Restarting HS2a

[Snow1964]

The Government has today (14 January 2025) published various compulsory purchase and vesting orders relating to land for HS2 phase 2a

I have no idea why these have suddenly been published in January 2025, unless there is a pending follow on announcement. Anyone know why ?

HS2 Phase 2a Compulsory Purchase: General Vesting Declarations for Staffordshire 2021​

Information, deeds and plans relating to the compulsory purchase of properties in Staffordshire via the General Vesting Declarations for 2021.

HS2 Phase 2a Compulsory Purchase: General Vesting Declarations for Staffordshire 2021

Information, deeds and plans relating to the compulsory purchase of properties in Staffordshire via the General Vesting Declarations for 2021.

www.gov.uk

 

[Palmerston]

If the government did restart HS2a, after getting to Crewe, that would leave 4 original bits still to do:

Golborne link
Crewe to Manchester (inc large tunnel)
Brum-East Midlands (I.e. where the IRP said it would end)
East Mids-Leeds.

What would be the priority? East Midlands line looked quite easy. I'd suggest that first, then possibly Golborne, then the tunnelling towards Piccadilly, with the Eastern line last.

Someone might tell me this isn't the best order, but I'm going with what seems easy/cheap first of all. Not sure how realistic any of this is though.

 

[HSTEd]

If the government did restart HS2a, after getting to Crewe, that would leave 4 original bits still to do:

Golborne link
Crewe to Manchester (inc large tunnel)
Brum-East Midlands (I.e. where the IRP said it would end)
East Mids-Leeds.

What would be the priority? East Midlands line looked quite easy. I'd suggest that first, then possibly Golborne, then the tunnelling towards Piccadilly, with the Eastern line last.

Someone might tell me this isn't the best order, but I'm going with what seems easy/cheap first of all. Not sure how realistic any of this is though.

I think it depends what happens with Midland Main Line electrification.

If that actually proceeds all the way to Nottingham, then I think some version of the Phase 1-MML connection is likely the highest priority.
Also, if you don't build Crewe to MAnchester - how would you build Golborne?

The priority at this point is probably to get as many trains per hour onto HS2 and off the classic railway to reduce the costs of the classic railway.
If MML electrification does proceed further north (obviously no guarantee it will), then building a connection to the line heading towards the MML would allow you to divert a bunch of traffic fairly easily.

Unfortunately without further MML electrification, whicH I think is probably unlikely, the fastest electrodiesels available are only good to 250km/h.

 

[CdBrux]

Brum - East Midlands is probably the cheapest, but may then need more than 6 platforms at Euston
Crewe to Manchester would need to piggyback onto any Liverpool to Manchester new line

 

[Peter Sarf]

I would say Crewe to Manchester is top priority. Not the cheapest BUT brings in the most passengers and brings the most relief to the WCML..

 

[Nottingham59]

that would leave 4 original bits still to do:

I think the mayors might come up with something that will be cheaper than the original design.

The most important bit is new 400m platforms in Manchester. That would double LON-MAN capacity through the south Manchester suburbs, without having to build any new track.

 

[daodao]

I would say Crewe to Manchester is top priority. Not the cheapest BUT brings in the most passengers and brings the most relief to the WCML..

Why? It doesn't relieve the WCML at all.

 

[Grimsby town]

Why? It doesn't relieve the WCML at all.

It could if the NPR line is built via Warrington and London/Birmingham to Liverpool services were sent that way.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Why? It doesn't relieve the WCML at all.

I should have said, on top of Handsacre to Crewe (which is HS2 Phase2a). Crewe to Manchester because I takes the pressure of the WCML routes into Manchester.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Jan 2025 ==

It could if the NPR line is built via Warrington and London/Birmingham to Liverpool services were sent that way.

Yes. I suppose if NPR got built ahead of HS2 Phase2b (name 2b - iirc ?) then a triangular junction sending HS2 West and East along NPR would serve Liverpool and Manchester (and then beyond to Leeds etc).

The above would really dilute even further the benefit of the Eastern arm of HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

The above would really dilute even further the benefit of the Eastern arm of HS2.

The Eastern leg would be almost entirely unnecessay at that point - certainly north of Nottingham.

You'd be building a line from Chesterfield to Leeds for little purpose, and from Nottingham to Chesterfield only to marginally accelerate Sheffield traffic.

 

[FMerrymon]

The Eastern leg would be almost entirely unnecessay at that point - certainly north of Nottingham.

You'd be building a line from Chesterfield to Leeds for little purpose, and from Nottingham to Chesterfield only to marginally accelerate Sheffield traffic.

