Should HS2 be scrapped?

[Grimsby town]

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.

In most cases lengthening services doesn't encourage more people to use the service. My nearest national rail station is trafford park. I very rarely use it because the service is so poor. I won't suddenly find it more easy to use if its operated by 6 cars rather than 2 or 4. In that case adding more carriages increases running cost with very little revenue return. Frequency is key particularly on short distance intra-urban flows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In most cases lengthening services doesn't encourage more people to use the service. My nearest national rail station is trafford park. I very rarely use it because the service is so poor. I won't suddenly find it more easy to use if its operated by 6 cars rather than 2 or 4. In that case adding more carriages increases running cost with very little revenue return. Frequency is key particularly on short distance intra-urban flows.

Though of course the CLC issues are totally unrelated to HS2, the issue there is Castlefield.

To be fair North West services are getting longer. 6x24m on Blackpool-Manchester is 144m, whereas 8.350 is 160m, that's not much different. So it's happening but slowly. Stuff like TPE should be looking towards 8-10 car trains and the appropriate infrastructure, though, but again it's not really relevant to HS2.

One thing we do need though is to get services to at least 2tph other than tiny branch lines. Hourly isn't really good enough.

 

[12LDA28C]

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.

I'm afraid this is just nonsense, on so many levels.

 

[mike57]

I reckon when Rishi Sunak took over it was close to being cancelled. The only thing that saved it was the fact that works were well advanced. No I dont have the ear of any high up politicians, but it was fairly obvious from the noises coming out of Westminster that it only survived by the skin of its teeth.

And of course if you look at the current delivery, Old Oak Common to Birmingham, with the rest delayed then its going to be a shadow of the original concept. Will the money be found to at least extend to Manchester and finish Euston? Possibly not. Its not even about party politics, whoever wins the next election will find their hands tied by available money, and there will be plenty of competing claims on any money.

Had the original concept i.e. both legs, been deliverable in the projected timescales then I think the outcome would have been good, but given the cutbacks and slow downs its not going to deliver much other than increase in capacity on the southern end of the WCML and faster London - Birmingham journeys.

Potentially those ends could have been been acheived with far less expenditure.

So should it be cancelled, no its too far advanced, but should it have been started based on what is currently being delivered, no it shouldn't.

 

[irish_rail]

Well one thing is for sure, IF it does get cut back to OOC to Birmingham only then there is zero justification to have GWR intercity trains calling at OOC, especially anything originating west of Swindon or Reading .

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well one thing is for sure, IF it does get cut back to OOC to Birmingham only then there is zero justification to have GWR intercity trains calling at OOC, especially anything originating west of Swindon or Reading .

If it gets permanently cut back to OOC-Brum (i.e. the TBMs are removed and the land at Euston sold off) then there's no point building any of it, including OOC station. Bin the lot. Spend a bit of money on re-expanding Euston to 18 or 20 conventional platforms and leave it at that.

It's either worth doing all of it (WCML side) or none of it.

 

[stuu]

"Permanently" is a nonsense, whatever the government does in the short term. 15 years ago it was vague proposal.

The likelihood is, even Euston and phase 2 get cancelled tomorrow, at some point in the next decade it will be resurrected, and we will end up paying twice as much to get it built. Much like the cancellation of Crossrail in the 1990s

 

[Grimsby town]

Though of course the CLC issues are totally unrelated to HS2, the issue there is Castlefield.

To be fair North West services are getting longer. 6x24m on Blackpool-Manchester is 144m, whereas 8.350 is 160m, that's not much different. So it's happening but slowly. Stuff like TPE should be looking towards 8-10 car trains and the appropriate infrastructure, though, but again it's not really relevant to HS2.

One thing we do need though is to get services to at least 2tph other than tiny branch lines. Hourly isn't really good enough.

I wouldn't say totally unrelated because the current plan is to use 2b to provide a new route between Liverpool, Warrington, and Manchester which likely means services can be removed from both CLC and Castlefield. For example this frees up capacity at Victoria which should allow other trains to run into Victoria instead. Chester services no longer need to run the airport because people can change at Warrington Bank Quay so could be moved over to Victoria.

Even 2tph is probably too low in a major conurbation. 4 trains per hour should be the target. 2tph would be a step in the right direction. There's plenty of stations in Greater Manchester that don't get that level of service. Some of them are on lines directly relieved by phase 2b.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2023 ==

I reckon when Rishi Sunak took over it was close to being cancelled. The only thing that saved it was the fact that works were well advanced. No I dont have the ear of any high up politicians, but it was fairly obvious from the noises coming out of Westminster that it only survived by the skin of its teeth.

And of course if you look at the current delivery, Old Oak Common to Birmingham, with the rest delayed then its going to be a shadow of the original concept. Will the money be found to at least extend to Manchester and finish Euston? Possibly not. Its not even about party politics, whoever wins the next election will find their hands tied by available money, and there will be plenty of competing claims on any money.

