HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[Energy]

Likely to happen? The Tories have confirmed they're selling it off!

I think they'll quietly let it sit. Nobody will pay a high price with the risks of compulsory purchase and selling cheap will get the government a booting in the press.

 

[AndrewE]

I think they'll quietly let it sit. Nobody will pay a high price with the risks of compulsory purchase and selling cheap will get the government a booting in the press.

except that doesn't seem to worry them, they must be playing to a different audience now.
Rishi seems to be wanting to take risks (with our money and futures) just so that he can be seen as brave...

 

[eldomtom2]

I think they'll quietly let it sit. Nobody will pay a high price with the risks of compulsory purchase and selling cheap will get the government a booting in the press.

With how cautious Starmer is being on the subject I'm sure they could find buyers for some of it.

 

[The Ham]

I think they'll quietly let it sit. Nobody will pay a high price with the risks of compulsory purchase and selling cheap will get the government a booting in the press.

Only they only need to get it off their hands in the next 10 months, citing commercial reasons for not disclosing the costs it's sold for.

By the time it's known/in the public domain the ship will have sailed and there's likely to be a new government in place.

What's the betting that those who buy lots of land are somehow linked to the Tories?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That plan looks like reusing the old ex-LNW Warrington-Stockport alignment. Fat chance!

If that is the line that passed through Lymm, once the former Broadheath station is reached, the rail viaduct on one side of the A56 and the rail overbridge was demolished when the retail park was established a good number of years ago, but the viaduct on the other side of the A56 is still standing. In that onwards area, there was quite a convoluted series of rail junctions, one of which carried the line of the CLC Glazebrook junction line on a high bridge over the Manchester Ship Canal, through Cadishead, Partingtron and West Timperley to where the line meets the connection area to the existing Altrincham-Navigation Road-Stockport line, there is a proposed station in Cheadle and long sections of single line trackwork, which also carries a regular heavy freight service in addition to the Manchester-Altrincham-Chester passenger services.

What's the betting that those who buy lots of land are somehow linked to the Tories?

In my younger days, there were no shortage of rich Socialists. How would you have classified Robert Maxwell for example? Where have they all gone?

 

[Peter Sarf]

It's now being suggested* that Euston may only happen with private funding. If it doesn't happen, work should be stopped and all phases cancelled, no use throwing good money after bad.

* https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...th-other-projects.255629/page-21#post-6441379



There is no point throwing good money after bad.



If the Euston site is resold, there's no possibility of it ever getting there. You'd easily be able to add 2A and 2B later if needs be, but once you've got high value development on the Euston site compulsory purchasing it again would be hugely expensive, and to even sell it is likely to involve a deed of covenant that it will not be compulsory purchased for a goodly long period, at least the length of the initial leases on the flats.

It MUST go to Euston* straight away or it's worthless.

* Or another suitable location within Zone 1, though there aren't any, it's been done to death.

I would hope common sense would prevail and the costs of completing OOC-Euston would be less than the benefit. Otherwise the money spent already is largely a complete waste. I would have hoped that the Euston HS2 development is on stilts over the area required for ALL the platforms so future proofed.

I agree that without Euston any part of HS2 is pointless - its the death blow.

I was hoping private enterprise could be tempted to tackle Handacre (Rugely) to Crewe. I assume the Handacre junction could be eliminated if Crewe is the end point. But I am being too ambitious it seems.

Euston only being possible with private funding sounds like a future setup to scrap the OOC-EUS section and blame it on a lack of investment that the government couldn't do anything about. Call me a pessimist but with how much has been thrown away with this project and knowing how little the Conservatives care about rail transport combined with poor leadership, I would not be surprised if that's how it went down.

All those who remind us that the railways are indispensable have to realise that too much militancy could be making the powers that be very keen on avoiding being even more dependent on railways. A large chunk of the loans saved by cancelling HS2 are going on non-rail projects. Rail is a loser here.

The price of HS2 is considerable - so alarming. Then to watch the price rise so dramatically is bound to cause scrutiny. Covid has weakened the justification and inflation has made people look too closely.