Its a similar proposal to the irp, which was a plan lacking in detail on what the service frequency would look like, assumed that the eastern branch was only about Leeds and made the network more London centric.

You'll need more frequency per hour to Manchester from London and Birmingham to take the additional Leeds passengers. There maybe some benefits to doing so, but would require more platforms in Manchester.

York and Newcastle would likely continue to be served from ecml. The irp was to upgrade ecml for speed, however this compromises capacity and the benefits of the original plan, especially for places such as Lincolnshire, Hull Middlesborough that could all then have more direct connections across the country.

Sheffield-leeds/york npr was the eastern branch.

EM-Leeds/york is a very poor journey currently, around 2hrs, 1 direct train, 1 possibility of changing, yet M1 very busy between.

Wouldn't help free up the cross country routes SW-NE as much.

Misses the potential of East Mids hub to connect up the east Midlands

 

[Ben427]

The current NPR proposals do not have the capacity to deliver Leeds to London in a useful timeframe or without massively reducing local and regional capacity between Leeds and Manchester, essentially negating the benefits of TRU and NPR. It goes against the whole benefit of building new lines (i.e. separating traffic)

And the new line up to the Stanedge tunnels (which made little sense anyway as capacity would disappear east of the Pennines) isn't happening anyway by all accounts

NPR at present does nothing for actual capacity between East and West, ot delivers benefits to the North West but leaves the East with little aside from limited upgrades to Leeds-Sheffield and Leeds Bradford. Since the IRP the idea that NPR would deliver transformational change to transport in the region has gone.

Additionally running it via Manchester prevents any upgrade of transport links between Leeds, Sheffield and the Midlands - the links between these regions are far worse than on the western side and a huge miss when it comes to the UK economy.

The only people who think delivering HS2 traffic via "NPR" is a good idea are people who don't live in the north.

 

[Meerkat]

Even after electrification when will MML capacity run out?
If loads keep expanding at some point the MML/ECML will need a step change in capacity somehow - if that doesn’t come out of Euston where will you terminate it in London?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Even after electrification when will MML capacity run out?
If loads keep expanding at some point the MML/ECML will need a step change in capacity somehow - if that doesn’t come out of Euston where will you terminate it in London?

I thought that it was generally accepted that capacity to run more trains (at least south of Leicester) has already ‘run out’. This because of the limited platforms at St Pancras, interactions with Thameslink and significant freight.
Accepted that more longer distance trains might operate with 10 coaches rather than five.

 

[Nottingham59]

If loads keep expanding at some point the MML/ECML will need a step change in capacity somehow - if that doesn’t come out of Euston where will you terminate it in London?

That's the big problem with the Sunak axe. Euston was the only site left in central London that could reasonably be used for 400m trains. By cutting Euston back to six platforms and building housing on the rest, that one decision has crippled the GB rail network for the next century.

 

[chris2]

Deleted for innacuracy

 

[Nottingham59]

That all depends where the six new platforms are built. They did not clear enough space around the station for much more than six new platforms anyway, so if they’re built there then you could theoretically still get more longer platforms by demolishing some of the existing station. That was how the original 11 platform design was going to be done anyway.

The original plan was for 11 platforms, overlaying P16-P18 but leaving P1 to P15 intact within the existing station.

As far as I can tell, the west boundary of the land cleared is exactly where shown in the original plans, so there is still space to put 11 platforms there, and keep 15 in the main shed.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7dc77340f0b65d886345b7/C220-ARP-CV-DPP-01A-580103.pdf

 

[SynthD]

The eastern leg only as far as East Midlands Parkway would relieve the northern MML of London travel. I’m surprised that the eastern leg hasn’t been split into multiple phases, but perhaps any dream is a dream too big.

 

[HSTEd]

Its a similar proposal to the irp, which was a plan lacking in detail on what the service frequency would look like, assumed that the eastern branch was only about Leeds and made the network more London centric.

You'll need more frequency per hour to Manchester from London and Birmingham to take the additional Leeds passengers. There maybe some benefits to doing so, but would require more platforms in Manchester.

Assuming any kind of new line is constructed, which was the premise of the statement, it is likely to have ample capacity for a couple of extra trains per hour from London to Leeds via Manchester.

And the Eastern Branch is overwhelmingly about Leeds, and has been since Sheffield decided to lobby to eliminate Meadowhall station to cement its place as the dominant urban centre in South Yorkshire for the next century.
Even if a north facing connection from Sheffield back onto HS2 had been built, it wouldn't achieve much given it would force all the traffic through the same bottlenecks that constrain the service - plus all the wasted time crawling on the classic lines.

