Should HS2 be scrapped?

[Snow1964]

And in one of those great examples of right hand doesn't seem to know what left hand is doing. Whilst Prime minister and Chancellor are discussing cancelling, Today the DfT has published reports on Select Committees report on HS2 Crewe - Manchester

56 pages long so not going to quote it

High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill: promoter's response to the Commons Select Committee's special report

Response by the Secretary of State for Transport to the Commons Select Committee's special report regarding the High Speed Rail (Crewe-Manchester) Bill.

www.gov.uk

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I just caught a snippet of the local TV regional news that even had a brief appearance of Mayor Burnham which did not sound very positive.

 

[Nottingham59]

Can you advise a cheaper way to remove six trains per hour from the south WCML to allow an improved local service, improved East West Rail service and more freight?

It's far too late now, but a much cheaper way to do just that would have been:

1. Build a surface terminus station at Old Oak Common, with grade-separated access from the WCML fasts, 550m platforms and giving interchange with the Elizabeth Line. This would give the access to Heathrow from the North that was in the HS2 brief, and also take the pressure off Euston.
2. Dig twin bore tunnels from Euston direct to near Tring (bored tunnel and cut-and-cover as necessary) saving 10 minutes compared to HS2. A grade separated throat under Hampstead Heath would allow 16tph into Euston on these lines.
3. Build a twin-track high speed line across open country from Tring to South Rugby.
4. Six tracks from South Rugby to Rugby, and four track the Trent Valley lines north of Rugby.
5. A grade-separated crossover between the high speed and fast lines in the vicinity of Cheddington would give operational flexibility but is not strictly necessary.

With the Cheddington crossover, this layout would allow 16tph on the high-speed line (8 direct to Euston and 8 to OOC), and 12tph on the WCML fasts (8 to Euston and 4 to OOC), stopping at Milton Keynes and one or two others.

Euston would need probably 4 additional platforms, but as the Euston trains would be 260m long these could be built alongside the existing platforms and integrated into the current concourse. These 260m trains will each carry more passengers into Euston than the 400m HS2 stock, because the modelling shows that half the HS2 passengers will disembark at OOC.

The 8tph terminating at OOC from the fast high speed lines could be 520m long, splitting and joining at Crewe or Preston into 260m units to fit the existing platforms at Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh. So 15% more space efficient than HS2 200m units.

But as I said at the top, it's far too late now.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's far too late now, but a much cheaper way to do just that would have been:

1. Build a surface terminus station at Old Oak Common, with grade-separated access from the WCML fasts, 550m platforms and giving interchange with the Elizabeth Line. This would give the access to Heathrow from the North that was in the HS2 brief, and also take the pressure off Euston.
2. Dig twin bore tunnels from Euston direct to near Tring (bored tunnel and cut-and-cover as necessary) saving 10 minutes compared to HS2. A grade separated throat under Hampstead Heath would allow 16tph into Euston on these lines.
3. Build a twin-track high speed line across open country from Tring to South Rugby.
4. Six tracks from South Rugby to Rugby, and four track the Trent Valley lines north of Rugby.
5. A grade-separated crossover between the high speed and fast lines in the vicinity of Cheddington would give operational flexibility but is not strictly necessary.

I would be astonished were that significantly cheaper than HS2 P1 (because you're still building both a tunnel of a similar length and a two track high speed line), and it's inferior in lots of ways, e.g. doing nothing for the lines south of Birmingham (HS2 removes 1tph fast from these).

 

[irish_rail]

Similarly the alternatives proposed are straight-up unrealistic or have a worse cost-benefit analysis. Notably the "invest in current infrastructure instead" even though the best theoretical improvements in the current WCML is 140mph running with new in-cab signalling that would lead to significant disruption and wouldn't be that much better in terms of spare capacity when completed.

Well better to disrupt the WCML for a few years than the GWML ! In cab signalling would be the solution to WCML capacity problems, and would work out far cheaper than HS2. But heaven forbid we disrupt the precious WCML.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well better to disrupt the WCML for a few years than the GWML ! In cab signalling would be the solution to WCML capacity problems, and would work out far cheaper than HS2. But heaven forbid we disrupt the precious WCML.....

