What now for HS2

[Bletchleyite]

I think you slightly miss the point. HS2 is and always was primarily about six tracking the south WCML and about serving WCML destinations. The smaller eastern destinations were never the key, just incidental benefit and giving those areas something to keep them quiet. Taking that into account, an M40 route makes most sense.

 

[Shrop]

I think you slightly miss the point. HS2 is and always was primarily about six tracking the south WCML and about serving WCML destinations. The smaller eastern destinations were never the key, just incidental benefit and giving those areas something to keep them quiet. Taking that into account, an M40 route makes most sense.

Giving them something to keep them quiet? i doubt the people of Yorkshire and other northern counties would appreciate being dismissed like that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Giving them something to keep them quiet? i doubt the people of Yorkshire and other northern counties would appreciate being dismissed like that.

The MML is a secondary route so I don't really see how it could ever be any different.

 

[Halish Railway]

I think HS2 could be made to have more reaching effects with small changes to it in lieu of the rather ill-thought through shelving of the Golborne link (Which really should have joined the WCML north of Wigan), as well as the scaling back of the Eastern Leg and Northern Powerhouse Rail.

I’m thinking of connecting HS2 to the Camp Hill line to enable high speed Cross-country services to the Western County, as well as a link from the Water Orton Delta Junction to the Sutton Park line to enable a service towards Walsall, Wolverhampton and Shrewsbury. I think both ideas address the problem that the benefits of HS2 won’t be widespread enough, as well as encouraging more electrification to support these proposed services, laying the groundwork for rolling electrification and decarbonisation schemes.

Although connecting HS2 to the Camp Hill line is easier said than done, especially at this stage of the project.

 

[Shrop]

The MML is a secondary route so I don't really see how it could ever be any different.

I think you're missing the point. Compare the population centres along the ECML, with those along MML. The "primary" route of ECML has Peterborough, which is too close to London to be of much value as an HS2 destination, and you then have Grantham, Newark, Retford, Doncaster and York. All of these towns are far smaller than any of Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds, yet these latter places have always been on the "secondary" route, as you call it. Okay, Leeds is on a branch from ECML, but it has VERY slow links to Sheffield, Nottingham and Birmingham, all of which SHOULD have been improved by HS2.

It all needs leveling up, as promised by Government. It's not about being dismissive of these major population centres just because they've previously only received a second rate service both to the Capital and to the Midlands.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Giving them something to keep them quiet? i doubt the people of Yorkshire and other northern counties would appreciate being dismissed like that.

But that's exactly what has happened, except it's not clear what the "something" is (currently nothing except a dubious upgrade of the classic ECML, and MML wiring to Sheffield).
Phase 1 was only ever Euston-Birmingham/Lichfield (connecting into the WCML there).
Phase 2a extended this to Crewe.

The route of the eastern leg has always been more problematic, and the rows over serving Derby/Nottingham and Sheffield effectively put the skids under the whole thing (north of EM Parkway).

 

[Peter Sarf]

Actually it was based on current demand. Because no one thinks ahead in this country, and invests in potential.

Rubbish - If no one ever invests in potential then what were the regional Eurostars and European Overnight stock built for ?. Pity they were a total waste of money.

 

[tomuk]

It's patently obvious that no-one in their right mind would build a route to Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds by heading due west out of London

I seem to recall that the last mainline built to connect London with Nottingham Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester does head west out of London it's was called the Great Central Railway.
HS2 generally follows it route and actually reuses parts of it alignment until turning further west north of Brackley to reach Birmingham.

 

[swt_passenger]

I seem to recall that the last mainline built to connect London with Nottingham Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester does head west out of London it's was called the Great Central Railway.
HS2 generally follows it route and actually reuses parts of it alignment until turning further west north of Brackley to reach Birmingham.

It uses a tiny fraction of the GC trace. So little that you can probably ignore it. Where the HS2 alignment touches the GC now and again it smooths the curves out a lot, and also has a different vertical alignment almost everywhere. You really can’t describe it as ‘generally following” the GC.

