HS2 delayed again?

[SynthD]

The HS2 solution is effectively overkill, as it covers possibility of going at 400km/h and with minimal nose faring to maximise space within the 200m unit length. But of course trains are not likely to operate that fast, and initially at least won't be to bigger UIC cross section. So rather gold plating a theoretical future need. If the top speed had been specified at nearer 320-350km/h wouldn't be required.

Planning for the future of infrastructure with a 200 year life span is not gold plating. It’s legitimately possible, just needless to make it now. If they were inconsistent with their planning speeds, ie tunnels limited to 300km/h while the open parts are more, would create some criticism for the design, or lack of forward thinking.

The last tunnel under the Thames opened 55 years ago, it's not something that happens every day

The Silvertown Tunnel opened 74 days ago.

 

[Senex]

The only way HS2 could have gone worse is if we’d have been left with a stub from London to Leicester. A different route would not have changed the fundamental structural problems identified and discussed in great depth on here and in the recent Stewart review.

The Stewart review makes grim reading. But although it's obviously about HS2, wouldn't it be rather unfair to see it just in that context? We don't have a very creditable record with hospitals, reservoirs, power-stations, roads, etc either, and that desire to do something that is the best and world-beating rather than to learn from other people doesn't seem to be limited to our railways.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Friday at 11:36 ==

The Chiltern Natural Landscape extends all the way into Hertfordshire, and an M1 alignment would have to cross it just as much.

I find the 'if we upset a marginally fewer number of marginally less rich and powerful people we'd get an easier pass' argument rather troubling - in that it suggests at the core we accept and want to perpetuate the remaining feudal characteristics of how we are governed as a society.

At core isn't the UK, and especially England, at heart still a feudal society?

 

[HSTEd]

The Chiltern Natural Landscape extends all the way into Hertfordshire, and an M1 alignment would have to cross it just as much.

I find the 'if we upset a marginally fewer number of marginally less rich and powerful people we'd get an easier pass' argument rather troubling - in that it suggests at the core we accept and want to perpetuate the remaining feudal characteristics of how we are governed as a society.

Even if the National Landscape notionally extends that far, the AONB does not.

It's also much less likely to provoke howls of outrage if your railway is a couple hundred metres from a motorway!

 

[NCT]

The National Landscape is just the new name for the AONB. They are one and the same.

 

[HSTEd]

The National Landscape is just the new name for the AONB. They are one and the same.

The M1 is not inside the AONB, it's inside the Luton adjacent gap in it.

A railway line on the M1 corridor would clearly be able to spend much less distance inside the Chiltern AONB, compared to the current alignment which attempts to cross more or less the widest part.

 

[Shrop]

The M1 is not inside the AONB, it's inside the Luton adjacent gap in it.

A railway line on the M1 corridor would clearly be able to spend much less distance inside the Chiltern AONB, compared to the current alignment which attempts to cross more or less the widest part.

Absolutely right, but many people seem incapable of comprehending this.
I've argued many times that the M1 corridor wasn't properly considered and I've never seen any convincing evidence that it was. Documents such as this https://assets.publishing.service.g...c/hs2-review-of-route-selection-and-speed.pdf seem heavily biased towards Heathrow, only considering the M1 corridor as an afterthought subject to going via OOC. This report was based on the sweeping assumption that it would be too expensive to provide a direct link from Euston to the M1 route that doesn't go via OOC, but I've always been concerned about the huge weight that was put on serving Heathrow in the first place, which was PRIOR to the 2009 official HS2 announcement. The earlier development work was in order to gain political support by emphasising that it could avoid the need for a third runway, and by the time Heathrow was downgraded as a priority, it was too embarrassing to be seen to U-turn on the route - which means that any later report (such as that as linked) was always going to be dismissive of the M1 corridor.
Of course it's easy to say "We are where we are" now, and ask why I keep on about this, but there are valuable lessons to be learned about our approach to such projects, the question is whether or not we're prepared to learn those lessons. The fact that so many are even now, so dismissive about anything other than the Chiltern route goes a long way towards explaining why HS2 is such a laughing stock, and more seriously, why rail progress in the UK is so difficult.

