Should HS2 be scrapped?

[JonathanH]

That's where putting it under a new project comes in, to start the process from scratch and keep Government out.

And that also means pushing away from the Government, and making clear this is about capacity, and as such doesn't need gold plating.

Who is providing the money? Ultimately the Government is paying for HS2, and therefore has the say on how it progresses (or doesn't). It simply isn't possible to push the decisions away from the Government.

It appears that the Government doesn't think we can afford HS2 when it considers all of the spending it needs to make across the economy.

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!!

That essentially seems to be the plan. Make the Euston site safe, which involves people being on site now, remove the equipment, and leave it as an unattended open space behind suitable hoardings until a decision is made to restart work.

It wouldn't be the first building site where there has been an indefinite pause between it being cleared, and something visible appearing.

 

[stuu]

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.

How would that possibly work? Any new project would be entirely under the control of the government, just like the existing HS2 project

Lower speeds and ballasted tracks would make next to no difference to the costs

 

[SynthD]

Trains from Euston can’t join HS2 without the paused tunnel, so it can’t be used as a bypass.

The project is what it is because of capacity. I don’t think you could give the goal of increasing capacity to someone else, say the Japanese, and find a different answer.

 

[Energy]

The project is what it is because of capacity. I don’t think you could give the goal of increasing capacity to someone else, say the Japanese, and find a different answer.

If you asked the Japanese they'd probably reduce Euston's original size and reduce turnaround times, which is already being done.

 

[JamesRowden]

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.

Your suggestion would still waste paths between Reading and Paddington.

We could save loads of money and complication at Old Oak Common by scrapping the planned 4 mainline platforms (having just Elizabeth Line services call on the GWML). Other GWML-HS2 journeys could be completed by doubling back at Paddington.

If there's an every 4 minute Elizabeth Line service between Old Oak Common and Paddington which only takes 4 minutes, why spend loads of money to allow express services to stop when the vast majority of the GWML express passengers will not benefit from the stop?

The Elizabeth line would only take 10 minutes longer to Heathrow than Heathrow Express.

Unless the plans for connections at Old Oak Common to parts of London not connected to Paddington become much improved (e.g. Every 7.5 minute Overground service to Clapham Junction) these platforms don't intuitively appear to have a great benefit to cost ratio.

 

[matacaster]

How about putting southern wcml freight on HS2 thus freeing up extra paths on classic lines. Remember it's about capacity not speed. Would need various connections to freight yards, but perhaps worth a look at?

 

[MarkyT]

How about putting southern wcml freight on HS2 thus freeing up extra paths on classic lines. Remember it's about capacity not speed. Would need various connections to freight yards, but perhaps worth a look at?

The gradients are too steep for freight, among other practicalities.

 

[swt_passenger]

The gradients are too steep for freight, among other practicalities.

Yeah, like all the existing massive freight yards such as DIRFT being on or near the existing lines…

 

[stuu]

How about putting southern wcml freight on HS2 thus freeing up extra paths on classic lines. Remember it's about capacity not speed. Would need various connections to freight yards, but perhaps worth a look at?

The freight goes on the slow lines. For a reason

 

[The Planner]

Trains from Euston can’t join HS2 without the paused tunnel, so it can’t be used as a bypass.

The project is what it is because of capacity. I don’t think you could give the goal of increasing capacity to someone else, say the Japanese, and find a different answer.

They can't even if Euston is built. Its several metres below the existing tracks.

 

[irish_rail]

Your suggestion would still waste paths between Reading and Paddington.

We could save loads of money and complication at Old Oak Common by scrapping the planned 4 mainline platforms (having just Elizabeth Line services call on the GWML). Other GWML-HS2 journeys could be completed by doubling back at Paddington.

If there's an every 4 minute Elizabeth Line service between Old Oak Common and Paddington which only takes 4 minutes, why spend loads of money to allow express services to stop when the vast majority of the GWML express passengers will not benefit from the stop?

The Elizabeth line would only take 10 minutes longer to Heathrow than Heathrow Express.

Unless the plans for connections at Old Oak Common to parts of London not connected to Paddington become much improved (e.g. Every 7.5 minute Overground service to Clapham Junction) these platforms don't intuitively appear to have a great benefit to cost ratio.

Way too much common sense being spoken here. Why save billions when you can squander them?! After all that's what this current Governemnt is good at!

 

[The Ham]

Something which is often overlooked when comparing the TGV with HS2, the whole TGV network (much bigger than HS2, although probably does get closer in size if you count existing British lines which will have HS2 services - like to Scotland) had (pre COVID) about 100 million passengers a year, HS2 was also anticipated to have that number of passengers, however a significant percentage would be on the line between London and Birmingham.

