Restarting HS2a

[SynthD]

If budget are tight, is it too late to re-design it to make it cheaper?

As we refuse to learn from the Euston station, the expensive act of redesigning means it may be impossible to create a cheaper plan.

A lower speed would make very little difference. As it could mean smaller radius curves, it would rely on buying up more land.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I am not based in Britain, so may not be up-to-date, sorry.
Has HSs phase 2a been designed? Finalised?
If budget are tight, is it too late to re-design it to make it cheaper?
For example, reduce top speed from 360kph to 320kph? Or remove tunnels?

Phase 2a was cancelled by the Tories last October.
It had been designed and the act of parliament for its construction had been passed, and government approval to build it had been given, with initial enabling funding (eg to buy the land and move utilities).
Main contracts had not been let.
There's always scope to redesign structures and alter the spec before main contracts are placed, as is happening on Phase 1.
There are only two short tunnels on Phase 2a, both about 700m long, tiny compared to Phase 1.
Currently the project is stopped and a sell-off of assets is being prepared (but no land has been sold back yet).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Currently the project is stopped and a sell-off of assets is being prepared (but no land has been sold back yet).

Is there anything in the public domain that gives a commencement date when asset realisation will be commenced?

 

[Energy]

Is there anything in the public domain that gives a commencement date when asset realisation will be commenced?

You are assuming it goes ahead...

The current government problems are day to day spending, so they are probably quite happy to keep the rental income till a 2a decision is done.

There's always scope to redesign structures and alter the spec before main contracts are placed, as is happening on Phase 1.

As has happened with Euston, you won't save any money.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

You are assuming it goes ahead...

The current government problems are day to day spending, so they are probably quite happy to keep the rental income till a 2a decision is done.

I see no reason why it should not go ahead. Howsoever, let us agree to disagree and to wait and see what actually transpires in reality.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

You are assuming it goes ahead...
The current government problems are day to day spending, so they are probably quite happy to keep the rental income till a 2a decision is done.
As has happened with Euston, you won't save any money.

I was thinking of the claimed improved design of some of the viaducts on Phase 1, which lowered them in the landscape and reduced carbon content (less steel, concrete etc).

The HS2 progress report to DfT this week says that the project stayed within the cash envelope set by DfT for 2023/24.
It also probably means that work has been pushed out to achieve this, so that costs in later years will be greater, with delayed completion.

 

[Energy]

I was thinking of the claimed improved design of some of the viaducts on Phase 1, which lowered them in the landscape and reduced carbon content (less steel, concrete etc).

Ahhh, minor changes like this are common in projects though the overall saving is usually a few million.

It also probably means that work has been pushed out to achieve this, so that costs in later years will be greater, with delayed completion.

Im not so sure. Inflation is less bad than it was before when the budget would have been set.

 

[Snow1964]

Is there anything in the public domain that gives a commencement date when asset realisation will be commenced?

I think it is paused pending review of the project.

Although previous Government announced 2a was being cancelled, it subsequently became clear that do nothing would lead to permanent congestion between West Midlands and North West. Sensibly it has been quietly parked whilst assessment of what will happen (reinstated in some form, or updated alternative, or nothing) is appraised

 

[Meerkat]

I think it is paused pending review of the project.

Although previous Government announced 2a was being cancelled, it subsequently became clear that do nothing would lead to permanent congestion between West Midlands and North West. Sensibly it has been quietly parked whilst assessment of what will happen (reinstated in some form, or updated alternative, or nothing) is appraised

Reeves doing the standard politician …..
“we can’t afford it, but dont want to admit we aren’t doing it, so we will ask for yet another review”

 

[Nottingham59]

Reeves doing the standard politician …..
“we can’t afford it, but dont want to admit we aren’t doing it, so we will ask for yet another review”

Of course it needs a review. After phase 1 to Curzon St and Handsacre, there are various investments which could be made. And many of them will cost much less and will have a better return on investment than blindly completing Phase 2a. A review is needed to identify these and decide which order they should be done.

