HS2 rail extension to Leeds set to be scrapped

[Horizon22]

Quite how the Government can pretend to support the reduction of carbon emissions at Cop26, and then massively reduce a carbon saving project within days, really does defy belief.

And within weeks of announcing domestic APD cuts too! As with much of this government, there's a lot of talk but never the money or action to back it up. I could get into a whole tirade about how its easy to talk up projects to potential voters who then end up baulking when they realise what that means in reality (£££) but that is probably too far off-topic!

 

[tomuk]

Where is the like button? 100% agree.

The safeguarding hasn't been removed

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Sorry I am a positive person by nature. I am looking for any positive bits.

 

[21C101]

It is in no way going to be a "crack" route even if HS2 East is discarded entirely.

Essentially all London-Scotland traffic will decamp to the WCML anyway once HS2 reaches Crewe.

You would be carting air up and down the ECML all day, every day, for occasional use during disruption.

That's a very very expensive way of providing "redundancy".

Bilge. The journey time from Edinburgh to Euston even if Phase 2 had been built in full was 3h 48 minutes according to the HS2 journey planner

All of 12 minutes faster than the 05:40 from Edinburgh to Kings Cross which does it in four hours precisely with a call at Newcastle, without ever exceeding 125mph.

Interestingly, the HS2 journey planner wrongly states that the fastest current Edinburgh to London time is 31 minutes slower than it will be via HS2. The correct figure is 12 minutes slower.

It then compounds this error by stating "HS2 journey time savings are compared against current rail times. Current rail times are based on current fastest regular rail journey available in either direction"

So it won't take a great deal of investment and upgrading of the ECML for it to be faster than HS2, a few billion perhaps, but nearer £3 billion than £30 billion and without tangling it up with West Coast and Midland Main Line over one pair of tracks from London to Birmingham International.

HS2 Journey Planner - HS2

www.hs2.org.uk

 

[Starmill]

Interestingly, the HS2 journey planner wrongly states that the fastest current Edinburgh to London time is 31 minutes slower than it will be via HS2. The correct figure is 12 minutes slower.

If you read it, it's based on typical times available in both directions. Not the fastest actual time.

 

[ABB125]

Bilge. The journey time from Edinburgh to Euston even if Phase 2 had been built in full was 3h 48 minutes according to the HS2 journey planner

All of 12 minutes faster than the 05:40 from Edinburgh to Kings Cross which does it in four hours precisely with a call at Newcastle, without ever exceeding 125mph.

Interestingly, the HS2 journey planner wrongly states that the fastest current Edinburgh to London time is 31 minutes slower than it will be via HS2. The correct figure is 12 minutes slower.

It then compounds this error by stating "HS2 journey time savings are compared against current rail times. Current rail times are based on current fastest regular rail journey available in either direction"

So it won't take a great deal of investment and upgrading of the ECML for it to be faster than HS2, a few billion perhaps, but nearer £3 billion than £30 billion and without tangling it up with West Coast and Midland Main Line over one pair of tracks from London to Birmingham International.

The key to that claim is "current fastest regular rail journey" - yes you can take the one train per day which takes 4hrs (which very few people use), but the standard hourly fast service takes 4hrs 20

 

[Ianno87]

If you read it, it's based on typical times available in both directions. Not the fastest actual time.

Indeed.

Quoting one train, in one direction only, at a useless departure time for most people, that cannot be replicated in the standard hourly service, would hardly be representative.

 

[Watershed]

Bilge. The journey time from Edinburgh to Euston even if Phase 2 had been built in full was 3h 48 minutes according to the HS2 journey planner

All of 12 minutes faster than the 05:40 from Edinburgh to Kings Cross which does it in four hours precisely with a call at Newcastle, without ever exceeding 125mph.

Interestingly, the HS2 journey planner wrongly states that the fastest current Edinburgh to London time is 31 minutes slower than it will be via HS2. The correct figure is 12 minutes slower.