 

[AdamWW]

I would have hoped that the Euston HS2 development is on stilts over the area required for ALL the platforms so future proofed.

Yes that was my naive solution.

But there are probably good reasons why it doesn't work.

 

[Krokodil]

Any chance that one the bulk of the ICWC traffic is out of the classic side, we could rebuild more of those platforms into HS2 ones, or will that cause too many problems in the HS2 throat?

They're also removing the grade separated throat.

 

[HSTEd]

They're also removing the grade separated throat.

The grade separated throat probably isn't a deathblow to future expansion, if our limitation is turnaround times for trains from long distances more platforms would still be useful.

 

[Meerkat]

What's likely to happen is that the land will get sold off for next to nothing and either brought back by a Labour government, the land owners (who won't be farmers but rather those who support the Tory Party) will make several thousand pounds per acre.

All this ultra cynical Tories Grrr is getting really boring. How exactly will they arrange for HS2 to sell the land to Tories?

The land will be worthless to farmers, as they don't want to put in the effort only to find that it's being brought again

How much effort are you thinking it takes to plough it up and plant stuff on it!

 

[HSTEd]

I have been thinking about this for the last couple of days.

Now that we are apparently going to have some kind of fast Manchester-Liverpool connection, was the HS2 Phase 2 route via Crewe still optimal?

A route east of Stoke to the Airport is significantly shorter, would allow a connection via the Uttoxeter line into Stoke (to displace Handsacre and bypass Colwich Junction).

Once a fast east west line exists going to Crewe, to pick up the existing fastish line into Liverpool makes little sense.

 

[philosopher]

Euston only being possible with private funding sounds like a future setup to scrap the OOC-EUS section and blame it on a lack of investment that the government couldn't do anything about. Call me a pessimist but with how much has been thrown away with this project and knowing how little the Conservatives care about rail transport combined with poor leadership, I would not be surprised if that's how it went down.

Given it is very likely Kier Starmer will be the next PM, I suspect he would agree to build the OOC-Euston section without private funding. Kier Starmer is not going to want prolonged uncertainly over what happens to Euston blighting this part of Camden as Euston as it is in his constituency.

This decision therefore basically seems a way of deferring the decision to the next future government.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Given it is very likely Kier Starmer will be the next PM, I suspect he would agree to build the OOC-Euston section without private funding. Kier Starmer is not going to want prolonged uncertainly over what happens to Euston blighting this part of Camden as Euston as it is in his constituency.

This decision therefore basically seems a way of deferring the decision to the next future government.

Depends if the Tories burn the bridges (sell the prime development land) before the next General election.

 

[HSTEd]

The Euston section was only not cancelled to stop the Mayor of the West Midlands resigning on the spot.

Of course, if Rishi wants a summer election he only has a few months left full stop!

 

[Sorcerer]

All those who remind us that the railways are indispensable have to realise that too much militancy could be making the powers that be very keen on avoiding being even more dependent on railways. A large chunk of the loans saved by cancelling HS2 are going on non-rail projects. Rail is a loser here.

I try not to be too militant in my advocacy for proper rail investment, but I do still stand by the notion that the Conservatives don't care for railways since historically they have less favourable views on them than the Labour Party. It was the Conservatives that oversaw the Beeching Cuts (with dubious conflict of interest relating to Ernest Marples specifically), Thatcher was at best ambivalent towards them, and Rishi Sunak has taken a clear pro-road, or more specifically pro-car stance based on his plans to "improve" the driving experience rather than reduce people's dependency on cars that even he himself acknowledges. But furthermore they also stand against the concept of 15-minute cities because apparently having basic amenities within a 15-minute walking distance is a bad thing while car dependency is a good thing. But that's straying off subject.

Given it is very likely Kier Starmer will be the next PM, I suspect he would agree to build the OOC-Euston section without private funding. Kier Starmer is not going to want prolonged uncertainly over what happens to Euston blighting this part of Camden as Euston as it is in his constituency.

This decision therefore basically seems a way of deferring the decision to the next future government.