 

[tomuk]

It uses a tiny fraction of the GC trace. So little that you can probably ignore it. Where the HS2 alignment touches the GC now and again it smooths the curves out a lot, and also has a different vertical alignment almost everywhere. You really can’t describe it as ‘generally following” the GC.

I said generally follows it route not alignment.


Gw&gc-overview
Afterbrunel, CC BY-SA 4.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0>, via Wikimedia Commons

 

[Shrop]

But that's exactly what has happened, except it's not clear what the "something" is (currently nothing except a dubious upgrade of the classic ECML, and MML wiring to Sheffield).
Phase 1 was only ever Euston-Birmingham/Lichfield (connecting into the WCML there).
Phase 2a extended this to Crewe.

Yes, what a fundamentally appalling concept, to design Phase 1 in isolation, and then Phase 2 as an add-on. Any transport planner with any competence would design a new route with some consideration of an end product, and build it in stages for practical reasons, they would never propose and build something small and then add to it depending on what's already there, unless there was never any intention to take it further. But with HS2, it's inconceivable that anyone proposing a new railway from London to Birmingham, really didn't think that it might one day be developed further north.

Which means it should surely have been designed as a UK project, at very least in principle. So assuming some degree of competence, and at risk of repeating myself, there is no way that it could have been designed purely as a London to Birmingham project without any consideration of cities further north. And yet in practice that's what happened, which is quite bizarre.

 

[tomuk]

Yes, what a fundamentally appalling concept, to design Phase 1 in isolation, and then Phase 2 as an add-on. Any transport planner with any competence would design a new route with some consideration of an end product, and build it in stages for practical reasons, they would never propose and build something small and then add to it depending on what's already there, unless there was never any intention to take it further. But with HS2, it's inconceivable that anyone proposing a new railway from London to Birmingham, really didn't think that it might one day be developed further north.

Which means it should surely have been designed as a UK project, at very least in principle. So assuming some degree of competence, and at risk of repeating myself, there is no way that it could have been designed purely as a London to Birmingham project without any consideration of cities further north. And yet in practice that's what happened, which is quite bizarre.

What you have just posted is completely the opposite to reality.

 

[Shrop]

What you have just posted is completely the opposite to reality.

Apologies, I probably didn't make my point clear, so let me ask a question. Was HS2 Phase 1 designed as part of a bigger scheme, or as a stand alone project?

 

[tomuk]

Apologies, I probably didn't make my point clear, so let me ask a question. Was HS2 Phase 1 designed as part of a bigger scheme, or as a stand alone project?

Part of a bigger scheme it is phase 1 of the wider HS2 network.

 

[Shrop]

With a very busy day ahead, I ought to drop out of this one for now. I also think I'm going off topic anyway, dwelling on what should have been when the thread is about "what next". I think the prevailing pro HS2 arguments are far too set in stone for me to make much sense trying to change them now, and my thoughts are there upthread anyway. Enjoy your day

 

[The Planner]

Apologies, I probably didn't make my point clear, so let me ask a question. Was HS2 Phase 1 designed as part of a bigger scheme, or as a stand alone project?

Clearly it was, or Birmingham wouldn't have been on a spur of the mainline with the grade seperation north of Interchange. You wouldn't permenently dump it out at Handsacre if that was the case.

 

[Bald Rick]

but as always, "those who know best" chose to build the southern section first

Perhaps “those who know best” understand the railway network, and had ascertained that building the northern sections first was not feasible from an operational perspective. No point spending all that money if you can’t use it except for a Birmingham - Leeds and Birmingham - Manchester shuttle…

despite the massive controversy over ploughing up the Chilterns

under the Chilterns. There is quite a difference.

It's patently obvious that no-one in their right mind would build a route to Nottingham, Sheffield and Leeds by heading due west out of London, but it was all about serving Heathrow.

