Restarting HS2a

[Fazaar1889]

1 is the most practical option IMHO. The legislation is there and it would only require a Transport and Works Act order to create a junction where the lines cross. It won’t get called HS2 but it will do pretty much the same thing. It could even be relatively high speed (250-300kph).

I genuinely don't see any other way happening. The new politicians accociated with transport seem to be sane, so I can only hope they go with this

 

[Energy]

This isn’t great news, but it’s not really that this part is being cancelled, rather, it’s not being un-cancelled.

Also, the previous government had an explicit plan to sell off the land needed for 2a and the bit of 2b that wouldn’t be built.

Indeed, they are keeping the cards close to heir chest and there is no mention of a land sell-off. It seems like Labour are more interested in private funding 2A.

 

[weeklycommuter]

There are several options, and I think asking for a new line to a 4-track section north of stafford is probably asking too much.
Given that the government is not interested in resurrecting HS2 Phase 2, the project that is most likely to get funded is the one that costs the minimum to eliminate this bottleneck.

The way I see it the options are:

1. An attempt to build HS2-2A as far as the crossing with the Stone-Colwich line
2. Totally new alignment heading up towards Uttoxeter, then electrification to Stoke - possibly with a chord and electrification towards Derby
3. Attempt to redesign Handsacre, rebuild Rugeley and deconflict Colwich.

1 is probably the easiest from a "planning" view, but is tainted by association with HS2
2 is intruiging to me but probably the most expensive option
3 might work out cheap or might turn into a total debacle (That the railway cannot afford politically), upgrades seem to go either way.

How would the HS2 trains get to Crewe? HS2 trains to Manchester can go via Stoke-on-Trent but HS2 trains to Liverpool and to Scotland need to get to Crewe. The following report estimates building 2a only to the West Coast Mainline about 11 miles South of Crewe would cost 64% of 2a. However I do not see why it cannot be built just for 200kph like the West Coast Mainline.

https://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/GG21-West-Midlands-%E2%80%93-Crewe-the-key-choices.pdf

Capital costs of the high, medium and low cost alternatives were estimated to be 64%, 55% and 43% of the Phase 2a values.

 

[Bertie the bus]

It seems like Labour are more interested in private funding 2A.

Which simply isn't going to happen. Private investors would look at what has happened thus far with HS2 and not touch it with a bargepole. It's dead.

 

[HSTEd]

How would the HS2 trains get to Crewe? HS2 trains to Manchester can go via Stoke-on-Trent but HS2 trains to Liverpool and to Scotland need to get to Crewe. The following report estimates building 2a only to the West Coast Mainline about 11 miles South of Crewe would cost 64% of 2a.

They would just leave HS2 at Handsacre and proceed via Stafford.
With the via Stoke trains removed Colwich is no longer intractable as there would be no remaining crossing moves.

However I do not see why it cannot be built just for 200kph like the West Coast Mainline.

Well that probably wouldn't save that much money, so doesn't really help with making it politically palatable to the government.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Interestingly, Faisal Islam (BBC Economics Ed.) is also pointing out that 2a becomes a bit of a no brainer if you do all the expensive digging in Manchester.

"If this (Crewe - Manchester) is built incl MCR airport stop… cost benefit analysis on completing HS2, will be very +very, given sunk cost of phase 1"

x.com

x.com

 

[weeklycommuter]

They would just leave HS2 at Handsacre and proceed via Stafford.
With the via Stoke trains removed Colwich is no longer intractable as there would be no remaining crossing moves.

That would force them all to go through the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck between Colwich and Stafford. Unless this bottleneck is bypassed it will be impossible to run more freight trains on the West Coast Mainline. Making the Shugborough Tunnel four track would be very disruptive and also very expensive.

 

[Fazaar1889]

Interestingly, Faisal Islam (BBC Economics Ed.) is also pointing out that 2a becomes a bit of a no brainer if you do all the expensive digging in Manchester.

"If this (Crewe - Manchester) is built incl MCR airport stop… cost benefit analysis on completing HS2, will be very +very, given sunk cost of phase 1"

x.com

x.com

One of the replies said:

"This feels like it’s paving way to rebadge HS2 north and bring it back under a new project to connect the midlands and north.

Lose the High Speed branding and call it a next generation network and suddenly the gap left is a no brainier"

I just feel like this is true. Is it too optimistic?

 

[JonathanH]

Interestingly, Faisal Islam (BBC Economics Ed.) is also pointing out that 2a becomes a bit of a no brainer if you do all the expensive digging in Manchester.

"If this (Crewe - Manchester) is built incl MCR airport stop… cost benefit analysis on completing HS2, will be very +very, given sunk cost of phase 1"

That would still be at least 20 years off from now, a bit like missing links on motorways that were built long after the bits they linked.