It isn't disrupting the GWML for a few years. And we should indeed do what we can to avoid major disruption of what is by far the UK's most important piece of railway.

 

[irish_rail]

Please provide evidence of the cheaper alternatives and costings of those alternatives?

Can you please also state as from where the alternatives have from, by providing links to the sites of where there is details of those alternatives with costings?

It isn't for me to do all that is it. In cab signalling is the answer, I'm not going to waste my evening digging around for links!

 

[RobShipway]

It isn't for me to do all that is it. In cab signalling is the answer, I'm not going to waste my evening digging around for links!

If you cannot provide the evidence, then don't make the statement I was once told within these forums. So if you cannot provide the details and costings of a cheaper way than building HS2, then why did you make the comment?

 

[irish_rail]

It isn't disrupting the GWML for a few years. And we should indeed do what we can to avoid major disruption of what is by far the UK's most important piece of railway.

It will first disrupt the GWML for the next 5 years or so with possessions and closures, making anyone travelling from such villages as Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth, Reading , Heathrow Airport etc have a difficult journey to London. But as long as Mancunians can still get to London nice an easy then that's all that matters. And that's without the permanent slow down of GWML services being made to stop at Old Oak Common.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==

If you cannot provide the evidence, then don't make the statement I was once told within these forums. So if you cannot provide the details and costings of a cheaper way than building HS2, then why did you make the comment?

Because this is a chat forum. It is about providing opinions. I am providing the opinion that i think it HIGHLY likely that in cab signalling fitted to 390s 80x and LMR fleet plus some freight locos would be cheaper than building HS2. And would provide the same capacity increase for zero environmental disruption and without disrupting passengers travelling to the south, the south west and south Wales.
I'd like to see you provide some proof that in cab signalling wouldn't provide these benefits both quicker and cheaper???....

 

[camflyer]

I just caught a snippet of the local TV regional news that even had a brief appearance of Mayor Burnham which did not sound very positive.

Really doesn't matter what the current government say as this time next year he'll have Starmer, Reeves and a new Transport Secretary to deal with. I know Starmer has never been a huge fan of HS2 because of the impact on his own constituency but I can't see any prospect of Labour scrapping the northern section especially with the mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and the other major cities all in favour.

 

[Railsigns]

In cab signalling would be the solution to WCML capacity problems,

No, it wouldn't. The only solution is to segregate the fast non-stopping trains from the slower stopping trains and freight trains.

 

[irish_rail]

No, it wouldn't. The only solution is to segregate the fast non-stopping trains from the slower stopping trains and freight trains.

Why not? All the traction is as far as I know ready for easy ECTS fitment, so that isn't an issue, yes there is a cost at the lineside of conversion to ECTS , but its being done on an even longer stretch on the ECML .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why not? All the traction is as far as I know ready for easy ECTS fitment, so that isn't an issue, yes there is a cost at the lineside of conversion to ECTS , but its being done on an even longer stretch on the ECML .

ETCS isn't going to increase line capacity in any case. All it does is move signalling into the cab so it's easier for the driver to see it, or allow ATO.

Moving block ETCS on high speed routes (as was originally proposed for PUG2 on the WCML) is a long way from mature. That would be needed for it to increase capacity significantly.

 

[Railsigns]

Why not? All the traction is as far as I know ready for easy ECTS fitment, so that isn't an issue, yes there is a cost at the lineside of conversion to ECTS , but its being done on an even longer stretch on the ECML .

*ETCS. European Train Control System.

Can you explain how cab signalling overcomes the problem of a fast train catching up with a slower train that's running in front of it on the same line?

 

[The Planner]

Well better to disrupt the WCML for a few years than the GWML ! In cab signalling would be the solution to WCML capacity problems, and would work out far cheaper than HS2. But heaven forbid we disrupt the precious WCML.....

No it wouldnt. You arent going to get any lower than 2½ minute headways even with ETCS. Its biggest benefits are realised at junctions etc, not on a train following train.

It will first disrupt the GWML for the next 5 years or so with possessions and closures, making anyone travelling from such villages as Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth, Reading , Heathrow Airport etc have a difficult journey to London. But as long as Mancunians can still get to London nice an easy then that's all that matters. And that's without the permanent slow down of GWML services being made to stop at Old Oak Common.

