Despite the government's announcement, should HS2 be cancelled?

[duncanp]

The Elizabeth Line is great, I'll give you that.

But was £18.8bn worth it when you consider what else could be done for that massive sum? I think it's highly questionable. You could have several regional tram networks for that, benefitting far more people.

You could probably also have done the EL itself for much cheaper if it looked more like a Tube line and less like a vanity project. It's gold plated beyond a railway enthusiast's wildest dreams.

Crossrail, as it then was, should never have been cancelled in 1994.

It would have been up and running by the early 2000s, and ultimately for lower overall cost than today's Elizabeth Line.

Of course the money for the Elizabeth Line could have been spent on regional tram networks for cities such as Leeds, Liverpool or Bristol, but that is a political decision for the government about where the money is better spent.

If the money had been spent elsewhere instead of Crossrail, then the problems of capacity in Central London would still be there, and eventually the government of the day would have to address them,

If HS2 is cancelled or significantly reduced in scope now, this will fuel resentment in the North of England, who will see the newly opened Elizabeth Line and wonder why they can't have something similar.

 

[MarkyT]

We live in such a different world to when HS2 was conceived. To many people, 2 hours on a train from Manchester to London is able to be used productively. The faster journey time thing isn't relevant.
Arguments on capacity, equally now seem harder to justify when fewer people are travelling .
What HS2 seems to be now is a way of turning Manchester (and perhaps Birmingham) into dormitory towns for London. With that , eventually you'll see the same crazy property prices and see young locals forced out . So be careful what you wish for, as places like Manchester could soon have all the personality of Milton Keynes, and all the priceyness of London.
Let's focus on making our existing railways great and bin HS2 now.

If we are going to see significant mode share transfer from air particularly on the longer routes that will use HS2 (not Birmingham obviously), then new capacity will be required. We can argue whether HS2 is the right scheme or not, but surely you must accept that basic premise. The capacity crunch limiting growth comes from trying to mix services with different speeds and stopping patterns on the same tracks and existing major station platform capacity. I think HS2, or something very much like it conceptually, quite elegantly addresses these issues. Alternatively we could just put all our hope for the future into the chimera of electric aeroplanes!

 

[DarloRich]

Phase 1 is too far along to scrap. Phase 2 will be booted into the long grass of "independent" reviews/studies that will decide it is too expensive. So much for levelling up.

pip pip!

 

[Turtle]

Phase 1 is too far along to scrap. Phase 2 will be booted into the long grass of "independent" reviews/studies that will decide it is too expensive. So much for levelling up.

pip pip!

Unfortunately I regret to agree with you.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course the money for the Elizabeth Line could have been spent on regional tram networks for cities such as Leeds, Liverpool or Bristol, but that is a political decision for the government about where the money is better spent.

Or you could have gained a load of cheaper capacity for central London by putting a tram down the 25 route. Or built a more Tube-like route. There are always options beyond "Crossrail as is" vs "nothing".

Of course then came COVID and questionable need for that capacity.

If HS2 is cancelled or significantly reduced in scope now, this will fuel resentment in the North of England, who will see the newly opened Elizabeth Line and wonder why they can't have something similar.

Confirms my point really.

 

[Parjon]

If HS2 is cancelled or significantly reduced in scope now, this will fuel resentment in the North of England, who will see the newly opened Elizabeth Line and wonder why they can't have something similar.

I don't believe there are many in the North who would view hs2 as being useful, let alone integral to their happiness.

A different way this could be viewed: When faced with council tax rises and council budget cuts, what may be resented is the cheque signalling the continued arrival of HS2 into Manchester despite all that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't believe there are many in the North who would view hs2 as being useful, let alone integral to their happiness.

I am inclined to agree. You go to London for an occasional trip.

Significant improvements to the North's conventional rail network such as electrification and capacity would be appreciated more, and are much cheaper.

 

[Chester1]

Phase 1 is too far along to scrap. Phase 2 will be booted into the long grass of "independent" reviews/studies that will decide it is too expensive. So much for levelling up. pip pip!

I think you might be right with phase 2b but phase 2a is likely safe. Its the best value part of the project and brings most of the benefits to north west of the whole project.

I don't believe there are many in the North who would view hs2 as being useful, let alone integral to their happiness.

