"HS2 Back on Track" - front page of Sunday Express - private sector plan to build Birmingham to Manchester

[GRALISTAIR]

I'll repeat what I said in another thread: the big question is how much is the "private sector" willing to put up, and what do they expect to get out of it? I highly doubt that it could be funded entirely by private investment without a fair bit of government support...

Agreed. If the private sector are willing to fund, then they want to get a fair rate of return.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would the rail unions be against any private finance to enable the go-ahead of the project, as they have been scathing in past comments over the years about private sectoring finance involvement in the rail industry.

 

[Energy]

Grant Shapps has said this.

If HS2 Phase 2A is revived in some form as a new "low cost" project, a cynic might say this might be just in time for an election that is due to happen at some point this year...

I don't understand why Shapps has decided to stick his head up and double down on the "£36bn spent elsewhere". The government gets ridiculed every time it announces Network North funding ending up somewhere inevitably down south (e.g £235m to London roads). We're many months after Rishi announced his Network North wishlist and only some cash for potholes to show for it.

Privately funded HS2 Euston was a big part of Rishi's announcement, surely privately funding it to near-Manchester fits in with this.

Would the rail unions be against any private finance to enable the go-ahead of the project, as they have been scathing in past comments over the years about private sectoring finance involvement in the rail industry.

Likely critical of the government cancelling HS2 and favouring private investment rather than private HS2 itself. Given the choice between nothing or privately funded, I'd expect the unions to prefer the latter.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

Thankfully, it's not April Fools Day

Since when has it needed to be April 1st for the Express to publish a load of b*llocks?

Hopefully it amounts to something. We in Wales were pretty cheesed off that there was no Barnett consequential for HS2 but at least it helped our friends in the north. It will be a huge scandal if it ends up mainly benefiting London and the SE (no disrespect to our Brummie friends).

 

[D365]

Presumably , a de scoped 140mph , Stafford by-pass , will deliver most of the benefits at a realistic cost.

What would be the point in starting again, again?

 

[AndrewE]

What would be the point in starting again, again?

it shovels yet more (public) money into the pockets of those in the charmed inner circle of consultants and accountants without actually having to build anything.

 

[Bald Rick]

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2024 ==

Presumably , a de scoped 140mph , Stafford by-pass , will deliver most of the benefits at a realistic cost.

A 140mph Stafford bypass would cost approximately 99.5% of a 200mph Stafford bypass (using the already consented, and most land bought for, HS2a alignment).

If it was a new alignment, it would cost more.

 

[Tezza1978]

A 140mph Stafford bypass would cost approximately 99.5% of a 200mph Stafford bypass (using the already consented, and most land bought for, HS2a alignment).

If it was a new alignment, it would cost more.

@Bald Rick this was my complete guess also (and you have a lot more knowledge on stuff like this than I do clearly!)

0% chance some sort of new alignment is pursued given the planning permission for the current route and costs incurred already

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would the Stock Exchange need to be formally notified of such matters, mindful of the actual total company finance requirements needed to fulfil this project?

 

[HSTEd]

0% chance some sort of new alignment is pursued given the planning permission for the current route and costs incurred already

And yet the stated project is a high speed line to Stockport.

HS2 doesn't really go anywhere near Stockport, and if this project is just Phase 2A it would be sold as a high speed line to either Crewe or Manchester.

 

[NotATrainspott]

There isn't a vast amount of point going to Stockport. Unless you're willing to smash a new viaduct in alongside the existing one, you'll be building a tunnel under the suburbs of Manchester to Piccadilly. And, if you're going to have a second station at Manchester, building it on greenfield land next to the motorway network, other transport hubs and a major trip generator (the Airport area) is also pretty much inevitable. With the way that tunnelling costs scale, I wouldn't be surprised if Davenport Green were the cheapest place to build a tunnel to Piccadilly.

This is just a story about the project not being truly dead. Because, as people should really know and understand by now, it is really, really difficult to actually kill the idea of building a new high speed rail line. The only real way you can kill off a route is if you propose something else and that gains more momentum behind it. Play budgetary shenanigans all you like but the built environment and rail technology doesn't change that much in political timeframes. Even if a government tried to purge a route out of existence, it's impossible to undo the learning process that led to it being selected in the first place. No one would ever buy a house on land that had been allocated for HS2 unless an alternative route had been chosen instead.

We should really work on separating the planning from the funding of future rail projects. The more projects that we can create at least indicative designs for, the easier and cheaper it will be for government and the industry to work together to deliver as many of them as possible. Spending a bit of money learning about geological conditions on a route that isn't eventually selected isn't really a problem in the long term given that geology changes even more slowly than anything else. With the impossibility of un-learning about optimal routes, there isn't any real long term political benefit in cancelling a section as opposed to putting it on the back burner, waiting for finance.

 

[HSTEd]

There isn't a vast amount of point going to Stockport. Unless you're willing to smash a new viaduct in alongside the existing one, you'll be building a tunnel under the suburbs of Manchester to Piccadilly. And, if you're going to have a second station at Manchester, building it on greenfield land next to the motorway network, other transport hubs and a major trip generator (the Airport area) is also pretty much inevitable. With the way that tunnelling costs scale, I wouldn't be surprised if Davenport Green were the cheapest place to build a tunnel to Piccadilly.