As it stands, you end up building a high speed line from Chesterfield (where sheffield traffic starts its crawl) north to Leeds for relatively little purpose - and that line would cost far more than a continuous new line from Manchester to Leeds. The 'Y' concept was always dodgy in my opinion, but Sheffield blew it up entirely when they demanded the elimination of Meadowhall.

Wouldn't help free up the cross country routes SW-NE as much.

Well it would - the fastest way to travel SW-NE would eb to take the XC train to Birmingham, change to Curzon Street and take Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-York-North East train to your destination.
Even with the station interchange time you will easily beat the classic route.

 

[Killingworth]

Assuming any kind of new line is constructed, which was the premise of the statement, it is likely to have ample capacity for a couple of extra trains per hour from London to Leeds via Manchester.

And the Eastern Branch is overwhelmingly about Leeds, and has been since Sheffield decided to lobby to eliminate Meadowhall station to cement its place as the dominant urban centre in South Yorkshire for the next century.
Even if a north facing connection from Sheffield back onto HS2 had been built, it wouldn't achieve much given it would force all the traffic through the same bottlenecks that constrain the service - plus all the wasted time crawling on the classic lines.

As it stands, you end up building a high speed line from Chesterfield (where sheffield traffic starts its crawl) north to Leeds for relatively little purpose - and that line would cost far more than a continuous new line from Manchester to Leeds. The 'Y' concept was always dodgy in my opinion, but Sheffield blew it up entirely when they demanded the elimination of Meadowhall.

Well it would - the fastest way to travel SW-NE would eb to take the XC train to Birmingham, change to Curzon Street and take Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-York-North East train to your destination.
Even with the station interchange time you will easily beat the classic route.

A reminder that Sheffield's rejection of Meadowhall was a very big factor in the demise of the eastern leg. It immediately added complexity, delay and more cost. Rejection? Destruction of the business case!

As a Sheffield resident with roots in Newcastle I was amazed to see that journey would take longer with HS2. But that's all water under the bridge. Just getting the MML electrified into Sheffield seems hard enough.

To think that if Vincent Raven had been able to have his way the ECML could have been electrified by 1925 and where else beyond?

 

[Meerkat]

That's the big problem with the Sunak axe. Euston was the only site left in central London that could reasonably be used for 400m trains. By cutting Euston back to six platforms and building housing on the rest, that one decision has crippled the GB rail network for the next century.

Someone important to the decision making was interviewed recently and said they wanted 6 platforms with space to add 4 more later if necessary.

 

[CdBrux]

Someone important to the decision making was interviewed recently and said they wanted 6 platforms with space to add 4 more later if necessary.

this seems sensible, do what they did for Manchester airport T2 and design the appropriate external wall with no services etc.. in or around so it can be 'easily' removed if required

 

[Nottingham59]

Someone important to the decision making was interviewed recently and said they wanted 6 platforms with space to add 4 more later if necessary.

Ten platforms would be fine, unless it's at the expense of capacity in the main shed of course.

 

[Krokodil]

As far as I can tell, the west boundary of the land cleared is exactly where shown in the original plans, so there is still space to put 11 platforms there, and keep 15 in the main shed.

Great... Up until the point that they start pouring concrete. Whatever form the box takes will essentially define how many platforms will be available in 2125. Any alterations after construction starts would be prohibitively expensive

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jan 2025 ==

this seems sensible, do what they did for Manchester airport T2 and design the appropriate external wall with no services etc.. in or around so it can be 'easily' removed if required

At the moment praying that the government (doesn't matter which flavour, they're all the same) does the sensible thing feels almost futile.

Treasury (and political) orthodoxy is so short-termist.

Ten platforms would be fine, unless it's at the expense of capacity in the main shed of course.

Yes, if I recall correctly the eleventh was cut years ago. It would only have removed one path out of 18. If that was the sum total of the damage done by political meddling I could live with it.

 

[FMerrymon]

A reminder that Sheffield's rejection of Meadowhall was a very big factor in the demise of the eastern leg. It immediately added complexity, delay and more cost. Rejection? Destruction of the business case!

As a Sheffield resident with roots in Newcastle I was amazed to see that journey would take longer with HS2. But that's all water under the bridge. Just getting the MML electrified into Sheffield seems hard enough

It was supposed to be £1bn cheaper https://assets.publishing.service.g...Yorkshire_Station_Options_Report_07072016.pdf and part of the reason for the change was for npr services.

The eastern branch is more a victim of its benefits being misunderstood and greater political pressure for Manchester-Leeds. The govt was unwilling to commit to both and had pledged npr in the manifesto. IRP was a bodge job as a result enabled by the NIC.