Perhaps that is also the reason why the government has made unrealistic investment plans so that they can later claim that Labour deliberately underfunded or defunded the railways by scrapping these improvements that Sunak himself has no intention of doing so. I think even he is smart enough to recognise that he isn't keeping the keys to Number 10 come 2025. In either case we can I hope that the line will terminate at Euston upon completion, because that is now the only reason to not scrap the whole thing or stopping HS2 from becoming a white elephant.

 

[The Ham]

All this ultra cynical Tories Grrr is getting really boring. How exactly will they arrange for HS2 to sell the land to Tories?

Of course it won't all be sold to them, however ask yourself this, would you be interested in buying farm land at £11,000 per acre if you didn't know how long you were likely to be able to use it for because HS2 (or something like it) is back on the table a few years down the line?

The reality is that it's likely, especially if it's going to be sold off fast, to be sold significantly before market value. Now unless you've got money, your not going to take a punt on buying the land.

Now there'll be some who will buy a small plot for grazing (for example for a pony), but the larger plots (especially where an entire farm was purchased as the line split the farm aren't likely to be that attractive to many.

If you're a developer, or a company which takes plots and gets planning for then before selling them off, the risk of buying an area for (say) £2,000 per acre only to have it compulsory purchased in a few years (for the going market rate of £11,000) isn't an issue as you'll do quite nicely out of that for little to no work.

However the bigger reward would be if you could get planning permission for something (didn't matter what) and get a higher pay out - either through compulsory purchase or through to a developer to build what you have planning for.

As that's then typically 2/3rds of the value of the development you've got planning for. For example get planning for 5 houses of £300,000 each on an acre, now that land is worth £1 million.

Given the potential rewards (even by getting placing for a hand full of houses) you can see why people with money could be interested.

There's certainly no guarantee that they'll be Tory, or even Tory supporters, although there's a fair chance that there'll be a reasonable number who are.

How much effort are you thinking it takes to plough it up and plant stuff on it!

Those steps, not too hard. However, how much idea likely to produce depends on how good the soil is - something that you'll not easily be able to tell if it's been left fallow for a few years. As it's easy to grow stuff, the truck is too get good enough yeilds to make money.

 

[Meerkat]

Thatcher was at best ambivalent towards them,

Didn’t her government do quite a lot of electrification (certainly more than New Labour!) and a number of the urban and light rail schemes?

would you be interested in buying farm land at £11,000 per acre if you didn't know how long you were likely to be able to use it for because HS2 (or something like it) is back on the table a few years down the line?

If HS2 are going to buy it back at market value what’s the risk? Especially if you are the previous owner and still own adjacent land.
A lot of the value will be individual houses, which will have gone up in value. If they take the safeguarding off then prospective buyers might not even know it is related to HS2 (if they are sensible and don’t have the seller as “HS2 limited”.)

 

[Sorcerer]

Didn’t her government do quite a lot of electrification (certainly more than New Labour!) and a number of the urban and light rail schemes?

I believe that there were a few, and my original statement was going to suggest that Thatcher disliked them. I did some quick researching and realised that ambivalent was probably the better term since, as far as I'm aware, she would have rather kept a distance from them and wasn't too personally keen on trains, but also didn't outright hate them. After all she didn't subject them to the same style of privatisation that she did other industries because it would mean that some of the more rural routes would get cut back. For what it's worth, less government interference in actual day-to-day rail operation would probably be preferable.

 

[RobShipway]

What should happen is that the routes are safeguarded.

What's likely to happen is that the land will get sold off for next to nothing and either brought back by a Labour government, the land owners (who won't be farmers but rather those who support the Tory Party) will make several thousand pounds per acre. If HS2 isn't pushed forwards the land will find it's way into various local plans as new houses making their owners several million pounds.

The land will be worthless to farmers, as they don't want to put in the effort only to find that it's being brought again in a year, 6, or 11 years when it's back on the table. Few other people will want to buy land for similar reasons, unless it's cheap (i.e. rather than £11,000 per acre £3,000 or maybe £4,500).

At that sort of value is the sort of price that developers can take a punt and even if they have to parcel it up for horses for a few years they'll get their money back one way or another (even if they spend several tens of thousands of pounds trying to get planning and mostly failing).

