Should HS2 be scrapped?

[JonathanH]

and with a General Election next year,it will not get cancelled before then.

It depends which part of the electorate they are trying to keep happy. I suspect quite a bit of the floating vote would be quite keen on HS2 being cancelled.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

It depends which part of the electorate they are trying to keep happy. I suspect quite a bit of the floating vote would be quite keen on HS2 being cancelled.

I think in a General Election HS2 wouldn’t make the blindest but of difference bar for a handful of votes in a handful of constituencies. Most people will vote on bigger issues including the economy and NHS. Labour have and will commit to building HS2 in full or least as far as Euston-Manchester (although I don’t think they will commit to specific timetable for the Eastern leg).

Edit:- If anything the failure to build HS2 reinforces the narrative that we as a country can’t build or do anything anymore and everything is falling apart which I don’t think is helpfull to the government electorally.

 

[camflyer]

It depends which part of the electorate they are trying to keep happy. I suspect quite a bit of the floating vote would be quite keen on HS2 being cancelled.

This was discussed on the first episode of George Osborne and Ed Ball's new chummy podcast.

Osborne said it would be a big mistake to cancel the northern leg. Balls thought there might be some sense behind it.

 

[The Ham]

Edit:- If anything the failure to build HS2 reinforces the narrative that we as a country can’t build or do anything anymore and everything is falling apart which I don’t think is helpfull to the government electorally.

Indeed, arguably any failing of HS2 is down to poor government control and therefore the responsibility of the party who have been in government for 93% of the projects lifespan (assuming a 2025 election).

Labour could fairly easily point at many other areas where the Tories have failed to manage things will and so highlight that they have set a pattern of poor management and so then wanting to cancel it is their way of trying to cover to their own failings.

 

[Snow1964]

It depends which part of the electorate they are trying to keep happy. I suspect quite a bit of the floating vote would be quite keen on HS2 being cancelled.

I think you will find electorate don't like announced projects being cancelled or deferred (or using latest buzz word re-phased).

Any project : new hospital, replacement school, new station, incomplete bypasses that cause local congestion etc. Whatever the project people are always bitter if they feel Government doesn't care about their community needs because they are messed about.

All the communities affected by building HS2 will worry they will be left with incomplete eyesore blotting their landscape for years if cancellation happens, and will blame Government for ruining local countryside

 

[RobShipway]

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.

I doubt that totally all GWR services will be calling at OOC, in the same way that you do have a few services which do not stop at Reading.

Not sure that this will be the case, but the only services that I see stopping OOC are Elizabeth line services, Heathrow Express, services to Newbury and Didcot Parkway. I don't see the need for services to Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth and Penzance stopping at OOC. OOC is just acting as a station for those from the Midlands to get to Heathrow Airport.

 

[daodao]

HS2 has to get to Manchester and (rather than Golborne) Balshaw Lane Junction so it joins the WCML where there are 4 tracks to Preston. That ensures the maximum benefit to the north west of England in freeing up capacity for more local trains, especially into Manchester Picadilly.
Labour should also commit to the Eastern arm. I'm agnostic as to whether Leeds is reached via Nottingham or via Shefield, but it needs to reach the ECML near York so the north east of England benefits to the max.
Anything less is a betrayal of the north of England and Scotland and will I am sure be damaging to the Govt in the Red Wall seats as symbolic of leveling up being lies to win votes.

They should finish what they have started, i.e. phases 1 and 2a, but scrap the expensive white elephant of phase 2b north of Crewe.

 

[m79900]

I think it should be scrapped. It's been cut down so many times, that what they're offering is a service from the outskirts of London to Birmingham, which already has a decent service with both LNWR and Avanti operating it, just to save a few minutes. Add that to it costing billions more than expected for the whole route, it's just not worth it. Money better spent on improving services on existing lines, and reopening ones that were shut by the Beeching axe.

 

[Grimsby town]

They should finish what they have started, i.e. phases 1 and 2a, but scrap the expensive white elephant of phase 2b north of Crewe.

Not sure how 2b can be a white elephant when the lines it is relieving are completely full and network rail seem to think that a new line is the only solution to those capacity issues. There's no way the Stockport corridor is being widened to 6 tracks.

 

[irish_rail]

I doubt that totally all GWR services will be calling at OOC, in the same way that you do have a few services which do not stop at Reading.

Not sure that this will be the case, but the only services that I see stopping OOC are Elizabeth line services, Heathrow Express, services to Newbury and Didcot Parkway. I don't see the need for services to Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth and Penzance stopping at OOC. OOC is just acting as a station for those from the Midlands to get to Heathrow Airport.