Are you?

Once you are in Stockport you can take over enough paths into central Manchester to achieve what the mayors of Manchester and Birmingham likely want, which is fast connections to London and each other.
From the perspective of Burnham and Street they can get the bulk of the benefits of the project that they want without paying for Manchester end facilities.

EDIT:
At the end of the day there are only two stations between Stockport and Piccadilly, and the 13 minute stopping journey time would still allow a train to join a high speed line and crush Crosscountry on journey time to Birmingham.
So, you could use the stopper paths if you want.

We should really work on separating the planning from the funding of future rail projects. The more projects that we can create at least indicative designs for, the easier and cheaper it will be for government and the industry to work together to deliver as many of them as possible. Spending a bit of money learning about geological conditions on a route that isn't eventually selected isn't really a problem in the long term given that geology changes even more slowly than anything else. With the impossibility of un-learning about optimal routes, there isn't any real long term political benefit in cancelling a section as opposed to putting it on the back burner, waiting for finance.

That sounds like an excellent way to get runaway cost growth as projects are planned based on a blank cheque and then are used as weapons to prevent the construction of any cheaper project that is "not in the plan".

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That sounds like an excellent way to get runaway cost growth as projects are planned based on a blank cheque and then are used as weapons to prevent the construction of any cheaper project that is "not in the plan".

How many financially sound companies will not be aware of "blank cheque syndrome" when the money will be coming out of their very own coffers?

 

[HSTEd]

How many financially sound companies will not be aware of "blank cheque syndrome" when the money will be coming out of their very own coffers?

Well, since private capital will inevitably be backed by generous state subsidy (a la PFI) I'm not even sure it would be particularly in their interest to complain rather than rake in the money by using the huge capital cost to obtain a greater return on investment.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well, since private capital will inevitably be backed by generous state subsidy (a la PFI) I'm not even sure it would be particularly in their interest to complain rather than rake in the money by using the huge capital cost to obtain a greater return on investment.

Are you sure that the referred-to state subsidy will be forthcoming from previous comments made by the leaders of both major political parties on the continuation of any new part of HS2? When financial push becomes shove, there will be other Ministeries way ahead of the transport one

 

[HSTEd]

Are you sure that the referred-to state subsidy will be forthcoming from previous comments made by the leaders of both major political parties on the continuation of any new part of HS2?

Well, if they aren't, there is not a chance in hell that a private consortium will actually undertake construction of the line and the project truly is dead.

They aren't going to put up tens of billions of pounds for uncertain returns without state backing.

 

[Energy]

Are you?

Once you are in Stockport you can take over a lot of paths into the centre of Manchester, especially if you convert the other pair of lines into an all stations metro drag.
From the perspective of Burnham and Street they can get the bulk of the benefits of the project that they want without paying for Manchester end facilities.

Stockport is a good way to get HS2 to Manchester but its not brilliant for Liverpool, Liverpool - Crewe is about the same time as Liverpool - Manchester so the time saving by going via Manchester wouldn't be that big.

 

[HSTEd]

Stockport is a good way to get HS2 to Manchester but its not brilliant for Liverpool, Liverpool - Crewe is about the same time as Liverpool - Manchester so the time saving by going via Manchester wouldn't be that big.

Well, the Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester are likely to focus on services between Birmingham and Manchester and between those two cities and London.

Improvement to services between Liverpool and London are unlikely to rate particularly highly on their list of priorities.

It's entirely possible this really is HS2 Phase 2A, but the very odd language of "Stockport" doesn't really seem to support that. And it's entirely possible that Street and Burnham are willing to throw Liverpool etc under the bus.

 

[may032]

It simply doesn’t make sense to go back to square one and define a new route when the work has already been done, and approval written into law.

Handsacre to Crewe removes the main bottleneck which would deliver the results both Mayors are looking for. They just need to try and secure the private financing.

Thinking cynically, a rebranded 2a also delivers results at a timescale that may be politically advantageous for them! A new route probably adds 5-10 years minimum to the project… and unnecessary, unpalatable planning costs.

 

[Energy]

Well, the Mayors of Birmingham and Manchester are likely to focus on services between Birmingham and Manchester and between those two cities and London.

Indeed. Though the metro mayors of Liverpool and Manchester are quite close so I'd expect it to be a consideration.

It's entirely possible this really is HS2 Phase 2A, but the very odd language of "Stockport" doesn't really seem to support that.

Indeed, it meant to connect with NPR at Stockport according to the article so I wouldn't take it as gospel.

If Rishi's £12bn for Liverpool - Manchester is real then going via that in the future is also a possibility.

And it's entirely possible that Street and Burnham are willing to throw Liverpool etc under the bus

Wonder if they are concerned that Labour+Labour+Conservative is less likely to get current government support than Conservative+Labour.