A different way this could be viewed: When faced with council tax rises and council budget cuts, what may be resented is the cheque signalling the continued arrival of HS2 into Manchester despite all that.

People who don't like it or don't care will still complain if its cancelled and use it as an example of the north being treated badly. They won't believe another project will happen 10 years down the line.

 

[Watershed]

The faster journey time thing isn't relevant.

Surely you can see that saving perhaps 5 or 10% of the cost (had a lower design speed been specified from the outset) is a perfect example of 'penny wise, pound foolish'?

Imagine if the GWML had been designed around 25mph running, which was about the fastest speed that steam engines could reach at the time. It would probably still be as slow as the Gunnislake branch!

Furthermore, whilst speed isn't everything, it does matter. The faster services run, the fewer trains needed to run a given frequency (thus operating costs are lower). And I'm sure you would be the first to agree that if Plymouth to London were possible in 1.5 hours, this would change things significantly...

It's all a moot point at the end of the day though, as the design speed is baked into what's under construction, and reducing it now will barely save anything.

Arguments on capacity, equally now seem harder to justify when fewer people are travelling .

There is a notable reduction in commuters and a huge reduction in business travellers - but leisure passengers have increased compared to pre-Covid. I'm sure that Avanti would be in a more similar position to LNER (who have more passengers overall compared to pre-Covid) if they were reliably running a full timetable.

In any event, how do we know that passenger numbers won't increase in the future, as they did after the recession of the early 90s? Passenger numbers on the WCML increased massively following the upgrade at the start of the century - why wouldn't they do the same again after HS2 opens?

What HS2 seems to be now is a way of turning Manchester (and perhaps Birmingham) into dormitory towns for London. With that , eventually you'll see the same crazy property prices and see young locals forced out . So be careful what you wish for, as places like Manchester could soon have all the personality of Milton Keynes, and all the priceyness of London.

You say "seems to be now" as if its purpose has changed. Whilst the partial scrapping of the Eastern leg is a huge mistake in my view, it still delivers many of the same benefits as before, certainly to the other towns and cities it will still serve.

As for these areas becoming dormitory towns, the impact of HS1 suggests otherwise. And again, as you alluded to, commuter numbers have decreased with the advent of WFH - so this effect would not be as strong as it might have been before Covid.

Let's focus on making our existing railways great

What exactly does this mean, in practice? What other shovel-ready projects are there, which could deliver a similar Benefit Cost Ratio?

 

[Xavi]

Phase 2 will go back under review, so that future Chancellors can put it to death through a thousand cuts. I would be amazed if a new alignment now ever makes it as far as Crewe, let alone Manchester.

Phase 2a to Crewe will go ahead. It’s straightforward, only £5-7bn, gets HS2 to the north and brings huge benefits to the existing overcrowded network in the midlands.

But was £18.8bn worth it when you consider what else could be done for that massive sum?

Yes, that’s under £2bn a year based on a 10-year construction programme and government now spends £1000 bn + a year. There needs to be a perspective.

it does create fiscal room

No it does not. £5.7 bn a year (2019 prices) is a drop in the ocean.

Jenkins should be completely ignored, he was absolutely against Crossrail too, going back at least 20 years.

Correct, Jenkins has no credibility on infrastructure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's worth noting that HS1 isn't the same game. A 225km/h commuter service using a bit of spare capacity is not comparable to a 10tph 400km/h intercity service, while Eurostar was never going to be anything other than a railed airline.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 Nov 2022 ==

Phase 2a to Crewe will go ahead. It’s straightforward, only £5-7bn, gets HS2 to the north and brings huge benefits to the existing overcrowded network in the midlands.

It relieves the Trent Valley, which isn't overcrowded.

Phase 1 relieves south Birmingham (by 1tph).

 

[DarloRich]

I think you might be right with phase 2b but phase 2a is likely safe. Its the best value part of the project and brings most of the benefits to north west of the whole project.

2a may perhaps survive in one form or another but not 2b.

 

[Roast Veg]

Of course then came COVID and questionable need for that capacity.

This factor is hugely overstated. Growth continues, and we will be meeting and exceeding capacity on our infrastructure in the future anyway. Why not take this golden opportunity to stay ahead of that growth instead of waiting until breaking point?