 

[Brubulus]

Absolutely right, but many people seem incapable of comprehending this.
I've argued many times that the M1 corridor wasn't properly considered and I've never seen any convincing evidence that it was. Documents such as this https://assets.publishing.service.g...c/hs2-review-of-route-selection-and-speed.pdf seem heavily biased towards Heathrow, only considering the M1 corridor as an afterthought subject to going via OOC. This report was based on the sweeping assumption that it would be too expensive to provide a direct link from Euston to the M1 route that doesn't go via OOC, but I've always been concerned about the huge weight that was put on serving Heathrow in the first place, which was PRIOR to the 2009 official HS2 announcement. The earlier development work was in order to gain political support by emphasising that it could avoid the need for a third runway, and by the time Heathrow was downgraded as a priority, it was too embarrassing to be seen to U-turn on the route - which means that any later report (such as that as linked) was always going to be dismissive of the M1 corridor.
Of course it's easy to say "We are where we are" now, and ask why I keep on about this, but there are valuable lessons to be learned about our approach to such projects, the question is whether or not we're prepared to learn those lessons. The fact that so many are even now, so dismissive about anything other than the Chiltern route goes a long way towards explaining why HS2 is such a laughing stock, and more seriously, why rail progress in the UK is so difficult.

The Chiltern route was the best route, the opinions of NIMBYs should not be considered in railway route planning. The government should have realised it was a couple of angry MPs, who can be disregarded. If we had gone down the modular viaduct route, like most other HSRs (not just china), we likely would have had a railway soon, instead of 10 years time. HS2 nimbyism was no real threat to the Government politically outside of a couple of constituencies, they should not have capitulated.

 

[A S Leib]

The government should have realised it was a couple of angry MPs, who can be disregarded

There were enough MPs in support overall, but MPs with seats affected have included Keir Starmer, Boris Johnson, David Gauke, Cheryl Gillan, Dominic Grieve, David Lidington, John Bercow, Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey and Graham Brady; two prime ministers, at least six further cabinet ministers, a speaker of the House of Commons and a chairman of the 1922 Committee. It wasn't a massive issue when Labour and Conservatives were in favour of getting it built, but given the route chosen went through around sixty constituencies, that was bound to happen.

 

[Brubulus]

There were enough MPs in support overall, but MPs with seats affected have included Keir Starmer, Boris Johnson, David Gauke, Cheryl Gillan, Dominic Grieve, David Lidington, John Bercow, Andrea Leadsom, Esther McVey and Graham Brady; two prime ministers, at least six further cabinet ministers, a speaker of the House of Commons and a chairman of the 1922 Committee. It wasn't a massive issue when Labour and Conservatives were in favour of getting it built, but given the route chosen went through around sixty constituencies, that was bound to happen.

Only a small minority of them were in the Chilterns, if an M1 route was selected, there would have been other angry MPs, even if their arguments were slightly weaker. The only way to deal with the NIMBY problem is to go through it, the most direct and cheapest (without insane tunnels) way to do so is the best, maybe the concrete prefab viaducts could have a brick facade to look like Stockport or Welland from a distance.

 

[InTheEastMids]

The fact that so many are even now, so dismissive about anything other than the Chiltern route goes a long way towards explaining why HS2 is such a laughing stock, and more seriously, why rail progress in the UK is so difficult.

This week's events really just re-present things we already knew about HS2 and other major infrastructure projects. HS2 did not spend enough time in design phases. HS2 Ltd did/does not have the capability to manage the project it is tasked with delivering. As things have changed, politicians have interfered, arbitrarily changing the scope or cancelling bits. Obviously the new leadership are saying the old one was rubbish. None of these issues care whether HS2 goes through the Chilterns or whether it demolishes half of Luton, causing £billions in improvements.

The Chiltern route was the best route, the opinions of NIMBYs should not be considered in railway route planning.

The issue is how they have been able to use the planning system to frustrate, at a local level, things that had already been decided at a national level (Part of this might also link back to the immaturity of HS2 design work - it will surely be more frustrating if either HS2 was initially unclear about what it was going to do, or changed its mind as the design matured).

There were enough MPs in support overall, but MPs with seats affected have included...

Agree with this - if you ask yourself "why did HS2 not spend enough time in the design phases?", a big part of the answer is to "get the project past the point of no return before it can be cancelled". HS2, to its credit, has actually managed this: OOC-Birmingham is in build, Govt has realised it has to go to Euston and other projects may appear further north building on work done for aborted phases.

Or to put it another way, whilst plenty of other things can and do go wrong in major projects like HS2, a lack of a strong political consensus on infrastructure has cost this country billions of pounds.