Someone needs to tell the planners that then, as its been more or less confirmed every single train WiLL be forced to stop as apparently not stopping everything causes pathing headaches.

 

[PTR 444]

Someone needs to tell the planners that then, as its been more or less confirmed every single train WiLL be forced to stop as apparently not stopping everything causes pathing headaches.

For some destinations in London, it might even be quicker to alight at OOC and catch the Elizabeth Line from there rather than staying on the mainline train to Paddington.

 

[Snow1964]

Someone needs to tell the planners that then, as it's been more or less confirmed every single train WiLL be forced to stop as apparently not stopping everything causes pathing headaches.

If playing devils advocate, if it's ok to terminate the long distance services on HS2 at Old Old Common, because of good connections, then could say exactly same about long distance services from South Wales and South West.

Similar things have been tried in the past elsewhere near London, for a while once the new through mainline platforms added at Stratford, tried adding stops, soon realised bad idea and cut it back. Decades earlier all trains approaching Waterloo stopped at Vauxhall (subsequently abandoned for mainline services). There are other examples but feels like planners have opted for dumb lets try and do what has failed elsewhere again approach.

 

[camflyer]

I think it should be scrapped. It's been cut down so many times, that what they're offering is a service from the outskirts of London to Birmingham, which already has a decent service with both LNWR and Avanti operating it, just to save a few minutes. Add that to it costing billions more than expected for the whole route, it's just not worth it. Money better spent on improving services on existing lines, and reopening ones that were shut by the Beeching axe.

What guarantee is there that any more saved (assuming there's any left after cancellation and remediation costs) would be used on improving existing services? Looks like the government is trying to cut overall public spending not use the money elsewhere. Also, wouldn't engineering work on existing lines be much more disruptive than building a brand new line across open land?

While some Beeching lines should be reopened, it is more important to think about where new lines are needed now given current population and economic trends.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure that this will be the case, but the only services that I see stopping OOC are Elizabeth line services, Heathrow Express, services to Newbury and Didcot Parkway. I don't see the need for services to Bristol, Cardiff, Plymouth and Penzance stopping at OOC. OOC is just acting as a station for those from the Midlands to get to Heathrow Airport.

Most services should stop because of the quality interchange with HS2 which would mean more people would make journeys involving the WCML and GWML, which is better than going via London and faster than XC.

Adding under 5 minutes to a 5 hour journey to Penzance is moot, and as there are two Bristols per hour you could just stop one of them.

 

[devon_belle]

Adding under 5 minutes to a 5 hour journey to Penzance is moot, and as there are two Bristols per hour you could just stop one of them.

Anyone going from Penzance to the Midlands/beyond will get CrossCountry via Bristol or Reading most likely, though. I'd suggest the converse, where the shorter journeys stop at OOC as there will be fewer alternative airports within the distance between the origin and OOC. A Heathrow western link would obviate this, with people able to change at Reading.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone going from Penzance to the Midlands/beyond will get CrossCountry via Bristol or Reading most likely, though.

For Manchester post HS2 I'd without question go via London. For Birmingham it'd be close - HS2 is likely to be cheaper due to the huge amount of capacity.

It doesn't help that XC is rubbish and expensive, but even if XC wasn't rubbish and expensive it'd still be quite slow.

 

[devon_belle]

For Manchester post HS2 I'd without question go via London. For Birmingham it'd be close - HS2 is likely to be cheaper due to the huge amount of capacity.

True, although would most people choose a direct train over a change (more points of failure etc etc)? Plus, while HS2 has a lot of capacity, will the GWR leg have the same spare capacity? The trains are already often full and standing, without taking XC passengers. Assuming at some point CrossCountry gets some more carriages then it may be more appealing to just settle down and cruise up via Bristol.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, although would most people choose a direct train over a change (more points of failure etc etc)? Plus, while HS2 has a lot of capacity, will the GWR leg have the same spare capacity? The trains are already often full and standing, without taking XC passengers. Assuming at some point CrossCountry gets some more carriages then it may be more appealing to just settle down and cruise up via Bristol.

I've only ever experienced GWR trains full and standing west of Reading when they were a 5-car substituting for a 9 or 10 or where there had been multiple cancellations. East of Reading it is busy but only at commuter times, at other times there's plenty of space.

 

[devon_belle]

I've only ever experienced GWR trains full and standing west of Reading when they were a 5-car substituting for a 9 or 10 or where there had been multiple cancellations.

You have had considerably better luck than me in the past, then!

 

[RobShipway]

Anyone going from Penzance to the Midlands/beyond will get CrossCountry via Bristol or Reading most likely, though. I'd suggest the converse, where the shorter journeys stop at OOC as there will be fewer alternative airports within the distance between the origin and OOC. A Heathrow western link would obviate this, with people able to change at Reading.