 

[Bantamzen]

So this new bill will get the expensive bit done anyway? Connecting the middle bit later should be pretty straightforward then.

What I suspect will happen is that Manchester - Manchester Airport will formally be made part of a plan for Northern Powerhouse Rail (or whatever the new government will call it), which will then take a number more years to consult over before the government concludes that it's all too expensive for now, but we'll keep the options open for future decades so as not to upset the Northern Mayors too much.

Or in other (northern) words now't will happen....

 

[HSTEd]

That would force them all to go through the two track Shugborough Tunnel bottleneck between Colwich and Stafford. Unless this bottleneck is bypassed it will be impossible to run more freight trains on the West Coast Mainline. Making the Shugborough Tunnel four track would be very disruptive and also very expensive.

Removal of the crossing moves at Colwich would allow several trains per hour of additional traffic to run, although almost all of those would be passenger trains.
Without the crossing moves it will be possible to stack a lot of trains per hour through the tunnels, just as short two track sections elsewhere on the system can.

Trying to push further north for the benefit of freight trains would have an appalling business case and wil not happen.

 

[Howardh]

So - there's no chance of HS2 reaching Crewe? Totally lost as to what the plans really are, mayors of Liverpool and Manchester really need to get a public conference with the new government and outline to us all what we can expect in the next 15 years?

 

[takno]

So - there's no chance of HS2 reaching Crewe? Totally lost as to what the plans really are, mayors of Liverpool and Manchester really need to get a public conference with the new government and outline to us all what we can expect in the next 15 years?

There's absolutely no chance of HS2 reaching Crewe in the next 5 years. For the next year or two people are going to be more focused on sorting out the economy, dragging people out of destitution and actually running transport on the infrastructure we've got. There might be more thinking on HS2 when there are a few less things on fire.

Longer term, pretty much everybody can see that the Rishi gap is absolutely stupid, and one has to hope that the economy and government finances can become less desperate. It's almost certain to get built.

 

[Topological]

I think we all need to be patient, there is limited political value in outlining plans now.

The bill allows the groundwork to go on, the line between Manchester and Liverpool has been doing the rounds a while now and has been well discussed on here. The detail planning steps will not exactly exercise the excitement of the public.

More exciting elements of the plans will be used in the mayoral campaigns. That is when the route is clarified, the schedule planned and a better (higher) number for the cost known.

 

[The Planner]

Removal of the crossing moves at Colwich would allow several trains per hour of additional traffic to run, although almost all of those would be passenger trains.
Without the crossing moves it will be possible to stack a lot of trains per hour through the tunnels, just as short two track sections elsewhere on the system can.

Trying to push further north for the benefit of freight trains would have an appalling business case and wil not happen.

Absolutely no reason why it wouldn't be extra freight, the turnout at Milford onto the slow is 70mph, freight takes marginally longer to do that section vs passenger.

 

[SynthD]

If you were going to build the full route to Manchester at the originally intended pace, what is the latest you could leave passing the bill Labour said they won’t take forward? But without the waste of planning connections to the WCML that will never be built.

 

[Trainbike46]

So - there's no chance of HS2 reaching Crewe? Totally lost as to what the plans really are, mayors of Liverpool and Manchester really need to get a public conference with the new government and outline to us all what we can expect in the next 15 years?

I wouldn't say that - political realities can and do change.

HS2 phase 2A (or the same project with another name) is the cheapest section, and as others have already pointed out, leaving out a relatively cheap section of the line parallelling a very congested route, is bonkers. This is especially true if you are building the expensive bits either side (HS2 phase one, and the northern section into Manchester). So a future government may well decide to fill the gap, and build phase 2A. Currently the government says they won't, but that could change in the future, and I hope it will.

 

[snowball]

Phase 2a is not the whole of the gap. There is also the southern part of phase 2b, without which there is no means of trains getting from the WCML into the proposed tunnel under south Manchester.

 

[chris2]

Thank you @weeklycommuter for posting the greengage document above. Here, for those who want to read it.

I'd not seen this before, but I'm familiar with the original report it's based on. This document neatly compares alternatives to 2a, that are broadly the same as those being debated here. This document concludes that the longer run of 44km to Baldwin's Gate is superior than the shorter options. The BCR is stated to be 2.6 and as @weeklycommuter posted, was estimated to cost 2/3 of the price of 2a. It also argues that operationally it is even potentially superior to 2a because of how trains would arrive at Crewe. The other options have lower BCRs and come with more disruption to existing lines / operational issues.

So can those who think the other options are better explain why? Is it all about cost / politics, or is it more technical? What is this document getting wrong?

 

[JamesT]

Phase 2a is not the whole of the gap. There is also the southern part of phase 2b, without which there is no means of trains getting from the WCML into the proposed tunnel under south Manchester.