Rubbish. It was about finding the most cost effective alignment to get out of the largest metropolitan area in Europe. if It was ‘all about’ serving Heathrow, it would have gone to Heathrow!

Apologies, I probably didn't make my point clear, so let me ask a question. Was HS2 Phase 1 designed as part of a bigger scheme, or as a stand alone project?

I can confirm it was designed as part of a bigger scheme, as set out in a Command Paper to Parliament in 2010.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228887/7827.pdf

It’s 153 pages long so I won’t quote all of it, but there’s a whole chapter on what the initial core high speed rail network would comprise of, which states:

This chapter considers the possible scope of a British high speed rail network, drawing on HS2 Ltd’s analysis of the options for linking London to Scotland. Its assessment is that the UK’s initial core high speed rail network should consist of a Y-shaped set of routes connecting London to Birmingham, Manchester, the East Midlands, Sheffield and Leeds,
with through services running onto the conventional network to additional destinations, including Liverpool, Newcastle, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

 

[Shrop]

Perhaps “those who know best” understand the railway network, and had ascertained that building the northern sections first was not feasible from an operational perspective. No point spending all that money if you can’t use it except for a Birmingham - Leeds and Birmingham - Manchester shuttle…

So instead of having a Leeds to Birmingham "shuttle" to stimulate growth in the north by saving 70 minutes on that route, instead we'll have a London to Birmingham shuttle to save significantly less than half that. There's also the fact that building the northern section first would inevitably have led to then building the southern section, whereas building the southern section first was a fairly predictable means of allowing the northern section to simply be shelved. Note here, and as I've said elsewhere, I'm looking at this from a transport and leveling up perspective, not purely a rail perspective. And it is possible to re-define rail parameters where appropriate, if the political will is there.

under the Chilterns. There is quite a difference.

I don't have the inclination to look up all the info, i just thought there was quite an outcry from many people in the Chilterns area. It seems a bit odd for so many people to make so much fuss if it was all going through tunnels!

Rubbish. It was about finding the most cost effective alignment to get out of the largest metropolitan area in Europe. if It was ‘all about’ serving Heathrow, it would have gone to Heathrow!

I can confirm it was designed as part of a bigger scheme, as set out in a Command Paper to Parliament in 2010.

It sounded quite different at presentations made before 2010, when Heathrow was stressed emphatically. I doubt I could find the appropriate papers now, but I have no doubt that the importance of serving Heathrow was downgraded just before 2010, when the justification for heading out west from London moved much more strongly towards using Old Oak Common and linking in to Crossrail. The 2010 Command Paper was confirmation of the revised priorities.

 

[BrianW]

Giving them something to keep them quiet? i doubt the people of Yorkshire and other northern counties would appreciate being dismissed like that.

Shrop, I have a lot of sympathy with a lot of what you say; there are a lot of people who know better, on this forum and in government, and strong notes of scepticism based on experiences and political imperatives. To be fair to politicians they have to get voted in. 'Circumstances' and priorities change. It may be informative to remind ourselves of timelines. I am myself unsure of these but 'factors' must surely include 'Credit Crunch', the then Chancellor's 'Northern Powerhouse', promises to lie down in front of Heathrow bulldozers, identification and wooing of a 'red wall', overruns of Crossrail 1, ... all pre-Covid. Levelling Up is a latecomer. Goodness knows how many Transport Secretaries. I think the former Paddington- Snow Hill lin hjad been in mind, after all it had been the main line for some time. 'Keeping people quiet' is politics!

 

[cle]

So instead of having a Leeds to Birmingham "shuttle" to stimulate growth in the north by saving 70 minutes on that route, instead we'll have a London to Birmingham shuttle to save significantly less than half that. There's also the fact that building the northern section first would inevitably have led to then building the southern section, whereas building the southern section first was a fairly predictable means of allowing the northern section to simply be shelved. Note here, and as I've said elsewhere, I'm looking at this from a transport and leveling up perspective, not purely a rail perspective. And it is possible to re-define rail parameters where appropriate, if the political will is there.

