Confirmed : HS2 West Midlands-Manchester line to be scrapped and replaced with other projects.

[Andyh82]

I can imagine a new line between the Bradley Wood Junction/Brighouse area and Low Moor on the Bradford-Halifax line. It would have to be almost entirely in tunnel, below Hartshead Moor and Scholes. Curious about the proposed Bradford Station-a souped up Interchange, or a new through station to the south so that trains from the Calder Valley line to Leeds don't need to reverse at Bradford?

It’ll be the Wakefield Road station that was proposed for ‘HS3’ and that Bradford Council are still fixated by.

The council has never explained why a station even further out than the Interchange is a good idea. They seem obsessed by the reversal element of the Interchange not being suitable for the sort of city they wish Bradford was.

 

[Tezza1978]

Starmer has said he wont reverse the decision

Keir Starmer will not bring HS2 back to life

Labour leader reveals he would follow Rishi Sunak’s plan to use savings from scrapping second leg to build transport links across North

www.telegraph.co.uk

I assume he's looking at scrapping referring to it as HS2 for political reasons. If he supports a new rebadged NPR that could well include 2b.

Could he then rename 2A - High Capacity Crewe - Birmingham relief line? And build that too?

 

[Jonny]

I could also see a case for reducing the scope of the HS2 stations, with fewer HS services (and none to the north-east).

HS2 was already a long way round to places like York (and beyond). For the east side, only a second line would be worthwhile. 30 mins off a journey to Newcastle would not be enough to encourage people to railhead there to go to London.

 

[Energy]

Yet another issue where he's sitting on the fence.

To be fair to Starmer it would be foolish to blindly support HS2 with no clue what the Tories are going to do with land.

Labour will consult with its mayors on what's best, I'd expect them to support a 2a + NPR deal. I suspect they are keeping their cards close and not looking to interested so Rishi doesn't focus his attention on selling land off.

 

[class26]

To be fair to Starmer it would be foolish to blindly support HS2 with no clue what the Tories are going to do with land.

Labour will consult with its mayors on what's best, I'd expect them to support a 2a + NPR deal. I suspect they are keeping their cards close and not looking to interested so Rishi doesn't focus his attention on selling land off.

But what Labour should be doing is make lots of noise now (whatever their intentions) so any sell off of land fails as no one would be willing to buy then once (if) they are in power they can look at it all calmly but iof the land is already gone that`s game over.

 

[gg1]

To be fair to Starmer it would be foolish to blindly support HS2 with no clue what the Tories are going to do with land.

Labour will consult with its mayors on what's best, I'd expect them to support a 2a + NPR deal. I suspect they are keeping their cards close and not looking to interested so Rishi doesn't focus his attention on selling land off.

He could at least make it very clear that Labour will protect both the route and the Euston site to allow for a possible future expansion.

EDIT - @class26 beat me to it

 

[Arkeeos]

To be fair to Starmer it would be foolish to blindly support HS2 with no clue what the Tories are going to do with land.

Labour will consult with its mayors on what's best, I'd expect them to support a 2a + NPR deal. I suspect they are keeping their cards close and not looking to interested so Rishi doesn't focus his attention on selling land off.

If he commits to something they will deliberately make it as hard as possible to accomplish, they need to focus on keeping protection for the route, Make a statement asking for Sunak to consider protection for future expansion, if he refuses then you have public confirmation that they are salting the earth.

 

[greyman42]

He could at least make it very clear that Labour will protect both the route and the Euston site to allow for a possible future expansion.

EDIT - @class26 beat me to it

To be fair to Starmer it would be foolish to blindly support HS2 with no clue what the Tories are going to do with land.

Labour will consult with its mayors on what's best, I'd expect them to support a 2a + NPR deal. I suspect they are keeping their cards close and not looking to interested so Rishi doesn't focus his attention on selling land off.

Starmer is going to get a lot of questions on this subject at the conference so he is going to have to come clean on it or look dodgy.

 

[21C101]

But what Labour should be doing is make lots of noise now (whatever their intentions) so any sell off of land fails as no one would be willing to buy then once (if) they are in power they can look at it all calmly but iof the land is already gone that`s game over.

Fully agree, it is a monumental own goal. Nothing will be built on the land before the next election and he could have said "I hereby give notice that we will protect the routes until funding is available and anyone buying that land will have it compulsorily purchased at site value"

He is no Blair and no Kinnock and certainly no Wilson.