As Phase 2b is still going through parliament and thus isn’t fixed in aspic quite yet. The tying together of NPR and the Northern half of 2b implies building it down to the junction of the two in the HS2 plans. Is there then a shorter/cheaper/slower way to link that into the classic network rather than building in full to Crewe? Or perhaps a junction on NPR would be included where it crosses the WCML?

 

[HSTEd]

The Greengauge website is down for me at the moment, so I can't see that study.

However, we have to put this in the context of the runaway cost growth seen in HS2, which had driven the top end of the admitted cost of Phase 2A to ~£7bn by the time of cancellation.
2/3rds of that is going to be ~£4.5bn, plus cost inflation since then.

We will be lucky to get the ~£2bn or so for the section to the Stone-Colwich line. In the context of decarbonisation ~£2.5bn+ (after all costs are likely to rise beyond the admitted figure given HS2s historical issues in this regard) will buy a lot of wind turbines or such.

What does going to Crewe or near Crewe actually gain over the Stone-Colwich solution?
The latter eliminates the bottleneck that will prevent us filling Curzon Street and much of HS2s capacity with trains.
What more is there to gain in a context where high speed rail from the south will not make it beyond here?

 

[snowball]

As Phase 2b is still going through parliament and thus isn’t fixed in aspic quite yet. The tying together of NPR and the Northern half of 2b implies building it down to the junction of the two in the HS2 plans. Is there then a shorter/cheaper/slower way to link that into the classic network rather than building in full to Crewe? Or perhaps a junction on NPR would be included where it crosses the WCML?

The proposed NPR route from Rostherne to Liverpool has not yet been published but the 2021 Integrated Rail Plan revealed that it goes under the WCML at Warrington Bank Quay station, an urban and industrial area, not promising for a curve. A different route from Rostherne to Crewe would probably create a wide range of difficulties, add many years to the timescale and maybe not save much money. Maybe it could use some of the line through Middlewich!

One point that has not been much discussed recently is that the phase 2b plans included a major tunnel under Crewe. I haven't seen any suggestions about the effects of deleting that.

 

[Nottingham59]

What does going to Crewe or near Crewe actually gain over the Stone-Colwich solution?
The latter eliminates the bottleneck that will prevent us filling Curzon Street and much of HS2s capacity with trains.

The "Stone-Colwich solution" being to build 2a to near Great Haywood, then curve it north to join the line to Stoke in the vicinity of Hixon? So that all HS2 trains to Manchester go via Stoke, and all HS2 train to Crewe go via Handsacre? And don't use Hixon-Colwich?

It has a lot of merit. It would certainly allow 4tph to get to Manchester via Stoke, using the paths through south manchester currently used by Avanti (2tph) and Cross-Country (2tph). Maybe one more than that if we're lucky.

It would also increase capacity through Shugborough by eliminating crossing traffic at Colwich. But that route would remain desperately slow. Would you be able to get 10 tph through Shugborough and onto towards Crewe, do you think?

Here's a diagram if it helps visualise:

 

[The Planner]

The "Stone-Colwich solution" being to build 2a to near Great Haywood, then curve it north to join the line to Stoke in the vicinity of Hixon? So that all HS2 trains to Manchester go via Stoke, and all HS2 train to Crewe go via Handsacre? And don't use Hixon-Colwich?

It has a lot of merit. It would certainly allow 4tph to get to Manchester via Stoke, using the paths through south manchester currently used by Avanti (2tph) and Cross-Country (2tph). Maybe one more than that if we're lucky.

It would also increase capacity through Shugborough by eliminating crossing traffic at Colwich. But that route would remain desperately slow. Would you be able to get 10 tph through Shugborough and onto towards Crewe, do you think?

Here's a diagram if it helps visualise:

View attachment 161968

You wouldn't lose both XC paths, one would have to stay via Wolves and Stafford which could potentially absorb the Stoke stopper which currently stops an extra fast path.

What does going to Crewe or near Crewe actually gain over the Stone-Colwich solution?
The latter eliminates the bottleneck that will prevent us filling Curzon Street and much of HS2s capacity with trains.
What more is there to gain in a context where high speed rail from the south will not make it beyond here?

Journey time, also allows an extra Trent Valley stopper as well as crossing moves at Stafford. If it was such a bad idea, why was the Stafford bypass even conceived years before HS2?

One point that has not been much discussed recently is that the phase 2b plans included a major tunnel under Crewe. I haven't seen any suggestions about the effects of deleting that.

It also had a immense grade separated junction at Crewe North.

 

[Nottingham59]

You wouldn't lose both XC paths, one would have to stay via Wolves and Stafford which could potentially absorb the Stoke stopper which currently stops an extra fast path.

