per hour so nowhere so you're looking at many decades to get anywhere near the cost of phase 1.

The subsidy, if we use this somewhat dicey method of estimation, would be over £100m/yr.
Over decades this will add up quickly.


I wasn't talking about Phase 2B, I was talking about Phase 2a, which is the purpose of this thread.

I agree it's a very rough calculation but it demonstrates a point that additional services aren't going to cost anywhere near £billions a year and are completely affordable.

 

[HSTEd]

But the infrastructure needs to be operated and maintened independently of the services that operate. Yes there'll be some additional costs to running additonal services but not much so it's not relevant to include the full network rail infrastructure costs to a variation in service.

Well thats not strictly true.
Because if you have less infrastructure, for example, by not building the high speed line, it costs less to do maintenance.

But let's assume £1.2bn is correct. It would still only be £120 million per year for am additional 10 trains per hour so nowhere so you're looking at many decades to get anywhere near the cost of phase 1.

This is a thousand year old state, decades are not an especially long time for the Treasury.
Over the 30 year assessment horizon you are effectively asking for ~£3.6bn in real terms.

You can try to discount it into the future, but the Treasury will not particularly like such things given the largely stagnant economy.

Inside 60 years, you will reach the value of Phase 2A cost that HS2 was willing to admit to before cancellation.

 

[Grimsby town]

Well thats not strictly true.
Because if you have less infrastructure, for example, by not building the high speed line, it costs less to do maimaintenanc.

The classic network isn't changing though. HS2 should be able to cover its operating costs especially in the first century.

This is a thousand year old state, decades are not an especially long time for the Treasury.
Over the 30 year assessment horizon you are effectively asking for ~£3.6bn in real terms.

You can try to discount it into the future, but the Treasury will not particularly like such things given the largely stagnant economy.

Inside 60 years, you will reach the value of Phase 2A cost that HS2 was willing to admit to before cancellation.

I dont think the famously myopic UK treasury is considering spending in 30 years time. If it was we might be building Phase 2a. If you want to consider 30 years then we can. Over 30 years UK rail ticket revenue would be £330 billion based on recent revenue. Government spending is £1,200 billion per year. Even taking a high estimate like £100 million in subsidy for additonal 10 additional services every hour is still a drop in the ocean. That's before considering that there economic and social benefits to those services.