Facts are that the WCML is the cash cow and it has been disrupted for many weekends with half station blocks af Euston which reduce the capacity and timetable, as well as the week long blocks of the Trent Valley. The OOC blocks will be a week long at periods when patronage is at its lowest, post New Years day.

 

[irish_rail]

*ETCS. European Train Control System.

Can you explain how cab signalling overcomes the problem of a fast train catching up with a slower train that's running in front of it on the same line?

Not quite sure why you have slow trains running on the fast line? If you refer to a train stopping at say MK on its way north , then the train behind simply slows down for a couple of minutes before quickly whizzing back to linespeed. It happens on plenty of other routes. Its not ideal, but the country isn't exactly flush with cash at the moment (except where HS2 is concerned). And I assume ECTS or ATO would actually save time anyway, and so would negate any minutes lost by a train infront needing to stop at MK. Most other locations will be served by the relief lines and stopping trains.

 

[Nottingham59]

Really doesn't matter what the current government say as this time next year he'll have Starmer, Reeves and a new Transport Secretary to deal with. I know Starmer has never been a huge fan of HS2 because of the impact on his own constituency but I can't see any prospect of Labour scrapping the northern section especially with the mayors of Manchester, Liverpool and the other major cities all in favour.

I think the mayors would support a redesign of the high speed rail proposals in the Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Liverpool diamond. The current design really doesn't make sense, looping around the South and East of Manchester. This will not deliver the agglomeration benefits for the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds metropolitan area. Andy Burnham in Manchester is particularly opposed to the awkward design of the Piccadilly approaches.

 

[Graham H]

As I always said on railforums, this project was always about extending commuter belt from Birmingham to London from a political point of view. They just needed the north to agree to partially fund it.

Dont forget the south. Hello from Portsmouth where I believe the journey time to London hasnt improved since 1937 electrification. Approx 65 miles in 90 minutes if you are lucky

 

[irish_rail]

No it wouldnt. You arent going to get any lower than 2½ minute headways even with ETCS. Its biggest benefits are realised at junctions etc, not on a train following train.

Facts are that the WCML is the cash cow and it has been disrupted for many weekends with half station blocks af Euston which reduce the capacity and timetable, as well as the week long blocks of the Trent Valley. The OOC blocks will be a week long at periods when patronage is at its lowest, post New Years day.

I hold my hands up , train planning isnt my area, but surely a train every 2 .5 minutes on the WCML fast lines is sufficient? Maybe bring them all up to 11 car to maximise capacity, but surely trains at that frequency would be enough?!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the mayors would support a redesign of the high speed rail proposals in the Crewe-Manchester-Preston-Liverpool diamond. The current design really doesn't make sense, looping around the South and East of Manchester. This will not deliver the agglomeration benefits for the Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds metropolitan area. Andy Burnham in Manchester is particularly opposed to the awkward design of the Piccadilly approaches.

He might change his mind if they promised to build the Manchester Piccadilly HS2 station in yellow brickwork with his favourite "bee symbol" over its main entrance....

 

[irish_rail]

Also, if the negative effects on the GWML could be lessened, id perhaps be a little more on board. Surely with all the great railway minds out there, someone can come up with a way of avoiding ALL GWR intercity trains needing to call at OOC. I get some services may benefit, but can not be convinced trains from Cardiff and Plymouth should be stopping there as there just isn't sufficient benefit in doing so.

 

[GoneSouth]

…and the south. Waving from Southampton.

… and the west waving from Bristol.

 

[The Planner]

I hold my hands up , train planning isnt my area, but surely a train every 2 .5 minutes on the WCML fast lines is sufficient? Maybe bring them all up to 11 car to maximise capacity, but surely trains at that frequency would be enough?!

We are already on 3 and maxed out as station stops at Watford and MK suck up capacity.

 

[irish_rail]

We are already on 3 and maxed out as station stops at Watford and MK suck up capacity.