As far as I can see, such investments include the following:

1. Extend platforms 5 and 6 at Crewe to take 400m trains, and to enable some splitting, and thereby increase the passenger-carrying capacity of Colwich Junction
2. Reinstate safeguarding of the route of 2a, for a period longer than the 5-year horizon of government spending limits
3. Extend platforms at Preston and Carlisle to 400m, enabling 400m trains to Edinburgh and splitting of Glasgow trains
4. Re-safeguard 2b
5. Extend other platforms at Crewe and Preston and maybe Warrington to enable more splitting and joining without blocking the WCML, and maximising the capacity of Colwich at minimal cost
6. Build 2a only to Hixon, with a chord to take 4tph direct to Manchester via Stoke, avoiding the constraint of Colwich
7. Extend platforms 4 and 5 at Piccadilly to 400m
8. Build 2a past Hixon to Baldwin's gate, bypassing both Colwich and Stafford
9. Build 2a in full, but maybe don't include the southern portal to the Crewe tunnel

These are in roughly in order of increasing cost. Many of them will be needed even if 2a is done. But they will also have an immediate benefit to phase 1. What do others think about the benefits of each option?

 

[takno]

Of course it needs a review. After phase 1 to Curzon St and Handsacre, there are various investments which could be made. And many of them will cost much less and will have a better return on investment than blindly completing Phase 2a. A review is needed to identify these and decide which order they should be done.

As far as I can see, such investments include the following:

1. Extend platforms 5 and 6 at Crewe to take 400m trains, and to enable some splitting, and thereby increase the passenger-carrying capacity of Colwich Junction
2. Reinstate safeguarding of the route of 2a, for a period longer than the 5-year horizon of government spending limits
3. Extend platforms at Preston and Carlisle to 400m, enabling 400m trains to Edinburgh and splitting of Glasgow trains
4. Re-safeguard 2b
5. Extend other platforms at Crewe and Preston and maybe Warrington to enable more splitting and joining without blocking the WCML, and maximising the capacity of Colwich at minimal cost
6. Build 2a only to Hixon, with a chord to take 4tph direct to Manchester via Stoke, avoiding the constraint of Colwich
7. Extend platforms 4 and 5 at Piccadilly to 400m
8. Build 2a past Hixon to Baldwin's gate, bypassing both Colwich and Stafford
9. Build 2a in full, but maybe don't include the southern portal to the Crewe tunnel

These are in roughly in order of increasing cost. Many of them will be needed even if 2a is done. But they will also have an immediate benefit to phase 1. What do others think about the benefits of each option?

I think the platform extensions all sound sensible, but beyond that it just doesn't make any sense to do anything other than get on with building 2a. They already spent 10 years having a damn good think about it, and have spent a couple of billion coming up with a pretty good design for a line and buying properties on the route.

Given that the whole projected cost is only 12bn or something then you're in a lot of danger if you change horses of spending another couple of billion in redesigns to save a billion.

 

[The Planner]

Of course it needs a review. After phase 1 to Curzon St and Handsacre, there are various investments which could be made. And many of them will cost much less and will have a better return on investment than blindly completing Phase 2a. A review is needed to identify these and decide which order they should be done.

As far as I can see, such investments include the following:

1. Extend platforms 5 and 6 at Crewe to take 400m trains, and to enable some splitting, and thereby increase the passenger-carrying capacity of Colwich Junction
2. Reinstate safeguarding of the route of 2a, for a period longer than the 5-year horizon of government spending limits
3. Extend platforms at Preston and Carlisle to 400m, enabling 400m trains to Edinburgh and splitting of Glasgow trains
4. Re-safeguard 2b
5. Extend other platforms at Crewe and Preston and maybe Warrington to enable more splitting and joining without blocking the WCML, and maximising the capacity of Colwich at minimal cost
6. Build 2a only to Hixon, with a chord to take 4tph direct to Manchester via Stoke, avoiding the constraint of Colwich
7. Extend platforms 4 and 5 at Piccadilly to 400m
8. Build 2a past Hixon to Baldwin's gate, bypassing both Colwich and Stafford
9. Build 2a in full, but maybe don't include the southern portal to the Crewe tunnel

These are in roughly in order of increasing cost. Many of them will be needed even if 2a is done. But they will also have an immediate benefit to phase 1. What do others think about the benefits of each option?

Crewe will be a conundrum. You might get 5 and 6 lengthened as they dont need much, but everything sits as a renewal there as it stands, not an enhancement. Manchester could potentially cause all manner of problems with the throat, as other stations will. Its not just platform extensions on their own.

 

[Bradford1]

Latest info on HS2 Euston link is that it will not be scrapped today… Remember only last week the NAO said the decision on the tunneling is needed now to “avoid much higher costs in the future”… apparently the tunnelling machines are waiting in Acton for someone to press “Go”

Faisal Islam, the Economics Editor at the BBC, has said that if the Euston tunnelling decision isn't made now (and it hasn't been), then costs to taxpayer will increase even more.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Faisal Islam, the Economics Editor at the BBC, has said that if the Euston tunnelling decision isn't made now (and it hasn't been), then costs to taxpayer will increase even more.