Even if you are travelling eastwards through Reading, you could still change at OOC for services to Heathrow Airport as that is part of what the station is being designed to do. It is just that as mentioned above, you don't want all trains to be stopping at OOC. Those travelling from London can and possibly should be using either Elizabeth Line or Heathrow Express rather than any of the GWR services. As @Bletchleyite maybe one Bristol train each hour should stop and one train from Cornwall/Devon area plus one train from Swansea/Cardiff every hour.

 

[MattRat]

Parts of the project are already too far along to be scrapped, unless you like uncompleted construction eye sores.

I'd say finish what was already started, but cut the loses there. Mismanagement will make anything more impossible. Better to start again for other legs, maybe call it 'high speed connect'. Learn from HS2 and make the plans actually achievable from day 1 (250 kph line speeds for one), and get the Japanese involved. Basically gives you a fresh slate to get the other important parts done, without being weighed down by the current mismanagement.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if you are travelling eastwards through Reading, you could still change at OOC for services to Heathrow Airport as that is part of what the station is being designed to do. It is just that as mentioned above, you don't want all trains to be stopping at OOC. Those travelling from London can and possibly should be using either Elizabeth Line or Heathrow Express rather than any of the GWR services. As @Bletchleyite maybe one Bristol train each hour should stop and one train from Cornwall/Devon area plus one train from Swansea/Cardiff every hour.

You could even (ssh, don't tell the Reading commuters) stop half at Reading and half at OOC (though the near-hourly Cornish express probably at both). Then there's no slowdown.

 

[Chester1]

Parts of the project are already too far along to be scrapped, unless you like uncompleted construction eye sores.

I'd say finish what was already started, but cut the loses there. Mismanagement will make anything more impossible. Better to start again for other legs, maybe call it 'high speed connect'. Learn from HS2 and make the plans actually achievable from day 1 (250 kph line speeds for one), and get the Japanese involved. Basically gives you a fresh slate to get the other important parts done, without being weighed down by the current mismanagement.

Crewe and East Midlands Parkway sections are necessary to bring most of the capacity benefits. The East Midlands Parkway section will essentially turn the southern MML into commuter line and a feeder for East West Rail. If HS2 stops at Lichfield it won't enable more services from Scotland and the North West of England because south of Crewe is the capacity bottleneck.I sympathise with your view about the remaining sections.

A "HS2 Connect" electrification of Crewe to Holyhead would boost the pro union credentials of what is essentially an English project. Services to Liverpool and Scotland would not need further infrastructure. Crewe - Manchester would need a lot of work. Currently 2 out of 3 London - Manchester services and both Birmingham - Manchester services go via Stoke. If HS2 isn't built I would 4 track more of Crewe to Wilmslow, speed up to Heald Green (rebuilding as a 4 platform airport parkway station and build two extra tracks from Slade Lane to Piccadilly. NPR could still be done by reviving the Manchester Airport Western Link and building a new line from it to Warrington Bank Quay low level. Glossop, New Mills and Rose Hill services would need to be removed from the main shed at Piccadilly by either a flyover or tram trains and Piccadilly to Guide Bridge 4 tracked. How much this would actually save vs building HS2 to Manchester is a different question....

 

[stuu]

Parts of the project are already too far along to be scrapped, unless you like uncompleted construction eye sores.

I'd say finish what was already started, but cut the loses there. Mismanagement will make anything more impossible. Better to start again for other legs, maybe call it 'high speed connect'. Learn from HS2 and make the plans actually achievable from day 1 (250 kph line speeds for one), and get the Japanese involved. Basically gives you a fresh slate to get the other important parts done, without being weighed down by the current mismanagement.

Why would the line speed make any difference? The politics is the problem, both specifically around this project and the wider lack of any systematic transport infrastructure programme

 

[MattRat]

Crewe and East Midlands Parkway sections are necessary to bring most of the capacity benefits. The East Midlands Parkway section will essentially turn the southern MML into commuter line and a feeder for East West Rail. If HS2 stops at Lichfield it won't enable more services from Scotland and the North West of England because south of Crewe is the capacity bottleneck.I sympathise with your view about the remaining sections.