 

[irish_rail]

Surely you can see that saving perhaps 5 or 10% of the cost (had a lower design speed been specified from the outset) is a perfect example of 'penny wise, pound foolish'?

Imagine if the GWML had been designed around 25mph running, which was about the fastest speed that steam engines could reach at the time. It would probably still be as slow as the Gunnislake branch!

Furthermore, whilst speed isn't everything, it does matter. The faster services run, the fewer trains needed to run a given frequency (thus operating costs are lower). And I'm sure you would be the first to agree that if Plymouth to London were possible in 1.5 hours, this would change things significantly...

It's all a moot point at the end of the day though, as the design speed is baked into what's under construction, and reducing it now will barely save anything.


There is a notable reduction in commuters and a huge reduction in business travellers - but leisure passengers have increased compared to pre-Covid. I'm sure that Avanti would be in a more similar position to LNER (who have more passengers overall compared to pre-Covid) if they were reliably running a full timetable.

In any event, how do we know that passenger numbers won't increase in the future, as they did after the recession of the early 90s? Passenger numbers on the WCML increased massively following the upgrade at the start of the century - why wouldn't they do the same again after HS2 opens?


You say "seems to be now" as if its purpose has changed. Whilst the partial scrapping of the Eastern leg is a huge mistake in my view, it still delivers many of the same benefits as before, certainly to the other towns and cities it will still serve.

As for these areas becoming dormitory towns, the impact of HS1 suggests otherwise. And again, as you alluded to, commuter numbers have decreased with the advent of WFH - so this effect would not be as strong as it might have been before Covid.


What exactly does this mean, in practice? What other shovel-ready projects are there, which could deliver a similar Benefit Cost Ratio?

Is leisure travel really taking off on the Birmingham/ Manchester to London routes though? I'd suggest people would rather a decent service across the North. And leisure traffic in the London to Birmingham and Manchester direction? Really!?
A focus on leisure could be some REAL expenditure on XC services to give decent length trains serving locations people actually want to go. That would do far more for leisure travel than a Birmingham to London white elephant.
And how about getting rid of the daft requirement for the trains to be self driving. I wander how much that adds to the overall build cost.
Re dormitory towns, I think its pretty much a given thats where Manchester would head (its half way there now , much to the disliking of locals). Do we want our Northern cities to be stripped of all their charachter?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is leisure travel really taking off on the Birmingham/ Manchester to London routes though? I'd suggest people would rather a decent service across the North.

And a decent service day to day. It's been done in places - those busy 6-car EMUs going from Manchester to Blackpool where an overcrowded Pacer (or if lucky two, or if really lucky a 156) went shows what demand there actually is.

ALL of the North's rail network bar a couple of branch lines could look like that for a tiny fraction of the cost of HS2. And you could 4-track the whole of Castlefield with the change, including buying some property in the way and demolishing it.

 

[Roast Veg]

And a decent service day to day. It's been done in places - those busy 6-car EMUs going from Manchester to Blackpool where an overcrowded Pacer (or if lucky two) went shows what demand there actually is.

ALL of the North's rail network bar a couple of branch lines could look like that for a tiny fraction of the cost of HS2.

HS2 is not preventing such a scheme from being undertaken

 

[Bletchleyite]

HS2 is not preventing such a scheme from being undertaken

There's only so much money to spend at once. Some of HS2's cost is being borrowed forward against fares income but not all of it it seems.

 

[Roast Veg]

There's only so much money to spend at once. Some of HS2's cost is being borrowed forward against fares income but not all of it it seems.

The limiting factor is political will, not cash. Good infrastructure investment will rescue the economy, not ruin it.

 

[samulih]

Goverment spending has nothing to with us mere mortals spending, problem that people usually use that rhetoric, populists especially. And after watching videos this project is really trying to create local jobs, use local materials etc. So it is not just fast train for rich people.

 

[MarkyT]

It's worth noting that HS1 isn't the same game. A 225km/h commuter service using a bit of spare capacity is not comparable to a 10tph 400km/h intercity service, while Eurostar was never going to be anything other than a railed airline.

Eurostar still manages to move considerable numbers of passengers to and from the continent, most of whom would probably fly if such a fast point to point rail option didn't exist. That is the metric that matters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Eurostar still manages to move considerable numbers of passengers to and from the continent, most of whom would probably fly if such a fast point to point rail option didn't exist. That is the metric that matters.