The "saving 15 minutes to Birmingham" trope is as much a red flag as people who talk about "woke" or used the term "Bliar" - avoid.

That said, it is worth noting that the TGV to Avignon and Marseille, and points east and especially west - where HS continues - ended in Lyon for many many years, and was 'classic compatible'. This is not a closed affair - and by all acounts, it will likely incrementally creep in sections through our lifetimes.

London- (B'ham) / Crewe is our Paris-Lyon (!) - the main trunk and the smartest route to bag, in tough times. I'd be more than happy with it. In fact, I'd put getting to Crewe over getting into Central Birmingham, but luckily that isn't a debate we are likely to have!

Yes, getting to Manchester would be far far better, but it may well be deferred or f-ed around with politically (rise of Burnham). Even though it's the most important inter-city rail market.

And hopefully changes in future government won't disabuse the possibility of a proper leg to Sheffield and Leeds - although the folks of Derby and Nottingham are probably hoping not.

 

[Bald Rick]

So instead of having a Leeds to Birmingham "shuttle" to stimulate growth in the north by saving 70 minutes on that route, instead we'll have a London to Birmingham shuttle to save significantly less than half that.

I don’t have the exact numbers to hand, but there are something like 15 times as many passengers between London and Birmingham as between Birmingham and Leeds.

There's also the fact that building the northern section first would inevitably have led to then building the southern section

Nothing is inevitable insofar as politics and railways are concerned, as we have seen (and will see in a month or so)

Note here, and as I've said elsewhere, I'm looking at this from a transport and leveling up perspective, not purely a rail perspective.

so were (and still are) are the people preparing the proposals for ministers to take decisions on. The decisions are taken very much on a transport and economic basis, and not a ‘rail perspective’ whatever that means.

 

[takno]

I don’t have the exact numbers to hand, but there are something like 15 times as many passengers between London and Birmingham as between London and Leeds.

I'm going to guess you mean Birmingham and Leeds. It's difficult not to point out that Birmingham to London already has a very rapid and direct service and a cheap backup service which adds significant cheap capacity. Birmingham to Leeds has a really quite slow main line, with poor quality low-capacity services and no cheap option, and is slowed down significantly by capacity and pathing issues. It's really quite conceivable that this route has a little bit of supressed demand. It's also a much cheaper bit of railway to build.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm going to guess you mean Birmingham and Leeds. It's difficult not to point out that Birmingham to London already has a very rapid and direct service and a cheap backup service which adds significant cheap capacity. Birmingham to Leeds has a really quite slow main line, with poor quality low-capacity services and no cheap option, and is slowed down significantly by capacity and pathing issues. It's really quite conceivable that this route has a little bit of supressed demand. It's also a much cheaper bit of railway to build.

I did mean Birmingham to Leeds - corrected. I’m sure it does have suppressed demand, but there’s no doubting the economic gravity between the UKs second city* and Europe’s largest city (and financial centre) will always be greater than between the second and fourth cities. Even if Birmingham - Leeds rail travel doubled, it would still be a small fraction of London - Birmingham.

* I know there are various arguments about what the second city is, but I think it’s Birmingham

 

[takno]

I did mean Birmingham to Leeds - corrected. I’m sure it does have suppressed demand, but there’s no doubting the economic gravity between the UKs second city* and Europe’s largest city (and financial centre) will always be greater than between the second and fourth cities. Even if Birmingham - Leeds rail travel doubled, it would still be a small fraction of London - Birmingham.

* I know there are various arguments about what the second city is, but I think it’s Birmingham

Oh, no question, but ultimately it's about building national facilities which overall benefit as much of the nation as possible. Should the purpose of new infrastructure be to entrench Birmingham and London's positions, or to build up another city and spread out development?

I don't actually have a particular axe to grind about the London to Birmingham section, but the HS2 needs to be the network that was originally envisioned, and it was always going to be too easy to "shave off" the northern bits which "aren't quite as profitable". Starting with the north would have prevented that

 

[tbtc]

Why did they build Waverley to Newcraighall first, instead of focusing on the Stow to Tweedbank section, when building a railway to the Borders?