Even if you take at face value the decision to scrap it, not protecting the route is appalling.

When the M23 northern end was scrapped in the early 70s after the collapse of ringway 2 the route was protected for the thick end of 20 years before being released for development.

What Starmer should also be doing is insisting on a vote in the commons on the decision which I suspect would be close. The trouble is that he is a lawyer and seemingly unable to escape from process and procedure in his thinking.

 

[snowball]

Labour will consult with its mayors on what's best, I'd expect them to support a 2a + NPR deal. I suspect they are keeping their cards close and not looking to interested so Rishi doesn't focus his attention on selling land off.

I would have thought 2a+NPR would not make much sense. In the absence of the southern half of 2b, trains from the south would not be able to get to Liverpool (except by the existing route via Runcorn) or Manchester (except by the existing routes via Stockport). The costs of the Liverpool-Manchester route would fall entirely on NPR instead of being shared by HS2. Stockport would remain unrelieved.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately Starmer never really supported HS2, and he is not going to spend political capital on it.

And I very much doubt Labour head office is in a mood for "consultations" with Metro Mayors.
Burnham et al will be told to shut up and that will be that (at least if Burnham wants to be the Labour candidate next year)

 

[WatcherZero]

Sunak

I was sent this by a non-railway supporting friend yesterday.

Rishi's new HS2 proposal for Birmingham to Manchester....

Hs2 Birmingham To Manchester GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Discover & share this Hs2 Birmingham To Manchester GIF with everyone you know. GIPHY is how you search, share, discover, and create GIFs.

giphy.com

I checked with @yorkie that posting would be okay.

The video shows some sort of engineering train (non-UK) towing a portaloo.....

Correction, I think you will find this is Sunaks preferred solution.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Fully agree, it is a monumental own goal. Nothing will be built on the land before the next election and he could have said "I hereby give notice that we will protect the routes until funding is available and anyone buying that land will have it compulsorily purchased at site value"

I agree too. That's the obvious thing that someone of vision and long term thinking would be doing.

I think Starmer's hands are somewhat tied because now that the Tories have announced all the alternative schemes, it would be politically very hard for Labour to commit to not going through with most of them. Imagine how well it'll go down if Labour's manifesto says, We'll cancel the plans for a metro network in Leeds and for better Liverpool-Manchester connections. That's just not going to happen! But I can't see how any Government could afford to pay for those AND the rest of HS2. But on the other hand, it would be madness not to protect the HS2 route for the possibility that in 10-15 years' time we decide we do need it after all.

 

[Mogster]

Ultimately Starmer never really supported HS2, and he is not going to spend political capital on it.

And I very much doubt Labour head office is in a moude for "consultations" with Metro Mayors.
Burnham et al will be told to shut up and that will be that (at least if Burnham wants to be the Labour candidate next year)

Aye. As a new MP in 2015 Starmer was actively campaigning against HS2, speeches in Parliament, social media posts, even a petition.

 

[HSTEd]

But I can't see how any Government could afford to pay for those AND the rest of HS2. But on the other hand, it would be madness not to protect the HS2 route for the possibility that in 10-15 years' time we decide we do need it after all.

Well abolishing the triple lock would cover it, but we know Labour is certainly not going to put that in the manifesto!

Ultimately HS2 is dead and that's the way it is, no more high-speed rail will be built for the foreseeable future.
Indeed its a miracle that this project got anywhere in the first place.

A lot of money will be blown on a bunch of projects, most of which will be canceled or fail miserably (like almost all major railway infrastructure projects do these days) and we will end up with nothing for billions spent.
As is traditional for "modern" Britain.

And anything that is built will likely turn into a money pit branch line that will further worsen the deteriorating financial position of the railways.

 

[Energy]

I would have thought 2a+NPR would not make much sense. In the absence of the southern half of 2b, trains from the south would not be able to get to Liverpool (except by the existing route via Runcorn) or Manchester (except by the existing routes via Stockport). The costs of the Liverpool-Manchester route would fall entirely on NPR instead of being shared by HS2. Stockport would remain unrelieved.

Apologies, 2a + 2b + NPR. I'd expect Burnham to take the opportunity (sensibly) to push for a through station for NPR + HS2.

 

[HSTEd]

I will jump on the grenade and ask, if we were going to get a new Liverpool-Manchester line that is comparatively fast, is the route via Crewe even the best one for a high speed line north of Birmingham any more?