 

[may032]

Only a small minority of them were in the Chilterns, if an M1 route was selected, there would have been other angry MPs, even if their arguments were slightly weaker. The only way to deal with the NIMBY problem is to go through it, the most direct and cheapest (without insane tunnels) way to do so is the best, maybe the concrete prefab viaducts could have a brick facade to look like Stockport or Welland from a distance.

Hard agree. NIMBYism is one of the most problematic issues of UK infrastructure costing so much, taking so long, and/or getting cancelled. Hopefully Labour’s planning law reforms help tackle this.

 

[NCT]

HS2 clearly set out the options in front of ministers. If ministers considered Chiltern voters sacred then they could have issued a ministerial direction through DfT to instruct the adoption of the M1 route. They didn't. The Tory party infighting over multiple issues intensified throughout the last 14 years and the government failed to exercise political leadership. There was no single consistent ministerial view that allowed the government to prioritise certain things over others, so we ended up with the engineering scope creep to then appease everyone.

For the record, politics isn't the only factor in HS2's cost mismanagement, but it is a major one.

 

[FMerrymon]

Is the Chiltern tunnel designed for 400 km/h? I thought that was only north of Wendover but I might be wrong.

Bored tunnels are all 320kph and below. North of Wendover, 360 running, but mostly with a 400 alignment

 

[Shrop]

The Chiltern route was the best route, the opinions of NIMBYs should not be considered in railway route planning. The government should have realised it was a couple of angry MPs, who can be disregarded. If we had gone down the modular viaduct route, like most other HSRs (not just china), we likely would have had a railway soon, instead of 10 years time. HS2 nimbyism was no real threat to the Government politically outside of a couple of constituencies, they should not have capitulated.

No, the Chiltern route was never the best route, it was ONLY the best route from OOC to Birmingham, and even this aspect was debatable. As a project to benefit the UK, the primary objectives for HS2 were to relieve pressure on WCML, and to provide a route to major population centres at least 150 miles from London, namely Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Later it could then benefit Teesside, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow, all of which would have provided much needed relief to WCML, plus relief to MML and ECML, for the advancement of rail freight and local trains. For these purposes, the M1 corridor was always far more suitable than the Chiltern route.

What was NOT necessary was to have Heathrow as a primary objective in the first place, which as we all know was downgraded by the time HS2 was formally announced. But, having started with this objective, all the work that had already gone into using OOC as part of this, couldn’t be seen to be wasted. This Heathrow imperative wasn’t about nimbyism or appeasing MPs etc, you might like to think about Boris with his Uxbridge links, at the time that he was aspiring to become London mayor. I would suggest that this was seen as the political route for support for HS2, and the primary driver for this route prior to HS2 being formally announced. Everything else was superimposed on to this. I remain open to any proof to the contrary.

 

[may032]

I would suggest that this was seen as the political route for support for HS2, and the primary driver for this route prior to HS2 being formally announced. Everything else was superimposed on to this. I remain open to any proof to the contrary.

The burden of proof is on you re. Heathrow being the reason for the chosen route. So far you have only cited suspicions and opinions, no evidence.

 

[Sonik]

The burden of proof is on you re. Heathrow being the reason for the chosen route. So far you have only cited suspicions and opinions, no evidence.

AIUI the route to OOC was originally proposed to be on the surface, using space mostly within the existing rail corridor to minimize costs. Only the last 7km from OOC to Euston would have been underground.

There is not (to my knowledge) a similar, almost contiguous route of spare track space, through North London.

 

[HSTEd]

AIUI the route to OOC was originally proposed to be on the surface, using space mostly within the existing rail corridor to minimize costs. Only the last 7km to Euston would have been underground.

There is not (to my knowledge) a similar route (with spare track space) through North London.

Yes, this plan was then jettisoned when it was shown to be way more expensive than a tunneled solution.

They wanted to tear apart one of the largest and busiest road junctions in London (Hangar Lane Gyratory).

The route looked superficially clear but was not clear in any real sense.

 

[NCT]

AIUI the route to OOC was originally proposed to be on the surface, using space mostly within the existing rail corridor to minimize costs. Only the last 7km from OOC to Euston would have been underground.

There is not (to my knowledge) a similar route (with spare track space) through North London.

This accords with my recollection too.

 

[Shrop]

The burden of proof is on you re. Heathrow being the reason for the chosen route. So far you have only cited suspicions and opinions, no evidence.