Talk from those with no power to affect matters is just talk for talk's sake.

 

[Energy]

Talk from those with no power to affect matters is just talk for talk's sake.

Ultimately it is information. Whether you choose to pay attention or disregard it for any reason, is up to you. I think it's interesting but the Treasury should already know that the longer they drag the uncertainty on, the higher the costs will go.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Ultimately it is information. Whether you choose to pay attention or disregard it for any reason, is up to you. I think it's interesting but the Treasury should already know that the longer they drag the uncertainty on, the higher the costs will go.

Unfortunately I very much suspect that the treasury see things as the longer they drag the uncertainty on, the less they spend in the near future.

 

[Bradford1]

The deliberate delay in HS2 tunnelling as well all the other cost-"saving" measures, which have led to skyrocketing costs for taxpayers, should be talked about by voters

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The deliberate delay in HS2 tunnelling as well all the other cost-"saving" measures, which have led to skyrocketing costs for taxpayers, should be talked about by voters

"Voters" have only just had their say and a new Government is now in place. What should be remembered is just how low railways feature in the minds of voters in comparison to website members on a forum such as this who always see railway in their top three priorities.

I often wonder where the role of Minister for Transport stands in a "league table" of ministerial roles recognised in Governmental circles.

 

[philosopher]

Unfortunately I very much suspect that the treasury see things as the longer they drag the uncertainty on, the less they spend in the near future.

The government will probably delay the decision and then use the inevitable increased costs associated with the delay as a reason to cancel the Old Oak Common to Euston section.

 

[Mgameing123]

Indeed, it may well be going that way.

However, I see it as a hub and spoke type approach in which the connectivity of the hubs can be brought to benefit those in surrounding areas. Much the way that the South East gains from London, so the local provision into the towns around Manchester should spread the benefits accruing in Manchester. Only then can the actual high speed link to London bring benefit.

I think Liverpool to Manchester does help more, as would/will the Standedge into Manchester section of NPR.



We need to rebalance the UK a little more in general. Manchester is growing well as a city on the international scale, but the connection to London will help even more. That is key for me.



Agree, and as with the other posters, there is much to be done to ensure that the benefits do get truly spread through the region and not concentrated in the core.

Elements like the HS2 section to Wigan and the NPR give greater coverage, but it is what is done with the spare paths that has the chance to be transformational.

I cannot say for definite, but I doubt there are many projects in the pipeline that can deliver what HS2 could. (No doubt there is much which could be crayoned up, but that is even further into the future and unlikely to come with the benefits that London connectivity adds to the Cost Benefit Analysis of HS2)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Jul 2024 ==


I suspect that given the domestic HS1, that might not get too far.

I appreciate the economics of Kent are far more complex than the commuter land image that we may perceive in the stereotype, but it would be an interesting debate to see the various claims on the exchequer fighting for the balance between the old industrial heartlands of the North and the garden of England that is Kent.

HS2 Birmingham to Manchester will definitely help the North mainly because of WCML capacity.

 

[BrianW]

"Voters" have only just had their say and a new Government is now in place. What should be remembered is just how low railways feature in the minds of voters in comparison to website members on a forum such as this who always see railway in their top three priorities.

I often wonder where the role of Minister for Transport stands in a "league table" of ministerial roles recognised in Governmental circles.

The 'pecking order' is demonstrated at the cabinet table:

UK cabinet - Google Search

Sorry that that's such a long weblink; I found the image by 'Googling' on <UK cabinet> and the Institute for Government offered this image.

I think Loo Haigh is about as far from Jim Hacker as can be and still be at the table; hard to 'catch the eye' from there, even if eye-catching in appearance- hardly a grey suit.

 

[The Planner]

Talk from those with no power to affect matters is just talk for talk's sake.

Doesn't that sum up this forum entirely? And those that do have the power 99% of the time have to decide to listen to those who are telling them the facts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2024 ==

HS2 Birmingham to Manchester will definitely help the North mainly because of WCML capacity.

It will, but the most congested part is south of Rugby.

 

[BrianW]

Doesn't that sum up this forum entirely? And those that do have the power 99% of the time have to decide to listen to those who are telling them the facts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Aug 2024 ==


It will, but the most congested part is south of Rugby.