Eurostar was ideological - I don't necessarily disagree with that ideology, but it was - it was to bring us closer to an EU we were back then a willing part of. Building an LGV for slightly less than 2tph (as it was originally - the commuter services just use spare capacity) never made financial sense and never will.

 

[Sonik]

The Elizabeth Line is great, I'll give you that.

But was £18.8bn worth it when you consider what else could be done for that massive sum? I think it's highly questionable. You could have several regional tram networks for that, benefitting far more people.

It's not a zero sum game, and since London itself paid 70% of the cost of the Elizabeth Line (based on the benefits to London expected) those funds would never have existed to use elsewhere.

Similar arguments can be applied to HS2, with the return on fare revenue, regeneration benefits etc.

 

[Bantamzen]

Phase 2a to Crewe will go ahead. It’s straightforward, only £5-7bn, gets HS2 to the north and brings huge benefits to the existing overcrowded network in the midlands.

"Only £5-7bn" is contextual. As far as the project goes, its less than 10% of the overall cost. But if you line it up with say, awarding public sector workers a pay rise, or building new capacity into the NHS, for politicians especially those ideologically opposed to HS2, "only £5-7bn" (plus the rest) soon starts to stack up politically. As I said above, there are going to be difficult decisions on the economy ahead, and many people will expect HS2 to face some kind of cuts along with everything else facing cuts.

It may not be ideologically or economically correct, but this is politics we are talking about.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

"Cancelling" projects doesn't always mean "The End".
The Crossrail approved in 2010 is a better project than the one cancelled in 1994.
The Channel Tunnel Rail Link to St Pancras in the 2000s is a better project than the weird routes proposed from the south in the 1990s.
Having cancelled the Channel Tunnel itself in 1975, it was resurrected a decade later (with private funding).
Grayling cancelled MML electrification but it is back in earnest 7 years later.

With HS2, its weakness is the lack of clarity about its purpose north of Crewe/East Midland Parkway, and how it will integrate with NPR, so it is easily put on ice.
Cutting the Golborne link was a fatal error in my view, as it undermines the Crewe-Manchester leg and doesn't save significant sums.
But cancelling any part of Euston-Birmingham-Crewe would be a great mistake - some mild descoping maybe possible.
The train fleet looks to be over-specified at 360km/h, and the unit price will be higher if the fleet size is reduced.

 

[The Planner]

It relieves the Trent Valley, which isn't overcrowded.

Phase 1 relieves south Birmingham (by 1tph).

It gets rid of the perennial elephant in the room problem that is Colwich, which is a can always kicked down the road.

 

[Watershed]

But if you line it up with say, awarding public sector workers a pay rise, or building new capacity into the NHS, for politicians especially those ideologically opposed to HS2, "only £5-7bn" (plus the rest) soon starts to stack up politically.

Expenditure on infrastructure simply can't be compared with ongoing expenditure on salaries/the NHS. It's also not the case that £5-7bn is spent in one go - it is spread over several years. So really what we are talking about is perhaps £1bn a year for a couple of years. When divided across the 5.74m public sector workers, this would mean a £174 a year payrise - but only for a few years, after which the funding for the continuing higher salaries would need to be found elsewhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It gets rid of the perennial elephant in the room problem that is Colwich, which is a can always kicked down the road.

What would be the cost of grade separating Colwich? Less than 5-7bn I bet.

 

[The Planner]

What would be the cost of grade separating Colwich?

You would need to do Shugborough as well if you want any growth. No idea on cost, not an engineer.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

What would be the cost of grade separating Colwich? Less than 5-7bn I bet.

You'd end up with an Armitage-Norton Bridge line, which is pretty much what HS2 delivers (plus straightening Whitmore/Madeley).
I think this was one of the "Stafford By-Pass" WCRM options that was never documented for fear of planning blight, a bit like the NPR routes today.

 

[Trainbike46]

Meanwhile DB's ICE4 is a 250km/h unit rather than a 300km/h one. Environmental considerations are causing a general reduction in speeds - we're no longer in an era of blind technological development.

That is because the ICE4 is intended to replace IC units. DB has also ordered more ICE3s, the ICE3neo, which will run at 320 km/h for the high-speed lines