It then compounds this error by stating "HS2 journey time savings are compared against current rail times. Current rail times are based on current fastest regular rail journey available in either direction"

So it won't take a great deal of investment and upgrading of the ECML for it to be faster than HS2, a few billion perhaps, but nearer £3 billion than £30 billion and without tangling it up with West Coast and Midland Main Line over one pair of tracks from London to Birmingham International.

You can't possibly compare the journey time with that of a single crack express (in the southbound direction only). ECML (franchised) services are always going to call at Newcastle and York at a minimum, the majority at several more stations than that.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

Do people seriously think Leeds passengers are going to catch a train to Manchester to then travel into London?

Even if its quicker, I find it hard to belive that most will and feel like most people will just opt for the direct train.

 

[Starmill]

All of 12 minutes faster than the 05:40 from Edinburgh to Kings Cross which does it in four hours precisely with a call at Newcastle, without ever exceeding 125mph.

But LNER trains will all be calling at Newcastle and York at least on the new schedules in a couple of years time. And then if a 3h 50 schedule is available every hour who is to say that the ECML timetable will be used to support 4 hour timings?

 

[HSTEd]

Bilge. The journey time from Edinburgh to Euston even if Phase 2 had been built in full was 3h 48 minutes according to the HS2 journey planner

All of 12 minutes faster than the 05:40 from Edinburgh to Kings Cross which does it in four hours precisely with a call at Newcastle, without ever exceeding 125mph.

So running with only one stop from London to Edinburgh is still slower than the HS2 option and you expect people will continue to use it.... why?
It discards almost all intermediate journeys to achieve this objective, its basically a train for Newcastle-London and Newcastle-Edinburgh journeys only.

And this will consume valuable paths.
How will this service be economic compared to using an easier to path, slower train on the route?

So it won't take a great deal of investment and upgrading of the ECML for it to be faster than HS2, a few billion perhaps, but nearer £3 billion than £30 billion and without tangling it up with West Coast and Midland Main Line over one pair of tracks from London to Birmingham International.

And those few billion would make the via HS2 route even faster.

You are effectively demanding that the route receive billions in funding for pretty much only diversionary routes.

Assuming a practical upgrade package can even be put together for "a few billion".

 

[Starmill]

Do people seriously think Leeds passengers are going to catch a train to Manchester to then travel into London?

Even if its quicker, I find it hard to belive that most will and feel like most people will just opt for the direct train.

No. And if they do, there wouldn't be enough capacity for everyone on Manchester to London services anyway.

 

[HSTEd]

Do people seriously think Leeds passengers are going to catch a train to Manchester to then travel into London?

Even if its quicker, I find it hard to belive that most will anpathingd feel like most people will just opt for the direct train.

When the via Manchester journey inevitably ends up cheaper than the direct train due to the huge capacity of captive trainsets and the tiny staffing requirements .... yes

 

[Ianno87]

When the via Manchester journey inevitably ends up cheaper than the direct train due to the huge capacity of captive trainsets and the tiny staffing requirements .... yes

Certainly credible if the price is right.

Look, for example at passengers who do Nottingham-Grantham-King's Cross or Sheffield-Doncaster-King's Cross today.

 

[21C101]

how often is ‘often enough’?

in my experience about once every other year.

I think its a bit more often than that. In any case the scope for recovery and mitigations like emergency single line working is rather greater when you are only running a maximum of six trains an hour, not 17 per hour each way, (four of which each way are souped up commuter trains that can be cancelled or turned back to make space on your emergency single line for the one or two international high speed trains that use it).

A better equivent to HS2 is the chaos that ensues when the rather busier channel tunnel has a hiatus.

If you read it, it's based on typical times available in both directions. Not the fastest actual time.

No its not. I quote, as I also stated in my post

""HS2 journey time savings are compared against current rail times. Current rail times are based on current fastest regular rail journey available in either direction""

A service that operates daily is a regular service. The fastest regular journey available in either direction is four hours precisely.