As such it's unlikely that HS2 could use the same maintenance options as they wouldn't have the track access options due to far more services an hour running over that section.

 

[stuu]

Your suggestion would still waste paths between Reading and Paddington.

We could save loads of money and complication at Old Oak Common by scrapping the planned 4 mainline platforms (having just Elizabeth Line services call on the GWML). Other GWML-HS2 journeys could be completed by doubling back at Paddington.

So if the relief lines ever need maintenance then there is no onward rail connection for HS2?

 

[JamesRowden]

So if the relief lines ever need maintenance then there is no onward rail connection for HS2?

Once HS2 is complete there should be Euston. And from Old Oak Common there should be Overground and bus services.

 

[The Planner]

Once HS2 is complete there should be Euston. And from Old Oak Common there should be Overground and bus services.

Not a chance of that happening. It will have train services on the GW.

 

[stuu]

Once HS2 is complete there should be Euston. And from Old Oak Common there should be Overground and bus services.

And in the (undetermined) meantime? The GWML mainline platforms must be a pretty minor amount in the grand scheme of things, certainly a huge amount less than they would be as a standalone project

 

[JamesRowden]

Not a chance of that happening. It will have train services on the GW.

Can you give an indication of the benefit to cost ratio of the following option compared to a base of having no GWML fast line platforms at Old Oak Common:

• Having 2 fast line platforms like Ealing Broadway which would only get used during engineering works or possibly by some trains at quiet periods

Can you also provide an idea of the benefit to cost ratio of the present plan for 4 fast line platforms with everything stopping, compared to the base being the 2 fast platforms for engineering works and/or quiet periods option I have just suggested?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2023 ==

And in the (undetermined) meantime? The GWML mainline platforms must be a pretty minor amount in the grand scheme of things, certainly a huge amount less than they would be as a standalone project

Having to do substantially less work on an active railway would seem a substantial saving.

 

[The Planner]

Can you give an indication of the benefit to cost ratio of the following option compared to a base of having no GWML fast line platforms at Old Oak Common:

• Having 2 fast line platforms like Ealing Broadway which would only get used during engineering works or possibly by some trains at quiet periods

Can you also provide an idea of the benefit to cost ratio of the present plan for 4 fast line platforms with everything stopping, compared to the base being the 2 fast platforms for engineering works and/or quiet periods option I have just suggested?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2023 ==


Having to do substantially less work on an active railway would seem a substantial saving.

Ah the old prove it line, no I can't as clearly I am not a promoter, sponsor, strategic planner or economic analyst who are subject matter experts in the development of an enhancement project, but that is all irrelevant as no one is going to build a station connecting to HS2 without platforms on all lines. The optics and politics of it will trump it all and the money won't matter.

 

[JamesRowden]

Ah the old prove it line, no I can't as clearly I am not a promoter, sponsor, strategic planner or economic analyst who are subject matter experts in the development of an enhancement project, but that is all irrelevant as no one is going to build a station connecting to HS2 without platforms on all lines. The optics and politics of it will trump it all and the money won't matter.

So as a stakeholder of the UK government and the rail industry, my hypothesis that these huge decisions have been made without careful consideration of optimum performance/reliability versus costs, may well be the truth, and that the government and rail industry, who ultimately work for me, are not willing to make such details available to me in order to avoid scrutiny?

 

[The Planner]

So as a stakeholder of the UK government and the rail industry, my hypothesis that these huge decisions have been made without careful consideration of optimum performance/reliability versus costs, may well be the truth, and that the government and rail industry, who ultimately work for me, are not willing to make such details available to me in order to avoid scrutiny?

That is tin foil hat territory. Ask your MP or do a FOI request.

 

[JamesRowden]

That is tin foil hat territory. Ask your MP or do a FOI request.

I just want to find out the truth. Whatever that may be.

I do not have faith that a Tory MP will help us find out the truth. I could ask them and test if your suggestion works? But I'm not convinced that it would be the best use of my time.

My reason for posting on this thread was to put a question, which I have been asking myself, out there. I did not come to create arguments, merely to provoke debate and put the question in other's minds. Members of the electorate will read it and start asking themselves the same question. That might seem to have more chance of helping this country to become better than asking the Tory MP.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Sep 2023 ==

The other option is to become a politician and work my way to the top to improve things. But I have serious doubts with regards to the success of that strategy.