Why would hs2 make Sheffield to Newcastle slower?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jan 2025 ==

Well it would - the fastest way to travel SW-NE would eb to take the XC train to Birmingham, change to Curzon Street and take Birmingham-Manchester-Leeds-York-North East train to your destination.
Even with the station interchange time you will easily beat the classic route

About 10-15mins faster for York and further on. Once you account for changing trains, there's nothing in it. Might as well stay on the same service.

And the Eastern Branch is overwhelmingly about Leeds

If you ignore the connection to York for Newcastle, the resultant freeing of capacity south of York and the connectivity for the east midlands. To reiterate, the bigger prize was the released capacity on existing lines and was always the primary concern.

 

[HSTEd]

About 10-15mins faster for York and further on. Once you account for changing trains, there's nothing in it. Might as well stay on the same service.

If NPR is built, it will be a lot faster than 15 minutes faster than the classic line.

If you ignore the connection to York for Newcastle, the resultant freeing of capacity south of York and the connectivity for the east midlands. To reiterate, the bigger prize was the released capacity on existing lines and was always the primary concern.

No, it is still better, because the net cost of a Manchester-Leeds segment is lower cost than Chesterfield-Leeds.
Once you are going to spend serious money on transpennine upgrades, as NPR supposes, it becomes cheaper to spend that money on NPR too.

Even improving the NPR spec to a full high speed line from Manchester to Leeds is likely to (on net) come out cheaper than an independent new line from Chesterfield to Leeds.
The York segment would be replaced with a line from Leeds to York, with the complex achieving essentially the same results as the Eastern Leg, likely at lower cost.

And obviously once the Eastern Leg is truncated, I'm not sure the economics of the East Midlands-Chesterfield segment stack up alone.

 

[FMerrymon]

If NPR is built, it will be a lot faster than 15 minutes faster than the classic line.

From Birmingham to York:

Birmingham - Mcr 40mins.
Manchester-Leeds 30mins.
Leeds - York 15mins.
Dwell at Manchester and Leeds total 5-10mins.

Total: 90-95 mins
Current best: Birmingham- York 113mins

From London to York:

London-Manchester 72mins
Manchester-Leeds 30mins
Leeds-York 15mins
Dwell at Manchester and Leeds total 5-10mins

Total: 122-127
Current best: London - York 111mins
You're creating an East West divide.

Even improving the NPR spec to a full high speed line from Manchester to Leeds is likely to (on net) come out cheaper than an independent new line from Chesterfield to Leeds.
The York segment would be replaced with a line from Leeds to York, with the complex achieving essentially the same results as the Eastern Leg, likely at lower cost.

You'll need to add 400m platforms in Leeds and this will require a new approach into Leeds, which will add considerable expense to NPR just as did HS2, you'll need the line Leeds- York, all of which was to be build by HS2. Once you've got that, linking up the remaining line of the eastern branch will be 40-45miles across easier land with no stations. For that, you'll relieve the ECML, add connectivity across the East Midlands and east side of the country, release capacity on the cross country line, improve capacity and journey times for SW/SWales - Yorks/NE for the cost of not much more than phase 2a (if we assume Toton and line to Chesterfield is built).

 

[Palmerston]

On Newsnight tonight it was reported that Rachel Reeves will say on Wednesday that HS2a to Crewe won't go ahead. The reasons given being 1. The Chiltern tunnels spent all the money and 2. The land has been sold. Not sure either of these is exactly true, but it's what Nick Robinson said she told a meeting of Labour MPs.

Apologies - I don't have a link. In any event the actual speech is in 2 days.

 

[fishwomp]

On Newsnight tonight it was reported that Rachel Reeves will say on Wednesday that HS2a to Crewe won't go ahead. The reasons given being 1. The Chiltern tunnels spent all the money and 2. The land has been sold. Not sure either of these is exactly true, but it's what Nick Robinson said she told a meeting of Labour MPs.

Apologies - I don't have a link. In any event the actual speech is in 2 days.

I heard the same - seems a very lazy announcement if so. Somewhat being an economist with the truth..

 

[Grimsby town]

I don't really understand the need to come out and say they aren't doing phase 2a because the default is that it's not happening. I suppose it could be so they can drop safeguarding and sell land but it seems like bad publicity about not investing in the north without any real reward.

Its not like phase 2a has to be built now, it could easily be built as phase 1 resources are freed up. Maybe I'm being overly hopeful but it seems like they're trying to start a narrative. That could either be that they they resurrect it in a couple of years saying that they've improved finances enough to do it or they get private funding involved. If they're improving airport expansion and ruling out any investment in rail, even after HS2 phase 1 spending reduces, then I think they have a very confused narrative.