Problem is some of that land was owned by charities, who are hundreds of thousands of pounds worse off now because of having to yield the land to the Government at cost price. For that land now not to be built on, I personally think needs to be investigated, if the land is going to be sold on for a higher worth than what it was brought from those people that previously owned the land.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I believe that there were a few, and my original statement was going to suggest that Thatcher disliked them. I did some quick researching and realised that ambivalent was probably the better term since, as far as I'm aware, she would have rather kept a distance from them and wasn't too personally keen on trains, but also didn't outright hate them. After all she didn't subject them to the same style of privatisation that she did other industries because it would mean that some of the more rural routes would get cut back. For what it's worth, less government interference in actual day-to-day rail operation would probably be preferable.

Yes. I felt the consolation prize for Rail Privatisation was less government interference - I was wrong on that like so many were. Thatcher actually never went as far as privatising rail - John Major found that was the only one left to do !. Can we compare and contrast the government involvement with HS2 construction to that for HS1 ?.

 

[RobShipway]

Yes. I felt the consolation prize for Rail Privatisation was less government interference - I was wrong on that like so many were. Thatcher actually never went as far as privatising rail - John Major found that was the only one left to do !. Can we compare and contrast the government involvement with HS2 construction to that for HS1 ?.

HS1 though was built in two stages, the first stage under Sir John Major as Prime Minister, the second stage was under Sir Tony Blair if my memory is correct? Although the first stage did open in 2003, with the second stage in 2007. Both openings where the Labour party where in power, but I believe that the first stage was started to be built when Sir John Major was in government for the Conservatives.

So, since we have an election next year, what is the chances Sir Keir Starmer if he wins for Labour, restarts HS2 phase 2?

 

[matacaster]

The grade separated throat probably isn't a deathblow to future expansion, if our limitation is turnaround times for trains from long distances more platforms would still be useful.

Any chance of a mezzanine floor above Euston's existing platforms? Gradient may be too steep and the disruption would be considerable, but could it be done in two stages? it would mean the land take would be very small, the rest could be sold off.
Alternatively, build underground station using cut and cover where HS2 station was to be on surface with land sold off at street level later?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have to admit on reflection to mixed feelings about this whole debacle. On the one hand, I very much believe we do need HS2 for the capacity relief, and for reducing in particular Birmingham-the North journey times, so I'm very sad the Northern part has been cancelled. But on the other hand, I also feel that the design we were going to build was appallingly bad: Terminus instead of through station in Manchester; an airport station not connected to the existing station and in the worst tradition of building a parkway in the middle of the countryside; no access from the new line to the WCML making it impossible for trains running on the new line from Manchester to get to places like Stafford or Wolverhampton; and in general very little connection with the existing rail network. If cancelling this now makes it possible for us to revisit and start planning something better once phase 1 is up and running (or sooner, if the need to sort out capacity around Stockport becomes more urgent), then it might prove to be a blessing in disguise, if viewed on a very long timescale.

 

[Peter Sarf]

HS1 though was built in two stages, the first stage under Sir John Major as Prime Minister, the second stage was under Sir Tony Blair if my memory is correct? Although the first stage did open in 2003, with the second stage in 2007. Both openings where the Labour party where in power, but I believe that the first stage was started to be built when Sir John Major was in government for the Conservatives.

So, since we have an election next year, what is the chances Sir Keir Starmer if he wins for Labour, restarts HS2 phase 2?

Big concern is how much the Tories burn the bridges. My fear is they could have over a year to sell off land and strangle Euston. See below.

Any chance of a mezzanine floor above Euston's existing platforms? Gradient may be too steep and the disruption would be considerable, but could it be done in two stages? it would mean the land take would be very small, the rest could be sold off.
Alternatively, build underground station using cut and cover where HS2 station was to be on surface with land sold off at street level later?

The current Euston has to be totally rebuilt to make any progress. Back in the 60s when Euston was being built BR wanted to put tower blocks on top. GLC refused permission. Station built with only enough foundations to support what is there.

I think the Euston HS2 station does not have to be underground. Just build it at ground level and build above it - although i prefer stations with high roofs (light and airy) land is very ver valuable.