Had the original concept i.e. both legs, been deliverable in the projected timescales then I think the outcome would have been good, but given the cutbacks and slow downs its not going to deliver much other than increase in capacity on the southern end of the WCML and faster London - Birmingham journeys.

Potentially those ends could have been been acheived with far less expenditure.

So should it be cancelled, no its too far advanced, but should it have been started based on what is currently being delivered, no it shouldn't.

Its a capital project so there shouldnt be a need to play it off against tax cuts or other day to day spending. Most of the resources are already deployed on the project. What is the point in training 1000s of people on building railway lines and then saying there's no railway line to build. Can they be redeployed easily to other areas of the economy? Otherwise there's the cost of unemployment benefits and re-training. The tories have played a blinder in convincing everbody that money is finite. Its not money that is finite, it resources and the resources needed to build HS2 are already deployed on HS2.

 

[The Planner]

If it gets permanently cut back to OOC-Brum (i.e. the TBMs are removed and the land at Euston sold off) then there's no point building any of it, including OOC station. Bin the lot. Spend a bit of money on re-expanding Euston to 18 or 20 conventional platforms and leave it at that.

It's either worth doing all of it (WCML side) or none of it.

20 platforms doesnt help if you cant get trains in and out of them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

20 platforms doesnt help if you cant get trains in and out of them.

Given that it used to have 18, this would purely be a resilience build.

 

[Nottingham59]

Spend a bit of money on re-expanding Euston to 18 or 20 conventional platforms and leave it at that.

That was my point upthread. HS2 didn't need a new station at Euston; just new platforms added to the old one. A 260m HS train with all seats occupied carries more passengers than a 400m HS train that is only half full.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That was my point upthread. HS2 didn't need a new station at Euston; just new platforms added to the old one. A 260m HS train with all seats occupied carries more passengers than a 400m HS train that is only half full.

I am inclined to agree that 400m wasn't the right way to go, because 200m is an awkward size - 400m is too long for most trains but 200m is too short. The 265m of the 11 car Pendolino is actually quite a good length for an InterCity train. If we'd gone for say 300m (12x25m) that would have added more potential capacity without going mad.

I realise it originates from European standards, but as our railway, bar Eurostar, is isolated from mainland Europe, there's no reason for us to ever follow them, we should do what's right for us.

 

[mike57]

Its a capital project so there shouldnt be a need to play it off against tax cuts or other day to day spending. Most of the resources are already deployed on the project. What is the point in training 1000s of people on building railway lines and then saying there's no railway line to build. Can they be redeployed easily to other areas of the economy? Otherwise there's the cost of unemployment benefits and re-training. The tories have played a blinder in convincing everbody that money is finite. Its not money that is finite, it resources and the resources needed to build HS2 are already deployed on HS2.

What you are saying is sensible, but I doubt that is how the politicians of either main party will approach it.

 

[The Planner]

Given that it used to have 18, this would purely be a resilience build.

Which wouldnt fly unless it allowed more paths.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which wouldnt fly unless it allowed more paths.

Other countries get it. Sadly we don't.

See also Castlefield. It should be four tracked with few or no additional services for pure resilience.

We'll never have a punctual, reliable railway if we keep simply clogging up every possible path without leaving any spare capacity for resilience.

 

[The Planner]

Other countries get it. Sadly we don't.

See also Castlefield. It should be four tracked with few or no additional services for pure resilience.

We'll never have a punctual, reliable railway if we keep simply clogging up every possible path without leaving any spare capacity for resilience.

I don't disagree, but resilience costs money and doesnt have the perceived returns.

 

[The Ham]

"Permanently" is a nonsense, whatever the government does in the short term. 15 years ago it was vague proposal.

The likelihood is, even Euston and phase 2 get cancelled tomorrow, at some point in the next decade it will be resurrected, and we will end up paying twice as much to get it built. Much like the cancellation of Crossrail in the 1990s

Indeed, whilst rail numbers are down on pre COVID numbers, those numbers were significantly higher than the project predicted for several years into the future from now (circa 2030).

Therefore if in (say) 2033 rail use is (even with the capacity advantages of OOC to Birmingham) noticeable ahead of where it "should be" then it's likely that elements which have currently been cut may well see the light of day again and get built.

Of course other factors may well come to play, for example a desire to remove more domestic flights or (likewise) reduce car usage so we reduce our carbon emissions (even EV's require more electricity than trains).

 

[London Trains]

If we'd gone for say 300m (12x25m) that would have added more potential capacity without going mad.

Completely agree with this, having a fleet of full length 300m units would make much more sense than 400m, especially given if only phase 1 is built then 400m trains will only run London to Birmingham services.

Platform extensions would be relatively short since the trains would only be about 25m longer than an 11 car Pendolino, and quieter stations could use SDO.

 

[The Ham]

Completely agree with this, having a fleet of full length 300m units would make much more sense than 400m, especially given if only phase 1 is built then 400m trains will only run London to Birmingham services.

Platform extensions would be relatively short since the trains would only be about 25m longer than an 11 car Pendolino, and quieter stations could use SDO.

IIRC, Liverpool was an issue for 12 coach class 390's and therefore would be for 12*25m coach trains.