They could have had a railway from Stow to Tweedbank built early and then filled the bits towards Edinburgh - but building the Edinburgh end first just entrenched Edinburgh’s position of economic dominance

(Okay, I’m not being entirely serious, but I wondered how the “Manchester end first” argument would look when applied to another infrastructure project)

 

[Peter Sarf]

In all seriousness. The part of any project that gets built first should be the bit that is easiest to justify.

In the case of HS2 there were, as I recall, two benefits being touted.
1) Relieving pressure on the SOUTH end of the West Coast Mainline so that more non-intercty services could serve the towns already built up along the South end of West Coast Mainline.
2) Increase the speed of intercity services in Britain - the easiest way to do that is to speed up the parts that the majority of the trains use. The majority of trains and passengers end up in London so the London end was always the best place to start. Although those who live in the West of England and South Wales are going to feel left out. It is a bit of a London centric view but London is an extremely large city !.

 

[tomuk]

Oh, no question, but ultimately it's about building national facilities which overall benefit as much of the nation as possible. Should the purpose of new infrastructure be to entrench Birmingham and London's positions, or to build up another city and spread out development?

This needs to be handled very carefully, places have developed over time and interfering in the organic growth of cities can cause issues. Birmingham and the West Midlands vehicle industry is a prime example of this. In the 60's the government used IDCs and other measures to move industry to more deserving areas, unemployment was at 1.2% in the West Mids, instead of expanding or replacing existing factories in the area satellite factories sprung up across the country, making the companies more difficult to manage and more difficult to run. Now apart from J Land Rover it has all gone. 'Bathgate no more, Linwood no more' as the Proclaimers sang.

 

[Peter Sarf]

This needs to be handled very carefully, places have developed over time and interfering in the organic growth of cities can cause issues. Birmingham and the West Midlands vehicle industry is a prime example of this. In the 60's the government used IDCs and other measures to move industry to more deserving areas, unemployment was at 1.2% in the West Mids, instead of expanding or replacing existing factories in the area satellite factories sprung up across the country, making the companies more difficult to manage and more difficult to run. Now apart from J Land Rover it has all gone. 'Bathgate no more, Linwood no more' as the Proclaimers sang.

Your right. We are where we are because of how things evolved. To avoid London and the South East being the centre of the UK universe means the planners 2000 years ago needed to think ahead more and ignore the ideals of a port at the lowest crossing point of the Thames that faces towards our neighbours via the shortest sea crossing !.

London is an oversized, overcrowded and over expensive place to live. There is a reason for that - success attracts. I personally do look longingly further afield at the attractiveness of a cheaper and shorter commute with more affordable housing - not easy to achieve. Of course retirement will remove me from that stranglehold. But the attractiveness of improving the lot of the majority is the deciding factor and so HS2 was born.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nothing is inevitable insofar as politics and railways are concerned, as we have seen (and will see in a month or so)

so were (and still are) are the people preparing the proposals for ministers to take decisions on. The decisions are taken very much on a transport and economic basis, and not a ‘rail perspective’ whatever that means.

What a tease...

Presumably after Liz Truss gets her feet under the table and appoints another Chancellor and Transport SoS.

 

[Peter Sarf]

......................

Nothing is inevitable insofar as politics and railways are concerned, as we have seen (and will see in a month or so)

so were (and still are) are the people preparing the proposals for ministers to take decisions on. The decisions are taken very much on a transport and economic basis, and not a ‘rail perspective’ whatever that means.

What a tease...

Presumably after Liz Truss gets her feet under the table and appoints another Chancellor and Transport SoS.

I do have a horrible feeling that a LOT of changes and hard decisions are on the way as a result of the war in Ukraine. In my book the least of it is that the cold war is back. Loss of demand due to Covid might mean HS2 is less necessary.