I have to admit on reflection to mixed feelings about this whole debacle. On the one hand, I very much believe we do need HS2 for the capacity relief, and for reducing in particular Birmingham-the North journey times, so I'm very sad the Northern part has been cancelled. But on the other hand, I also feel that the design we were going to build was appallingly bad: Terminus instead of through station in Manchester; an airport station not connected to the existing station and in the worst tradition of building a parkway in the middle of the countryside; no access from the new line to the WCML making it impossible for trains running on the new line from Manchester to get to places like Stafford or Wolverhampton; and in general very little connection with the existing rail network. If cancelling this now makes it possible for us to revisit and start planning something better once phase 1 is up and running (or sooner, if the need to sort out capacity around Stockport becomes more urgent), then it might prove to be a blessing in disguise, if viewed on a very long timescale.

This might be an opportunity. Euston HS2 could be smaller if built as a through station leading to somewhere further across London. A location where land is cheaper and less developed but allowing interchange to some other lines would be nice. Euston would have to be more underground to facilitate an onwards tunnel and coming down Camden bank does not lend itself to going even steeper down !.

A below ground Euston HS2 running E-W between existing Euston and St Pancrass could have allowed onward connection to HS1 - NOT for Europe but perhaps to Ebbsfleet with a later branch to somewhere like Croydon. Result would be central station with fast service but picking up passengers on outskirts of London without slowing down core service.

I am not considering how much property is worthy of demolition and replacement to enable this. Just a general idea.

I am wondering if a tunnel under London would be best built for Cross rail two but that debate could happen once a through Euston needs to cope with more services as HS2 gets extended.

I am not sure how far advanced construction is at Euston ?. I think its beyond the easy to change stage. That means it can only be de-scoped which is a danger.

Otherwise I think this is a real opportunity right now to think through what should be best at the Euston end - without crippling its future growth.

But it is to become a political football and so far Kier Starmer seems to be more interested in totally different sports !.

 

[30907]

Apologies if this has been floated already - now that government seem to be restricting the capacity of HS2-as-was by cutting the size of Euston, is it worth revisiting the idea of an interchange station with EWR at Claydon?
It would relieve Oxford-Birmingham and improve connectivity to the North for the Aylesbury area.
You'd need platform loops, TGV style, obviously, but a half-hourly service would only reduce the available paths by 2ph.

Yes, it would be a gare-betterave, but the "beetroot farmers" of the area are pretty well-off so might use it to go north (or even to London).

PS I wondered about a spur to allow Oxford-North traffic, but I think.the LCs in Bicester would need taking out to achieve that.)

 

[LLivery]

I would reduce the fleet contract too. If 8tph is all we can achieve, I would actively consider modified Alstom TGV Ms for London to Birmingham at 2tph, maximising seated capacity. As for turning them around, hire enough train presentation to get them out quickly.

I have to admit on reflection to mixed feelings about this whole debacle. On the one hand, I very much believe we do need HS2 for the capacity relief, and for reducing in particular Birmingham-the North journey times, so I'm very sad the Northern part has been cancelled. But on the other hand, I also feel that the design we were going to build was appallingly bad: Terminus instead of through station in Manchester; an airport station not connected to the existing station and in the worst tradition of building a parkway in the middle of the countryside; no access from the new line to the WCML making it impossible for trains running on the new line from Manchester to get to places like Stafford or Wolverhampton; and in general very little connection with the existing rail network. If cancelling this now makes it possible for us to revisit and start planning something better once phase 1 is up and running (or sooner, if the need to sort out capacity around Stockport becomes more urgent), then it might prove to be a blessing in disguise, if viewed on a very long timescale.

I agree. Andy Burnham was saying he wants Piccadilly replanned to be underground, and if this avoids a bad decision with a new plan in 2030s, then so be it.

While I always thought HS2 was a good idea, the plan wasn't great. It felt like it was doing too much - 18tph (or was it higher) at 400km/h was ringing alarm bells for me the moment it was proposed, let alone tunnels in open countryside.

I would've avoided the Chilterns and used the M1 corridor, with a parkway station for Milton Keynes and maybe Luton, then the M6 corridor towards Brum Airport. Birmingham Int'l being connected with people mover rather than the tram seems like a waste.