Are you seriously suggesting that there would be documented evidence still remaining about this, which could embarrass MPs etc? Next you'll be suggesting that all MPs were whiter than white with everything to do with Covid, and if they weren't then all the evidence should still be there to prove that there were cover-ups! Ah, if only I'd made video recordings of discussions and conferences from around 2007 ...

 

[may032]

Are you seriously suggesting that there would be documented evidence still remaining about this, which could embarrass MPs etc? Next you'll be suggesting that all MPs were whiter than white with everything to do with Covid, and if they weren't then all the evidence should still be there to prove that there were cover-ups! Ah, if only I'd made video recordings of discussions and conferences from around 2007 ...

I think we’re getting into the realms of conspiracy here, but yes I think if Heathrow had been the main reason for the route choice, there would be evidence out there to back it up, whether that be meeting minutes, presentations, planning documents etc.

 

[Palmerston]

As a project to benefit the UK, the primary objectives for HS2 were to relieve pressure on WCML, and to provide a route to major population centres at least 150 miles from London, namely Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Later it could then benefit Teesside, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow, all of which would have provided much needed relief to WCML, plus relief to MML and ECML, for the advancement of rail freight and local trains. For these purposes, the M1 corridor was always far more suitable than the Chiltern route.

Roughly what route are you suggesting i.e. where would the stations be and where would it branch off? And how do you think timings would compare to HS2?

 

[deltic]

Are you seriously suggesting that there would be documented evidence still remaining about this, which could embarrass MPs etc? Next you'll be suggesting that all MPs were whiter than white with everything to do with Covid, and if they weren't then all the evidence should still be there to prove that there were cover-ups! Ah, if only I'd made video recordings of discussions and conferences from around 2007 ...

The information on route selection is all in the public domain in the 2009 report "High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond"

 

[A S Leib]

No, the Chiltern route was never the best route, it was ONLY the best route from OOC to Birmingham, and even this aspect was debatable. As a project to benefit the UK, the primary objectives for HS2 were to relieve pressure on WCML, and to provide a route to major population centres at least 150 miles from London, namely Sheffield, Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool. Later it could then benefit Teesside, Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow, all of which would have provided much needed relief to WCML, plus relief to MML and ECML, for the advancement of rail freight and local trains. For these purposes, the M1 corridor was always far more suitable than the Chiltern route.

Which route was better to serve Birmingham to the East Midlands / Yorkshire (assuming Birmingham – Crewe would have stayed the same either way)?

 

[swt_passenger]

The information on route selection is all in the public domain in the 2009 report "High Speed Rail London to the West Midlands and Beyond"

That’s probably considered fake news by most of the usual HS2 re-routing specialists here, it’s been linked to enough times, yet we still get the ‘should have gone a different way’ regurgitated every few months…

 

[Shrop]

I think we’re getting into the realms of conspiracy here, but yes I think if Heathrow had been the main reason for the route choice, there would be evidence out there to back it up, whether that be meeting minutes, presentations, planning documents etc.

Okay, a quick Google search reveals this document which dates from 2007, ie five years before the document that I linked to at post #336

High Speed Two: A Greengauge 21 Proposition

Here are three quotes from this document as examples which show the importance of Heathrow, as do the diagrams in the document.

"A high-speed railway between London and Birmingham, with links to the West Coast Main Line further north to link the North West, north Wales and Scotland, provided with direct connections using a spur into Heathrow airport, is what is needed to maximise value for money for High Speed Two. The total new route length, including the connections to the existing network and High Speed One, is 150 miles."

"Greengauge 21 believes that it is very important that the route is developed in such a way that it can also serve Heathrow Airport. With Open Skies now agreed, Heathrow’s role as the leading international gateway in Britain will be reinforced: the country as a whole needs fast links to it. Heathrow’s value can be enhanced by having high-speed rail fulfil the role currently provided by wasteful, environmentally damaging short-haul flights, from the near-continent as well as from the northern half of Britain."

"From the route thereby created, provide in each direction for direct centre of Birmingham and with the capacity-enhanced (four tracked, Trent Valley) section of the West Coast Main Line with a fully segregated route, capable of generally supporting 300km/h high-speed operation interchange-free access to Heathrow Airport capable of supporting high speed services both to High Speed One and to the locations served by High Speed Two."