If they are comparing with a typical journey time then it should say so.

HS2 Journey Planner - HS2

www.hs2.org.uk

 

[Peregrine 4903]

When the via Manchester journey inevitably ends up cheaper than the direct train due to the huge capacity of captive trainsets and the tiny staffing requirements .... yes

And why would it inevitably end up cheaper? I doubt the aim of HS2 is too have trains from Manchester full of people travelling from Leeds as @Starmill says.

 

[Ianno87]

And why would it inevitably end up cheaper? I doubt the aim of HS2 is too have trains from Manchester full of people travelling from Leeds as @Starmill says.

The aim of HS2 is to provide capacity. Capacity that is there to be sold, in the form of tickets.

 

[HSTEd]

And why would it inevitably end up cheaper? I doubt the aim of HS2 is too have trains from Manchester full of people travelling from Leeds as @Starmill says.

Because carrying a passenger on HS2 is dramatically cheaper for the railway than carrying a passenger on a conventional train.

You can pack in far more passengers and operate with less staff and stock per seat than on the conventional line.

Until the line is outright full, which it won't be for years, it would be best for the railway to encourage all possible journeys use HS2.

A 400m coupled pair of Avelia Horizons can carry 1480 passengers on the SNCF/Ouigo spec, with only a single staff member.

 

[WatcherZero]

The reported budget for the integrated rail package is £96 billion.
You should be able to get a decent set of railway upgrades for that.
But then the Mail report includes things like phasing out paper tickets, trams for Leeds and reopening a couple of lines (Stocksbridge and "Stockport to Ashton"), to muddy the waters.
And its all going to happen quicker, cheaper...

Supposedly only £40bn is new spending, the other £56bn is already announced schemes like HS2 Western arm, Transpennine upgrades, Wigan-Bolton electrification, etc...

 

[Starmill]

The aim of HS2 is to provide capacity. Capacity that is there to be sold, in the form of tickets.

And indeed nearly all of it will be sold I am in no doubt.

But without a doubt there's not enough of it to no longer run direct trains between Leeds and London via Peterborough.

Of course, it will tip the balance significantly for places like Huddersfield and Halifax.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

The aim of HS2 is to provide capacity. Capacity that is there to be sold, in the form of tickets.

And all that capacity could be very easily taken by Manchester passengers, especially with the cheaper tickets.

 

[21C101]

So running with only one stop from London to Edinburgh is still slower than the HS2 option and you expect people will continue to use it.... why?
It discards almost all intermediate journeys to achieve this objective, its basically a train for Newcastle-London and Newcastle-Edinburgh journeys only.

And this will consume valuable paths.
How will this service be economic compared to using an easier to path, slower train on the route?


And those few billion would make the via HS2 route even faster.

You are effectively demanding that the route receive billions in funding for pretty much only diversionary routes.

Assuming a practical upgrade package can even be put together for "a few billion".

Most of the upgrade would be south of York. Things like getting rid of the level crossings and the flat crossing at Retford, four tracking Welwyn (which sorts a big chunk of the paths issue), resignalling with in cab signalling and reinstating the removed four track north of Huntingdon.

BR ran parts of it at 140mph with lineside signalling in successful trials decades ago so it is not beyond the wit of man to get 150-160 mph on goodly stretches of it with such an upgrade.

Two an hour running from Euston to Leeds via Toton will also ease the path situation.

 

[HSTEd]

And all that capacity could be very easily taken by Manchester passengers, especially with the cheaper tickets.

I'm sure that Manchester passengers can possibly fill all of that capacity, at least for a couple of decades anyway.

Even 3x400m lashups an hour is going to have many times the current (pre coronavirus) capacity, even before you go to esoteric solutions like Avelia Horizons in place of conventional single deck EMUs.

 

[Ianno87]

And indeed nearly all of it will be sold I am in no doubt.

But without a doubt there's not enough of it to no longer run direct trains between Leeds and London via Peterborough.