Dare I say it, but if this was Itlay, Cuzon Street would be underground and a through station with a potential branch to the SW. If this was Germany or Austria, Cuzon St, New St and Moor St would've been one new Hbf. If this was Spain, Piccadilly would be underground. In France, a proper link to HS1 would be a given. All of this could've been achieved by doing one project at a time, and managing costs like HS1. Would've been pricy, but spread out over years, it wouldn't look as crazy.

Cutting Euston down to 6 platforms is vandalism. Starmer mentioned the capacity consequences but is sitting on the fence until conference at least. But no hopes there. I would've given the land to Network Rail, allowing them to develop the station with new homes/offices above to cover some costs.

Apologies if this has been floated already - now that government seem to be restricting the capacity of HS2-as-was by cutting the size of Euston, is it worth revisiting the idea of an interchange station with EWR at Claydon?
It would relieve Oxford-Birmingham and improve connectivity to the North for the Aylesbury area.
You'd need platform loops, TGV style, obviously, but a half-hourly service would only reduce the available paths by 2ph.

Yes, it would be a gare-betterave, but the "beetroot farmers" of the area are pretty well-off so might use it to go north (or even to London).

PS I wondered about a spur to allow Oxford-North traffic, but I think.the LCs in Bicester would need taking out to achieve that.)

I would say yes, and another at Brackley (or a third track from Clayton to Brackley). Horrible for the originally proposed capacity, but probably could've used it as sweetener for less tunnelling

 

[The Planner]

Apologies if this has been floated already - now that government seem to be restricting the capacity of HS2-as-was by cutting the size of Euston, is it worth revisiting the idea of an interchange station with EWR at Claydon?
It would relieve Oxford-Birmingham and improve connectivity to the North for the Aylesbury area.
You'd need platform loops, TGV style, obviously, but a half-hourly service would only reduce the available paths by 2ph.

Yes, it would be a gare-betterave, but the "beetroot farmers" of the area are pretty well-off so might use it to go north (or even to London).

PS I wondered about a spur to allow Oxford-North traffic, but I think.the LCs in Bicester would need taking out to achieve that.)

Only if a massive provision of house building was put on the back of it around Calvert and Steeple Claydon. Not sure how it relieves Oxford Birmingham as the journey time would be relatively similar.

 

[ConorW2000]

I live in Northamptonshire and I'm actually not that far away from Brackley where HS2 Phase 1 is passing.

I have seen my local MP, Andrea Leadsom has called for Brackley to get a station on the line, which I think makes absolute sense, it would be a massively welcome, especially when the Formula 1 is on at Silverstone, we get something like 500,000 people come every year for it, and so getting a station built at Brackley would be sensible.

Interestingly, a lot of the local community seem supportive of the idea. https://www.facebook.com/andrealead...5&notif_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif

 

[Bletchleyite]

Apologies if this has been floated already - now that government seem to be restricting the capacity of HS2-as-was by cutting the size of Euston, is it worth revisiting the idea of an interchange station with EWR at Claydon?
It would relieve Oxford-Birmingham and improve connectivity to the North for the Aylesbury area.
You'd need platform loops, TGV style, obviously, but a half-hourly service would only reduce the available paths by 2ph.

Yes, it would be a gare-betterave, but the "beetroot farmers" of the area are pretty well-off so might use it to go north (or even to London).

PS I wondered about a spur to allow Oxford-North traffic, but I think.the LCs in Bicester would need taking out to achieve that.)

I don't know about EWR, but an M25 Parkway has always been something I've thought a good idea. A lot of people drive to MKC for WCML trains north, and it could replace that.

However I doubt spending more is on the agenda!

Only if a massive provision of house building was put on the back of it around Calvert and Steeple Claydon. Not sure how it relieves Oxford Birmingham as the journey time would be relatively similar.

An ecovillage around it would be a great idea.

 

[ConorW2000]

I wonder if the idea of building two new stations at Brackley and Bicester might not be out of the question now. You could build two platforms, with two tracks in the middle for faster trains to pass through on.