I can't find any previous research giving meaningful route considerations prior to this, but as in post #336, there was clearly a perceived need to do a route feasibility study five years later, as though it hadn't already been decided. All coincidence?

 

[FMerrymon]

There were multiple benefits for the route to go via ooc, with Heathrow connectivity just one.

As with hs1 via Stratford, there was a desire to redevelop that are of West London, which has significant economic impact.
As mentioned, there was already a surface route available from ooc to Ruislip.
A requirement for an additional London Station due to the passenger numbers expected to reduce the load on Euston.
Connectivity with crossrail for East West London journeys.
Quick, frequent connections to Heathrow
Prime position for connectivity with other lines such as London Overground
Most importantly, connection to GWR which would have released capacity for cross country routes and improved those cross country journeys.

Probably good reasons why the current WCML goes past OOC from Euston too.

There was no avoiding the Chilterns other than via Luton, which would have meant a large amount of tunnelling and upsetting people on the way of a route from Luton to Birmingham. The Chilterns get a lot of blame for cost increases when significant changes happened mostly outside of that area.

 

[JamesT]

Okay, a quick Google search reveals this document which dates from 2007, ie five years before the document that I linked to at post #336

High Speed Two: A Greengauge 21 Proposition

Here are three quotes from this document as examples which show the importance of Heathrow, as do the diagrams in the document.

"A high-speed railway between London and Birmingham, with links to the West Coast Main Line further north to link the North West, north Wales and Scotland, provided with direct connections using a spur into Heathrow airport, is what is needed to maximise value for money for High Speed Two. The total new route length, including the connections to the existing network and High Speed One, is 150 miles."

"Greengauge 21 believes that it is very important that the route is developed in such a way that it can also serve Heathrow Airport. With Open Skies now agreed, Heathrow’s role as the leading international gateway in Britain will be reinforced: the country as a whole needs fast links to it. Heathrow’s value can be enhanced by having high-speed rail fulfil the role currently provided by wasteful, environmentally damaging short-haul flights, from the near-continent as well as from the northern half of Britain."

"From the route thereby created, provide in each direction for direct centre of Birmingham and with the capacity-enhanced (four tracked, Trent Valley) section of the West Coast Main Line with a fully segregated route, capable of generally supporting 300km/h high-speed operation interchange-free access to Heathrow Airport capable of supporting high speed services both to High Speed One and to the locations served by High Speed Two."

I can't find any previous research giving meaningful route considerations prior to this, but as in post #336, there was clearly a perceived need to do a route feasibility study five years later, as though it hadn't already been decided. All coincidence?

Greengauge 21 are a campaign group. That they lobbied for a route via Heathrow is not evidence that HS2 Ltd had Heathrow as a primary objective when deciding their route.

 

[Nottingham59]

I think we’re getting into the realms of conspiracy here, but yes I think if Heathrow had been the main reason for the route choice, there would be evidence out there to back it up, whether that be meeting minutes, presentations, planning documents etc.

Does this help?

Letter from HS2 to Lord Adonis dated Feb 2009 confirming the original brief for HS2 Ltd.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HS2_ObjectivesAndRemitHS22009.pdf

Heathrow International station: This must provide an interchange between HS2, the Great
Western Main Line and Crossrail with convenient access to Heathrow. The nature and
location of the interchange are for HS2 to advise on, taking account, inter alia, of the scope
for modal shift from air and car. Abstraction of traffic from other UK airports into Heathrow
should not be an objective. The feasibility of and benefit case for direct connection onto the
GWML westwards will be explored.

 

[Shrop]

Does this help?

Letter from HS2 to Lord Adonis dated Feb 2009 confirming the original brief for HS2 Ltd.

https://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HS2_ObjectivesAndRemitHS22009.pdf

Yes, emphasis on Heathrow and Birmingham, which is why we are where we are now. The emphasis should have been on links to cities further north, with Heathrow and Birmingham being the secondary considerations. Northern cities as add-ons to these as primary objectives was always a plan for failure

 

[FMerrymon]

Yes, emphasis on Heathrow and Birmingham, which is why we are where we are now. The emphasis should have been on links to cities further north, with Heathrow and Birmingham being the secondary considerations. Northern cities as add-ons to these as primary objectives was always a plan for failure

The entire point, that started this project in the first place, was issues with capacity on the southern section of the wcml and through Birmingham. That was the most urgent to resolve and therefore where they started.