I come back to the point, that lots of small amounts of growth soon eats up those increases.

28 years at 2.5% growth means a doubling of capacity required.

12*25m trains (based on 800/3 and with just 70 first class seats) would max out at 914 seats. That's an increase in capacity of 55% compared to the 11 coach 390's. They would give you about 18 years before growth would have increased passenger numbers by the same percentage.

HS2 is proposing 1,100 seats (which can be fitted into 2*8 coach units based on slightly lower than 800/3 but slightly higher than 800/1 seating densities), whilst that's still only 86% (but does push it out to 25 years) there's still scope for retained services to make up some of that shortfall.

For example 3*1,100 plus 589 is 3,889 seats an hour. That compares with 3*589 which is 1,767. They means an increase in capacity of 120% (realistically the retained services isn't going to be as attractive so may not be able to carry the full 120%, but it certainly gets you that bit closer to 28 years worth of growth).

 

[Bletchleyite]

But that rather assumes you'll get that level of growth. Improving technology is likely to cause travel to level out and perhaps decrease, not grow forever.

 

[The Ham]

But that rather assumes you'll get that level of growth. Improving technology is likely to cause travel to level out and perhaps decrease, not grow forever.

That is a possible outcome, however also (unless there's overcrowding or strikes or other limiting factors) 2.5% rail growth isn't actually all that high.

Q3 of 2019/20 saw that rate of growth, and that was very much reduced from the over 4% increases seen around 2010.

Anyway even if it's 2.3% rather than taking 28 years to double it'll be 31 years.

 

[mike57]

But that rather assumes you'll get that level of growth. Improving technology is likely to cause travel to level out and perhaps decrease, not grow forever.

I think the growth could be there, driven by leisure travel, how do mid range journeys, lets say in the 50 -300 mile category split between road and rail. I have heard figures in the area 5-10% rail, 90-95% road, I dont know if thats accurate or if anyone really knows. This is the area where rail should be competetive for a lot of journeys, and I can see a number of things which will push things in the direction of rail if the railways are in a position to take up the challenge.

The roads are getting more congested, I can see the Welsh 20mph limit spreading, thats going to make journeys into the large urban centres even slower, and electic cars and the need to stop and recharge is going to further extend journey times in the 200 mile + area.

If the railways can deliver then the growth is there, however performance will need to improve across the rail network, not just reliability of services, but also things like ticketing and response to things like late running and other unforseen events.

 

[Snow1964]

The DFT Avanti new 9 year contract (separate thread) has lot about WCP (West Coast Partnership) involving HS2. If plan is to kill HS2 then all seems bit pointless having it

 

[stuu]

But that rather assumes you'll get that level of growth. Improving technology is likely to cause travel to level out and perhaps decrease, not grow forever.

Switzerland, which you mention occasionally, is planning on a 50% increase in passengers by 2050. Are they wrong?

 

[The Ham]

Switzerland, which you mention occasionally, is planning on a 50% increase in passengers by 2050. Are they wrong?

50% growth is an average of 1.5% per year growth between now and 2050, so hardly significant growth.

 

[MarkyT]

50% growth is an average of 1.5% per year growth between now and 2050, so hardly significant growth.

No, the target figure shows that significant growth is intended to be achieved slowly, incrementally, and realistically over a number of years. There will no doubt be setback years connected to overall economic conditions and years where a major project comes on-stream and the yearly average growth is exceeded considerably. The total is similar to what has been achieved in the UK over the last few decades, albeit from a much lower usage base per capita here, and with no formal plan.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately reliance on European standards has probably crippled HS2 permanently, even before HS2 decided to deviate from them to get a non standard platform height.

Line should have been built to a Shinkansen cross section, given the increasing size of people we are going to miss that 70cm of width before long.

I also differ from people on this forum in that I look to Japan as a model for high speed rail rather than Continental Europe.

We have a scheme that tried to be all things and has failed miserably. Right now we have to think about the best ways to use what we have rather than blindly pursue old glories.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Building to Shinkansen width would be inappropriate because it's going to require through running onto the UK network for the foreseeable future. Thus it should probably have been built to UK loading gauge with 915mm platforms.

 

[HSTEd]

Building to Shinkansen width would be inappropriate because it's going to require through running onto the UK network for the foreseeable future.

Trains of approximately UK width run onto Shinkansen lines every day using train mounted gap fillers. It's a solved technical problem. (Yamagata and Akita Shinkansen)

Thus it should probably have been built to UK loading gauge with 915mm platforms.

No objection to 915mm platforms necessarily. But UK loading gauge would permanently hamstring the line for negligible cost savings.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trains of approximately UK width run onto Shinkansen lines every day using train mounted gap fillers. It's a solved technical problem. (Yamagata and Akita Shinkansen)

No objection to 915mm platforms necessarily. But UK loading gauge would permanently hamstring the line for negligible cost savings.

I also forgot to mention:

1. Nobody likes 3+2.
2. The selling point of First Class when travelling alone is the 1 side.