'The facts'- hmmh. Do they not 'depend' on the criteria and the respective values put on them? If expenditure is delayed (or a potential/projected project is cancelled- or 'postponed'?- because 'we don't have the money', or for any other reason) is money 'saved'- esp if the project if/when it is 'restarted' (whether or not to a new brief) is reconsidered (maybe in the light of deteriorated condition/ increased standards/ inflaation in the intervening period/ new government/ ...) Facts?

eg- Is the fact 'most congested' a consideration/ priority? Or is the fact 'south' a more important, possibly politically important matter? 'They' decide, or let arms-length 'techocrats' decide, so they can be criticised and sacked (let go) when someone has to be sacrificed for 'a bold decision'.

 

[daodao]

HS2 Birmingham to Manchester will definitely help the North mainly because of WCML capacity.

Construction of a full HS2 line from Birmingham to Manchester is no longer a realistic prospect in the next 25 years. The new UK government has made it clear that the country's financial position is too poor for new major transport infrastructure projects not already started to proceed in the next few years.

However, at some point, part of the shelved HS2 project will need to be resuscitated in some form to ensure that the section of HS2 that is to be constructed (from Birmingham to Old Oak common) is not a complete white elephant, namely a line from Old Oak Common into a scaled-back Euston and some relief to the existing WCML bottleneck in the Colwich/Stafford area.

There is neither a need nor a viable business case for major new rail infrastructure projects within north-west England itself, i.e. HS2 north of Crewe or NPR, beyond completion of TRU and a fully electrified line from Liverpool to York via Chat Moss, Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds.

 

[BrianW]

Construction of a full HS2 line from Birmingham to Manchester is no longer a realistic prospect in the next 25 years. The new UK government has made it clear that the country's financial position is too poor for new major transport infrastructure projects not already started to proceed in the next few years.

However, at some point, part of the shelved HS2 project will need to be resuscitated in some form to ensure that the section of HS2 that is to be constructed (from Birmingham to Old Oak common) is not a complete white elephant, namely a line from Old Oak Common into a scaled-back Euston and some relief to the existing WCML bottleneck in the Colwich/Stafford area.

There is neither a need nor a viable business case for major new rail infrastructure projects within north-west England itself, i.e. HS2 north of Crewe or NPR, beyond completion of TRU and a fully electrified line from Liverpool to York via Chat Moss, Manchester Victoria, Huddersfield and Leeds.

You may be right. Folk do not NEED to travel, and they do not need to travel by train- much as 'we' might like them to.

'The country' (ie the government of the day) may feel that other priorities are higher, eg NHS, pensions, health-and/or- wealth-care, taxation, buses, defence, energy supply, the possibilities are endless.

Lockdown showed that increased working-from-home (or from anywhere) was possible for much of 'the economy'.

Hospital building can be 'swapped' into banning junk food; new (energy-efficient) housing (esp in the cold north, Scotland etc) may be better/cheaper/ value-for-money than even comprehensive programmes of retrofit.

I foresee this government deferring (and cancelling) as much as it can while commissioning reviews of this and that (whether by 'independent' consultants) or in-house by 'redeployed' public servants who already/instinctively know 'the facts' and how to present them to achieve the desired result. Delivery of the max with the minimum of effort by the next election is the driver. Expect a Blair- lookalike 'Delivery Unit' under Pat McFadden.

 

[Mgameing123]

You may be right. Folk do not NEED to travel, and they do not need to travel by train- much as 'we' might like them to.

'The country' (ie the government of the day) may feel that other priorities are higher, eg NHS, pensions, health-and/or- wealth-care, taxation, buses, defence, energy supply, the possibilities are endless.

Lockdown showed that increased working-from-home (or from anywhere) was possible for much of 'the economy'.

Hospital building can be 'swapped' into banning junk food; new (energy-efficient) housing (esp in the cold north, Scotland etc) may be better/cheaper/ value-for-money than even comprehensive programmes of retrofit.

I foresee this government deferring (and cancelling) as much as it can while commissioning reviews of this and that (whether by 'independent' consultants) or in-house by 'redeployed' public servants who already/instinctively know 'the facts' and how to present them to achieve the desired result. Delivery of the max with the minimum of effort by the next election is the driver. Expect a Blair- lookalike 'Delivery Unit' under Pat McFadden.

No no no please don’t ban junk food. It’s a nice meal once in a while.

 

[BrianW]

No no no please don’t ban junk food. It’s a nice meal once in a while.