 

[SynthD]

There are commercial secrets. While I doubt any of them are relevant, you won’t be able to confirm that because they are excluded from FOI.

The debate happened a while ago.

 

[Energy]

Way too much common sense being spoken here. Why save billions when you can squander them?! After all that's what this current Governemnt is good at!

Alternatively a significant proportion of passengers will get of at OOC for HS2, Overground, etc. which will lighten the load at Paddington and those crossing London.

There are commercial secrets. While I doubt any of them are relevant, you won’t be able to confirm that because they are excluded from FOI.

No but you should be able to get passenger number forecasts.

 

[Nottingham59]

So as a stakeholder of the UK government and the rail industry, my hypothesis that these huge decisions have been made without careful consideration of optimum performance/reliability versus costs, may well be the truth,

HS2 has always shown low value for money, with a Benefit/Cost ratio of less than 1.5 in the most recent assessment.

and that the government and rail industry, who ultimately work for me, are not willing to make such details available to me in order to avoid scrutiny?

It's all in the published documentation.

EDIT. See for instance Table 2.1 on p46 of the Full Business Case (2020):

HS2 Phase One full business case

The full business case for the HS2 Phase One route from Birmingham to London.

www.gov.uk

The BCR of phase 1, including the Wider Economic Impacts, was 1.2 (Low value for money); for phase 1 and 2a was 1.2 (Low VFM); and for the full Y network was 1.49, which is wholly in the "Low" category, but they rounded the 1.49 to 1.5, so they can dishonestly pretend it is in the "Low/Medium" Category.

 

[JamesRowden]

HS2 has always shown low value for money, with a Benefit/Cost ratio of less than 1.5 in the most recent assessment.

It's all in the published documentation.

EDIT. See for instance Table 2.1 on p46 of the Full Business Case (2020):

HS2 Phase One full business case

The full business case for the HS2 Phase One route from Birmingham to London.

www.gov.uk

The BCR of phase 1, including the Wider Economic Impacts, was 1.2 (Low value for money); for phase 1 and 2a was 1.2 (Low VFM); and for the full Y network was 1.49, which is wholly in the "Low" category, but they rounded the 1.49 to 1.5, so they can dishonestly pretend it is in the "Low/Medium" Category.

Thanks. It doesn't answer my specific question regarding Old Oak Common GWML, but implies that previous leaders of the post 2010 Conservative government era were not interested in value for money with regards to HS2.

 

[Grimsby town]

Thanks. It doesn't answer my specific question regarding Old Oak Common GWML, but implies that previous leaders of the post 2010 Conservative government era were not interested in value for money with regards to HS2.

There's issues with the BCR process for evaluating something like HS2 though. The BCRs process designed around smaller schemes not schemes like HS2 which cause national level changes to journey times and therefore the economy. The BCR also doesn't accurately represent the benefits of released capacity which will be captured in a separate business case.

 

[daodao]

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.

Assuming HS2 phase 2a to Crewe is built, there should be room on the existing Crewe-Cheadle Hulme line for the existing pattern of stopping passenger trains plus the following express passenger trains:

• 2 tph HS2 Manchester-London (with possibly one running via the Styal loop)
• 1 tph HS2 Manchester-Birmingham
• 1 tph TfW Manchester-Cardiff & beyond

 

[Grimsby town]

Assuming HS2 phase 2a to Crewe is built, there should be room on the existing Crewe-Cheadle Hulme line for the existing pattern of stopping passenger trains plus the following express passenger trains:

• 2 tph HS2 Manchester-London (with possibly one running via the Styal loop)
• 1 tph HS2 Manchester-Birmingham
• 1 tph TfW Manchester-Cardiff & beyond

Why would there be unless you're taking away services from other lines? Network Rail are pretty clear that no additional services will be running into Piccadilly from the Stockport/Airport lines. Manchester needs more services too. Additional stoppers towards Macclesfield, additional Knutsford services, additional Sheffield services and none of these can be accommodated with the existing network. A new line is the only realistic solution.

 

[The Planner]

Assuming HS2 phase 2a to Crewe is built, there should be room on the existing Crewe-Cheadle Hulme line for the existing pattern of stopping passenger trains plus the following express passenger trains:

• 2 tph HS2 Manchester-London (with possibly one running via the Styal loop)
• 1 tph HS2 Manchester-Birmingham
• 1 tph TfW Manchester-Cardiff & beyond

They will all go via Stockport.

 

[daodao]

Manchester needs more services too.

Why? In the first instance, trains can be lengthened in many cases to deal with capacity issues. It's not like SE England where trains are already typically 8-12 coaches.