Could the solution not involve Watford and MK and changing calling patterns here. After all surely those two towns (as important as they are) cannot become the entire raisin d'etre for HS2. Perhaps higher speed junctions on approach or some small sections of additional tracking in their vicinities?

 

[Nottingham59]

I would be astonished were that significantly cheaper than HS2 P1 (because you're still building both a tunnel of a similar length and a two track high speed line), and it's inferior in lots of ways, e.g. doing nothing for the lines south of Birmingham (HS2 removes 1tph fast from these).

It would have saved having to build a whole new station at Euston (£4.8bn at 2029 prices) and a surface OOC would be much cheaper. Euston-Tring direct saves five miles of tunnel/viaduct, and Tring-Rugby is half the distance from Wendover-Handsacre.

And yes, we still need to get into Birmingham. But even with that, I estimate the civils would cost around half that of HS2 phase one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Could the solution not involve Watford and MK and changing calling patterns here. After all surely those two towns (as important as they are) cannot become the entire raisin d'etre for HS2.

MK (and travel to/from it and between it and London) is a very significant part of the raison d'etre of HS2 P1, alongside the Oxford-Cambridge arc of development. It's going to have the population of Liverpool by the time HS2 is built - that is, it'll be one of Britain's largest cities.

 

[irish_rail]

MK (and travel to/from it and between it and London) is a very significant part of the raison d'etre of HS2 P1, alongside the Oxford-Cambridge arc of development. It's going to have the population of Liverpool by the time HS2 is built - that is, it'll be one of Britain's largest cities.

The population of Liverpool but none of the tourist potential! For me the expansion of MK isn't a reason to persist with HS2, sorry. There are more imaginative ways that people cleverer than me can come up with to increase capacity at MK without the need to spend this amount of money, and slow down services to the entire west of England and South Wales at the same time. To me HS2 feels more and more like a lazy and over priced solution to the problems we face.

 

[The Ham]

It will first disrupt the GWML for the next 5 years or so with possessions and closures, making anyone travelling from such villages as Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth, Reading , Heathrow Airport etc have a difficult journey to London. But as long as Mancunians can still get to London nice an easy then that's all that matters. And that's without the permanent slow down of GWML services being made to stop at Old Oak Common.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2023 ==


Because this is a chat forum. It is about providing opinions. I am providing the opinion that i think it HIGHLY likely that in cab signalling fitted to 390s 80x and LMR fleet plus some freight locos would be cheaper than building HS2. And would provide the same capacity increase for zero environmental disruption and without disrupting passengers travelling to the south, the south west and south Wales.
I'd like to see you provide some proof that in cab signalling wouldn't provide these benefits both quicker and cheaper???....

The HS2 model assumed 2.5% growth year in year. Which at first glance makes a lot of people think that it's not very much.

The problem is over time it starts to rack up some fairly large numbers from 2009 (assuming this had a baseline of 100) by 2026 it's reached 152 (so a 52% increase in passengers), by 2037 it's reached 200 (so double).

The actual growth rate was significantly higher than this, with 2019 having a value of 170 (would have been 2030 if it was following the HS2 model).

If it wasn't for COVID then we'd have probably needed several of the alternatives to just to get us to the point when HS2 could have been built.

Whilst the current passenger numbers are down by some way - they are growing at a much faster rate than the assumed 2.5%, so may well catch back up with the model before too long (which would be faster, if the strikes could be resolved).

 

[The Planner]

Could the solution not involve Watford and MK and changing calling patterns here. After all surely those two towns (as important as they are) cannot become the entire raisin d'etre for HS2. Perhaps higher speed junctions on approach or some small sections of additional tracking in their vicinities?

Tinkering at the edges, wouldnt deliver more than a couple of paths and fixes your timetable options as they have to pivot on the overtaking opportunities, which also disbenefits the trains being overtaken.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Any government cancelling it will have to deal with the fallout of the tens of thousands of jobs lost and the loss of work for big and many medium size contractors.

HS2 taking up the massive civil engineering firms has also allowed many medium size firms to take bigger jobs. And jobs within the HS2 supply chain.

It also doesn't look good for "levelling up" if the bit which gets canned is the section to Manchester.

and with a General Election next year,it will not get cancelled before then. By then much more will have been completed too.