At risk of being a little controversial here ...! Labour has tended to want to show more concern for the poor; the poor are often less educated; less well able to look after themselves (health inequalities, life expectancy; healthy-life expectancy; susceptible to the marketing of less healthy food options, including 'junk food'. MPs may also be thought to know what's best for folk than folk know for themselves? BIG generalisations ...

The bills for poor 'lifestyle'- obesity, diabetes, etc (I myself have Type 2 diabetes- I never expected that; I also like 'junk food') are unsustainable. Some have long railed against 'beer-and-fags' ... Betting, another 'scourge'.

I expect a more interventionist government. There's a lot of pent-up wish to 'make a difference' and just over half the current MPs are 'newbies'. From time-to-time fiscal rectitude will need to be seen to be balanced/ mitigated by a bit of social concern. The 'magnificent seven' rebels who voted against continuing the 'two child limit' were 'old-school Labour' and easily seen off. Newbies are finding their voice. Many have come from roles in 'public service' in local government under Tory central government. I suspect increased spending on Social services, housing and education (and reducing it on the NHS) will be much higher up the Agenda than railways, esp railways that generally serve the 'better off' and a railway industry that fails to deliver on time and on budget.

Just sayin' ...

 

[The Planner]

eg- Is the fact 'most congested' a consideration/ priority? Or is the fact 'south' a more important, possibly politically important matter? 'They' decide, or let arms-length 'techocrats' decide, so they can be criticised and sacked (let go) when someone has to be sacrificed for 'a bold decision'.

Its clearly a combination of both, but at the end of the day, if something is full, you are either buying a new bigger thing, or doing something to make it bigger, or just saying "oh well, that's it"

 

[Energy]

'The facts'- hmmh. Do they not 'depend' on the criteria and the respective values put on them? If expenditure is delayed (or a potential/projected project is cancelled- or 'postponed'?- because 'we don't have the money', or for any other reason) is money 'saved'- esp if the project if/when it is 'restarted' (whether or not to a new brief) is reconsidered (maybe in the light of deteriorated condition/ increased standards/ inflaation in the intervening period/ new government/ ...) Facts?

Your message is wordy and makes excessive use of brackets, so apologies if I have misunderstood it.

I believe you are saying that money is not saved if a project is postponed, resurrected later and costs more when reincarnated than before.

This is a notable criticism of austerity, which promotes delaying expenditure to later on when it is potentially more expensive.

Under building management and health this is very obvious. For the former, buildings like schools and hospitals do have an expected lifespan and delaying reconstruction leads to a lot of buildings needing work in a short lifespan. For the latter, deteriorating health is a lot more to treat when it has deteriorated significantly.

For new infrastructure, like railways, it is less clear. In theory building today is cheaper than building tommorow due to inflation, but cost of materials and labour is very significant. If the asset is funded via debt then the credit rating also has an impact, though borrowing to fund infrastructure generally improves a credit rating.

Since HS2 started the cost of concrete has noticeably shot up.

 

[Topological]

At risk of being a little controversial here ...! Labour has tended to want to show more concern for the poor; the poor are often less educated; less well able to look after themselves (health inequalities, life expectancy; healthy-life expectancy; susceptible to the marketing of less healthy food options, including 'junk food'. MPs may also be thought to know what's best for folk than folk know for themselves? BIG generalisations ...

The bills for poor 'lifestyle'- obesity, diabetes, etc (I myself have Type 2 diabetes- I never expected that; I also like 'junk food') are unsustainable. Some have long railed against 'beer-and-fags' ... Betting, another 'scourge'.

I expect a more interventionist government. There's a lot of pent-up wish to 'make a difference' and just over half the current MPs are 'newbies'. From time-to-time fiscal rectitude will need to be seen to be balanced/ mitigated by a bit of social concern. The 'magnificent seven' rebels who voted against continuing the 'two child limit' were 'old-school Labour' and easily seen off. Newbies are finding their voice. Many have come from roles in 'public service' in local government under Tory central government. I suspect increased spending on Social services, housing and education (and reducing it on the NHS) will be much higher up the Agenda than railways, esp railways that generally serve the 'better off' and a railway industry that fails to deliver on time and on budget.

Just sayin' ...

I would call it the Labour tendency towards a "nanny state", as exhibited in the Blair years too.

One of my disappointments from the Tory government of 2010-2024 was that they failed to rail back the size of the state in lifestyles. Indeed, with things like the sugar tax we got an even more interventionist state.

It would be good if some government went towards using state efforts to build the future of the UK, rather than deferring investment.