 

[Snow1964]

Realistically if don't build it with all the bells and whistles, then what could it be built for. If you work on an assumption not going to try and get into Manchester area, but ending at new junction with existing line about 10-15 miles short, what price do you get, say £5-8bn

What advantages do you have, a route already surveyed, much of the land bought, often an excessively wide strip of temporary land. That is the key, you get to sell the unused & temporary bit back, and many who are disrupted don't want the long timescale so would be keen to agree to get things moving rather than years of inaction.

The other key is the bit about not delivering everything, just think if you make it more of a high speed only line, how much can save on earthworks by accepting steeper gradients.

My gut feeling is the section north of Crewe will go, instead Crewe will be reached from South as now, but will be bypassed and Manchester trains won't go via Crewe (plenty of existing trains go there from Manchester direction anyway). My reasoning is keeping it clear of built up areas makes it easier and cheaper to build, and if trains can get to south Cheshire at nearer 200mph, they will have gained enough time saving that a handful of extra miles at 80-110mph isn't a significant disadvantage.

My thinking is private money will sell off the spare lineside land to partly offset build cost, then simply charge tolls for its use as anybody else would.

Wouldn't even rule out some foreign money seeing it as extension of European high speed network. I am sure some suggestions of a few hundred meters of HS1-HS2 link and ability to process international passengers at Stratford or Old Oak could get it over the line (even if doing this in practice is actually harder). Can't rule out joining Schengen area in 2030s, especially if our current border scheme gets discredited for allowing migrants. Even ignoring borders there is plenty of money that see low cost trains as successor to cheap European flights, and worth investing in.

 

[sh24]

Sensible politics from the Mayors - especially Andy Street who has a re-election in May 24 amidst a tsunami of anti-Tory sentiment.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Shapps is probably right to say that the £36 billion HS2 money is now spoken for in other projects (though I doubt he could list the replacement projects).
Sunak won't want to row back on promises for buses/potholes/bypasses etc only recently made (not to mention North Wales electrification).
Starmer will be able to reset the long-term budget when he gets the keys to No 10.

Liverpool was expecting to get a fast NPR connection into Manchester and to Yorkshire, and nominally £12 billion of the 36 is for this link from Liverpool.
All three mayors (Rotheram, Burnham and Street) and TfN will have to work together to propose a viable scheme, with the private sector.

 

[HSTEd]

It simply doesn’t make sense to go back to square one and define a new route when the work has already been done, and approval written into law.

Handsacre to Crewe removes the main bottleneck which would deliver the results both Mayors are looking for. They just need to try and secure the private financing.

Thinking cynically, a rebranded 2a also delivers results at a timescale that may be politically advantageous for them! A new route probably adds 5-10 years minimum to the project… and unnecessary, unpalatable planning costs.

Well it only makes sense to use HS2 Phase 2A planning if you believe that the planning is at all suitable for what you want.

Given the major cost growth on the rest of the project it is entirely possible that private funders would prefer to throw out the scheme and start again.

Also if we just want to remove the battleneck we could probably just build the first ~20km of HS2 Phase2A until the line crosses the Stone-Colwich line.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Wouldn't even rule out some foreign money seeing it as extension of European high speed network.

Britain has opted out of its EC membership and unlike other countries in Europe, has to rely on a rail tunnel under a wide dividing sretch of sea for connection to the European rail network.

 

[Grimsby town]

I'm going to assume that Stockport is just poor mainstream media journalism. The Stockport corridor is fairly full as it is. The improved reliability of a new HS line might mean you can squeeze another path or two pet hour but if all the Birmingham/London trains are sent via the new HSR line, that definitely means cuts to services to Wilmslow, Macclesfield and Stoke.

The sensible solution is to connect into a publicly funded NPR line around the airport. I imagine the private sector will focus on building phase 2a and parts of the 2b Western leg with interfaces and upgrades at Crewe being delivered by public funding. I can't imagine there'll be significant levels of deviation from the current preferred route as that will increase uncertainty in costs.

 

[75A]

Britain has opted out of its EC membership and unlike other countries in Europe, has to rely on a rail tunnel under a wide dividing sretch of sea for connection to the European rail network.

Which is more than can be said for the Republic

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Which is more than can be said for the Republic

The Republic values its membership of the EC way above any direct rail connection to it.

 

[Greybeard33]

Also if we just want to remove the battleneck we could probably just build the first ~20km of HS2 Phase2A until the line crosses the Stone-Colwich line.

The Phase 2a alignment crosses the Stone to Colwich line pretty much at right angles. A junction between the two would therefore require a substantial section of new route, with the delays caused by design, public consultation, Hybrid Bill enactment and land acquisition. Is that really likely to cost less than just completing 2a under the existing powers?

 

[The Planner]

The Phase 2a alignment crosses the Stone to Colwich line pretty much at right angles. A junction between the two would therefore require a substantial section of new route, with the delays caused by design, public consultation, Hybrid Bill enactment and land acquisition. Is that really likely to cost less than just completing 2a under the existing powers?

Not sure that is what is meant, the original Stafford bypass ended around the Mill Meece area anyway IIRC.