A "HS2 Connect" electrification of Crewe to Holyhead would boost the pro union credentials of what is essentially an English project. Services to Liverpool and Scotland would not need further infrastructure. Crewe - Manchester would need a lot of work. Currently 2 out of 3 London - Manchester services and both Birmingham - Manchester services go via Stoke. If HS2 isn't built I would 4 track more of Crewe to Wilmslow, speed up to Heald Green (rebuilding as a 4 platform airport parkway station and build two extra tracks from Slade Lane to Piccadilly. NPR could still be done by reviving the Manchester Airport Western Link and building a new line from it to Warrington Bank Quay low level. Glossop, New Mills and Rose Hill services would need to be removed from the main shed at Piccadilly by either a flyover or tram trains and Piccadilly to Guide Bridge 4 tracked. How much this would actually save vs building HS2 to Manchester is a different question....

I should make it clear, everything originally envisioned for the original Y network would still get built, just that the remainder that isn't built as HS2 would have a new project name, and focus on being achievable from day 1 (like lowering track speed, ballasted track, etc).

 

[Energy]

Better to start again for other legs, maybe call it 'high speed connect'.

High Speed connect gives the same false impression as HS2. You'd need names like Staffordshire High Speed Bypass if you are going for a name change.

Learn from HS2 and make the plans actually achievable from day 1 (250 kph line speeds for one),

Building to 250kph wouldn't save that much money, it doesn't look great when a very expensive High Speed line only goes 155mph. It would only end in regret when the government wants journey times to fall.

and get the Japanese involved.

Why? Plenty of High Speed rail expertise in the UK. High costs and delays is pretty common for large civils in the UK, HS2 isn't the only.

and focus on being achievable from day 1 (like lowering track speed, ballasted track, etc).

Downside with ballasts track is that it increasing operating cost as the ballast has to be changed fairly frequently due to the forces. It also can't be used in the tunnels.

 

[MattRat]

Why would the line speed make any difference? The politics is the problem, both specifically around this project and the wider lack of any systematic transport infrastructure programme

That's where putting it under a new project comes in, to start the process from scratch and keep Government out. Lower track speeds and ballasted track is just there to guarantee ease of construction, so it can only spiral so far.

High Speed connect gives the same false impression as HS2. You'd need names like Staffordshire High Speed Bypass if you are going for a name change.

Building to 250kph wouldn't save that much money, it doesn't look great when a very expensive High Speed line only goes 155mph. It would only end in regret when the government wants journey times to fall.

Why? Plenty of High Speed rail expertise in the UK. High costs and delays is pretty common for large civils in the UK, HS2 isn't the only.

Downside with ballasts track is that it increasing operating cost as the ballast has to be changed fairly frequently due to the forces. It also can't be used in the tunnels.

A name is a name, the idea is a fresh slate, away from mismanagement hell of HS2. And that also means pushing away from the Government, and making clear this is about capacity, and as such doesn't need gold plating. Also why I want Japan involved. They can tell the UK government to back off if they start trying to put fingers in pies again.

As for the last point, the problem we have now is construction costs, so at least it'll be built. Maintenance costs can be complained about all people like, but it'll be built by then with nothing they can do about it.

 

[thomalex]

So inevitably the Euston leg now doesn’t look to be happening.

I was thinking HS2 could be scrapped, as in the idea of this being a high speed separate railway. But the leg which is now partly built between Old Oak Common and Birmingham could be maintained as a sort of west coast mainline bypass with existing trains run on it from Euston to Birmingham and then up to Manchester and beyond.

This would allow the capacity gains that are much talked about with the existing west coast mainline being opened up to more freight and commuter services while also maintaining trains into central London. Old Oak Common could be used as a parkway style station for London with some commuter services terminating there for transfer onto the Elizabeth line.

Yes it wouldn’t be as fast but we’re always told HS2 wasn’t about speed anyway.

 

[Tezza1978]

So inevitably the Euston leg now doesn’t look to be happening.

"Inevitably" looks a bit strong given that work wouldn't be starting until after the next election.

Plus its not possible for the government to just sell off land it has compulsorily purchased in Euston and Camden for a railway line to developers - its against the law.

I can see them trying to freeze the Euston bit for longer but the bill to build Stage 1 in full received Royal Assent and until this week the completed TBMs were going to be lowered in to the ground ready to start the drive to Euston in 18 months. Are they going to leave them there as archaeological curiosities? What about the whole Euston site do they (current govt and next Labour govt) just leave it boarded up for 4 or 5 years?

Not going to happen. I saw huge numbers of people still at work at Euston as of Wednesday this week!!

 

[PTR 444]

So inevitably the Euston leg now doesn’t look to be happening.

I was thinking HS2 could be scrapped, as in the idea of this being a high speed separate railway. But the leg which is now partly built between Old Oak Common and Birmingham could be maintained as a sort of west coast mainline bypass with existing trains run on it from Euston to Birmingham and then up to Manchester and beyond.

Erm, that’s essentially what HS2 does. No point trying to lower the design speed on a piece of infrastructure that’s already in progress.