Of course, it will tip the balance significantly for places like Huddersfield and Halifax.

I imagine that even Huddersfield/Halifax demand on a typical Leeds-London service today is certainly non-trivial. Taking that off will make a difference.

And all that capacity could be very easily taken by Manchester passengers, especially with the cheaper tickets.

Depends how exactly cheaply you price them.

 

[NoRoute]

There is no political party that properly supports rail advancement. It’s a failing of human nature that most people who have money prefer to travel by car, and having money is usually a function of being an MP (ie it isn’t something we can just blame on the Tories), but this car preference once again sees rail investment suffer. I’ve never been a strong supporter of HS2 as I firmly believe far better options were available, but that still doesn’t prevent a feeling of despair that yet again, rail investment is to be reduced.

Have to disagree, there was and is support because HS2 is being built and there was the commitment to fund it, what has sunk it is the failure to manage the costs. If HS2 was capable of delivering what it originally promised and a price somewhere close to originally agreed, it would be going ahead in full. Rail projects seem to expect the tax payer to give them a blank cheque, but like any project if the costs escalate then the project design has to be adjusted to control costs. But HS2 had the additional problem of being not only hugely expensive but also providing either no or limited benefits to the communities along the route which doesn't help build public support.

Quite how the Government can pretend to support the reduction of carbon emissions at Cop26, and then massively reduce a carbon saving project within days, really does defy belief.

The argument doesn't really hold because studies have found HS2 will take over 100 years for the carbon savings it provides to off-set the carbon produced during construction. If you care about carbon emissions you don't build HS2, it doesn't help. You'd invest the funds in other priorities like an EV charging network for cars and freight, a decent electric bus network or in the existing rail network.

 

[Peregrine 4903]

I'm sure that Manchester passengers can possibly fill all of that capacity, at least for a couple of decades anyway.

Even 3x400m lashups an hour is going to have many times the current (pre coronavirus) capacity, even before you go to esoteric solutions like Avelia Horizons in place of conventional single deck EMUs.

But until we know what rolling stock is going to be ordered for HS2, those are just assumptions that could easily be wrong.

 

[hwl]

Do people seriously think Leeds passengers are going to catch a train to Manchester to then travel into London?

Even if its quicker, I find it hard to belive that most will and feel like most people will just opt for the direct train.

Some will, most won't it will still be quicker than LNER today assuming TRU in full. However HS2 Euston - Leeds journey times with a dedicated Trent Jn - Claydon HS section will be around 1h40-45mins so quicker to take the direct (semi-) HS2 service.

HS2 supplies a huge increase in seats for much lower operating cost, hence the pricing model is very likely to aim to fill those seats rather than leave them empty.

Many London -Edinburgh passengers will also transfer to HS2 and TRU.

Electrifying Micklefield - Hambleton Jn offers the potential to hack off at least 7minutes from the Leeds - Kings Cross journey time if there is capacity east of Leeds (which Church Fenton -Leeds sections helps with)

 

[Starmill]

But until we know what rolling stock is going to be ordered for HS2, those are just assumptions that could easily be wrong.

To be fair there is a Full Business Case for the scheme already which rather suggests they're wrong.

 

[HSTEd]

But until we know what rolling stock is going to be ordered for HS2, those are just assumptions that could easily be wrong.

And because rolling stock can never be changed?

The cost of cascading those trains to other duties and buying new ones is negligible compared to the cost of the scheme.

We won't know what rolling stock will actually be used on HS2b to Manchester until a handful of years before service start. This will no doubt largely be determined by what the capacity situation looks like then, not what we think it might look like now.

 

[hwl]

But until we know what rolling stock is going to be ordered for HS2, those are just assumptions that could easily be wrong.

The initial HS2 rolling stock tender specifications give a very good idea of onboard capacity and onboard service / facility levels which is what would get cascaded to the Euston - Leeds Services.

There is a big focus on capacity...