Which begs the question: what was the basis for cancelling the eastern leg? If they haven't looked at the alternatives, how do they know chopping the eastern leg is the best option?
A U-turn to what? The missing pieces of this jigsaw can now easily be spun off as "non-core" parts of the Rail Plan, which puts them well into the 2040s and even the 2050s.
Comparing the figures in the NIC report (the proposal most closely resembles regional 25%), the total benefits are approximately the same.
The Secretary of State made indirect reference. He seemed to be offering the prospect of more reliable more local services. All a bit vague- maye a transcript will make that easier? Or maybe a <Control F> search on the document online?
To the best of my knowledge through trains running off HS2 to Nottingham and Derby was never in the original plan.
It is mentioned directly in the document only one, in relation to a (rejected) possible use of the Marple line for Hope Valley trains. I don't think we can expect all that much easing of congestion in the area - only the current Ordsall Chord services are transferring to NPR/HS2 between Marsden and Manchester Airport (and on to Liverpool thereafter).
I was tempted to say something outrageous like this myself. I get so angry and frustrated at times that I too wish for Chinese style government too at times.
I would suggest that St Pancras International to Stratford at 6 minutes working timetable for 5.79 miles is up there near the top. The fact that it is a high speed line doesn't really help as the speed limit to Stratford is 100mph and there's the throat of the combined Eurostar and SE platforms to negotiate.
Looks like there will be a lot of 'trundling' between Sheffield and Leeds for some time. I'm wondering WHY that is? Plans for other destinations/ routes/ improvements seem more fully developed (perhaps/ probably because they are?). I suggest it's about politics- who would think? This is but one example of the lack of oneness of 'the north' (and 'The East/ West Midlands'). Sheffiled -Leeds has long been a series of metal scrapyards and former mines- and unfortuately that's not going to change any time soon. I noted pleasure in 'the House' from Conservative MPs in former Red Wall seats eg Rother valley who saw no local benefit from HS2 indeed only destruction of homes.
Do benefits equate to convenience? Convenience for the many over a benefit?
In fairness to contributors, it is a 162 page document- a lot to read, let alone understand, evaluate, reflect ...
I certainly see lots of people joining Euston trains at Runcorn.
It does? Sheffield has lost its NPR to Leeds and ‘rail improvements’ between Sheffield to Manchester have disappeared.
Not much mention of electrification/ decarbonisation/ bimodes etc; no ref to COP26- how long ago was that?? The skeptic in me wonders why?
The rug got pulled out when the new Leeds station was dropped from the plans. Now, the best bet will likely be upgrading Sheffield to Moorthorpe once the ECML upgrade from there up to Leeds is done, but no studies have gone into that yet.
The total benefits outlined by the NIC are measured in "Improvements to connectivity from faster journeys" (in %), "Improvements to productivity in city centres, undiscounted" (in £bn), and "Benefits from connecting people to city services, undiscounted" (in £bn). The regional +25% package figures are very much in the same ballpark as the long distance +50% package, so I don't think it's fair to say there's much of any improvement to convenience all-told.
Hope valley upgrades (and electrification) are still very much on the agenda, and referenced in the body of the document. I don't know why it's not marked on the map.
Wow you must be a seriously fast reader to have ploughed through all that whilst posting numerous negative comments on here, some almost immediately after publication.
Reading between the lines in the report, the revised strategy gives the same or better benefits overall for less money than the original HS2b "plan".
There has been a oneness of sorts between South and West Yorkshire, politically, on the issue of the poor links between Leeds and Sheffield which I remember going back 20 years. There's one service that takes 40 minutes, and you can't get a seat on in the rush hour; two services that take just under 60 minutes; one that takes 75 minutes; one that takes 90 minutes. The two semi-fasts came from a desire to improve journey times but they're nowhere near enough.
So where is Bradford? What is it for? Not wanting to be rude; but seeking to see it as the government may be seeing 'the north'? I confess to thinking that 6-8tph. best 18mins looks quite good !
And 30 mins 'cut' to London for those 'needing' to go there ... Maybe not the best cost-benefit (BCA)? I did note however the MP for Keighley not happy, so a bit of 'cross-party' Bradford Together (just repeated on Radio 4).
Leeds does at least (was planned to) bolt on to the existing station, just at right angles. Sheffield would need some work doing as well, although no-one knows exactly what (Sheffield Midland Integrated Station Masterplan notwithstanding). Both are short on space, at the station thrats and of through platforms.
I was just trying to explain why the Leeds to Sheffield bit has gone altogether pending a new study - without the new station the goalposts have moved. The fuss was about more platforms, since it was expected that HS2 would need them.
As I put it similarly regarding Bradford. Where is Hul; what is it for? Not even any trawlers there for years. The view from Westminster??