Good idea. Extend the Stoke stopper to Stafford and Wolverhampton, to absord the remaining XC service on that route entirely. So that still gives us 4tph HS2 via Stoke to Manchester.

So there's 6tph HS2 possible to Manchester from London, using the existing rail capaciy north of Crewe:

• 2tph direct via Stoke.
• 2tph via Birmingham Curzon St (reverse) picking up the current XC BHM-MAN flow.
• 1tph via Crewe and Wilmslow for all those rich Cheshire business travellers
• 1tph via Warrington BQ to Manchester Victoria for the budget customer segment, using the path that LUMO has found to Rochdale.

It also had a immense grade separated junction at Crewe North.

An HS2 Crewe bypass would avoid that entirely, and save cost of the South Crewe Junction and the Crewe Tunnel too.

 

[The Planner]

An HS2 Crewe bypass would avoid that entirely, and save cost of the South Crewe Junction and the Crewe Tunnel too.

And destroys a huge amount of connectivity, Crewe needs HS2 trains.

 

[eldomtom2]

The Greengauge website is down for me at the moment, so I can't see that study.

It's not really a study as much as a reminder of the existence of the Atkins Strategic Alternatives report.

 

[AndrewE]

And destroys a huge amount of connectivity, Crewe needs HS2 trains.

which is better expressed as "the WCML need the connections offered at Crewe!" I.e. for all the people off the Cardiff/Salop and Stoke/Derby/East midlands trains which connect in for journeys north (plus N Wales, Liverpool and Manc local connections off HS2 for people coming from London.)

 

[Nottingham59]

And destroys a huge amount of connectivity, Crewe needs HS2 trains.

It needs an HS2 connection to the south, certainly.

Northwards, Manchester is too close to usefully use HS2 (given that trains take 40km to get up to 360km/h, and 10km to stop). So the northern connection would really only be useful for Scotland services. And those can go via Warrington.

 

[chris2]

The Greengauge website is down for me at the moment, so I can't see that study.

However, we have to put this in the context of the runaway cost growth seen in HS2, which had driven the top end of the admitted cost of Phase 2A to ~£7bn by the time of cancellation.
2/3rds of that is going to be ~£4.5bn, plus cost inflation since then.

We will be lucky to get the ~£2bn or so for the section to the Stone-Colwich line. In the context of decarbonisation ~£2.5bn+ (after all costs are likely to rise beyond the admitted figure given HS2s historical issues in this regard) will buy a lot of wind turbines or such.

What does going to Crewe or near Crewe actually gain over the Stone-Colwich solution?
The latter eliminates the bottleneck that will prevent us filling Curzon Street and much of HS2s capacity with trains.
What more is there to gain in a context where high speed rail from the south will not make it beyond here?

Ah ok, I've downloaded it and attached it below.

I've picked out a few bits from their conclusions which might go some way to answering your important question...

(for reference, the "high cost solution" is the 2a route as far as Baldwin's Gate. The "medium" solution is 2a onto the Stone line + a link back onto the WCML at Norton Bridge. The "low cost" is a short chord from Rugeley onto Stone line + link onto WCML as per the medium).

Capital costs of the high, medium and low cost alternatives were estimated to be 64%, 55% and 43% of the Phase 2a values.

Operational performance
The high cost alternative was adjudged to offer similar performance benefits to HS2 Phase 2a and possibly some advantages, with HS2 services approaching Crewe from the south on the eastern (fast line) tracks, rather than to the western side of the multi-track layout.
The medium and low cost options were adjudged unlikely to offer the same level of performance as the high cost option or Phase 2a, either for HS2 trains or residual classic line trains.

We know that Government concluded in 2015 that:

• there was no better high-speed rail alignment available than that selected for HS2 Phase 2a
• that an alternative approach of widening the existing right-of-way was infeasible
• it wasn’t essential to build the full length of high-speed line into Crewe station.

All three alternatives provide sufficient capacity to allow the full operation of the indicative train service specification proposed for the full HS2 Y scenario. They also all provide some spare capacity to run additional HS2 trains, and additional passenger or freight services on the WCML, although this varies between options.

The low and medium cost options have some environmental risks in respect of the Pasturefields Special Area of Conservation, as noted above.)

The medium and low cost options provide a greater cost saving but provide fewer benefits and a lower BCR than the high cost option. They also both have greater capacity constraints which reduces both the number of additional services that could be run and also introduce a greater risk of unreliability or poor operational performance.

Just as with the full Phase 2a scheme, the high cost strategic alternative should allow a 25% increase in HS2 service levels and would allow the frequency of the Trent Valley service over the existing Stafford-Lichfield- Tamworth-Nuneaton-Rugby corridor to be doubled – a real HS2 dividend to people living in the area affected by this part of the HS2 project. These benefits are not scored in the economic appraisal shown above.