It puts a hell of a dog leg in the line.
If HS2 Phase 2A is actually dead and we do have to start the process again, would we even build that?

Diverting to the west of Stoke to go to Crewe made sense when there was not going to be a fast line from Manchester to Liverpool, but now that there is, what advantage does it have over the straight line from Handsacre to the vicinity of Manchester Airport?

 

[HurdyGurdy]

As has been frequently demonstrated, at national level Burnham has next to no political weight (as a mere mayor) with which to push.

That will remain the case, even if it's a Labour government in Westminster.

 

[class26]

I agree too. That's the obvious thing that someone of vision and long term thinking would be doing.

I think Starmer's hands are somewhat tied because now that the Tories have announced all the alternative schemes, it would be politically very hard for Labour to commit to not going through with most of them. Imagine how well it'll go down if Labour's manifesto says, We'll cancel the plans for a metro network in Leeds and for better Liverpool-Manchester connections. That's just not going to happen! But I can't see how any Government could afford to pay for those AND the rest of HS2. But on the other hand, it would be madness not to protect the HS2 route for the possibility that in 10-15 years' time we decide we do need it after all.

but only 24 hours have elapsed and some of the announcements of alternative spending have already been canned - Leamside line to name but one. Bristol has had money taken away promised yesterday and re allocated to the west country. It all smacks of a fag packet policy. (and i speak as a tory who will 100% NOT be voting tory next time round). This is simply a disgrace and a national scandal for so many reasons. Yes, somewill cheer pot holes being fixed but they will be pot holes again after 3 years then what, whereas HS2 was for 100 + years

 

[owidoe]

But what Labour should be doing is make lots of noise now (whatever their intentions) so any sell off of land fails as no one would be willing to buy then once (if) they are in power they can look at it all calmly but iof the land is already gone that`s game over.

This has made me realise what bloody idiocy it would be to sell off any of the land. Buy it at a statutory premium in a housing bubble, sell it when there's a whacking majority for putting a railway line on it coming in summer. Of course, this means Sunak will do it immediately.

 

[squizzler]

Somebody asked this upthread but I don’t think it was convincingly answered. Can HS2 be cancelled at the stroke of a pen (considering all the consensus and laws and manifesto commitments to put it in place) or would the commitment to build HS2 need to be unmade through similar parliamentary process? Because the legislation is already in place, no?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I will jump on the grenade and ask, if we were going to get a new Liverpool-Manchester line that is comparatively fast, is the route via previous studies based on HS2 we even the best one for a high speed line north of Birmingham any more?

It puts a hell of a dog leg in the line.
If HS2 Phase 2A is actually dead and we do have to start the process again, would we even build that?

Diverting to the wast of Stoke to go to Crewe made sense when there was not going to be a fast line from Manchester to Liverpool, but now that there is, what advantage does it have over the straight line from Handsacre to the vicinity of Manchester Airport?

I should think the two studies based on HS2b are now dead.
These were alternatives to the Golborne Link to better reach Scotland, and the "how to get HS2 trains to Leeds" study, although the latter seems to have emerged as MML-Nottingham-Newark-Yorkshire in Sunak's plan.
NR was supposed to be investigating Liverpool-Millington to link to HS2 but never produced a route.
While the money (£12 billion) is still there, I'm sure the whole scheme is now up in the air with the northern politicians now in the decision loop.

 

[greatkingrat]

Somebody asked this upthread but I don’t think it was convincingly answered. Can HS2 be cancelled at the stroke of a pen (considering all the consensus and laws and manifesto commitments to put it in place) or would the commitment to build HS2 need to be unmade through similar parliamentary process? Because the legislation is already in place, no?

The act just gives the power to build the line, I don't think it creates an obligation to build the line. Going back to Victorian times, there were many railways that were planned, had a parliamentary bill passed, but ended up with some or all of the plans not being built.

 

[21C101]

I agree too. That's the obvious thing that someone of vision and long term thinking would be doing.

I think Starmer's hands are somewhat tied because now that the Tories have announced all the alternative schemes, it would be politically very hard for Labour to commit to not going through with most of them. Imagine how well it'll go down if Labour's manifesto says, We'll cancel the plans for a metro network in Leeds and for better Liverpool-Manchester connections. That's just not going to happen! But I can't see how any Government could afford to pay for those AND the rest of HS2. But on the other hand, it would be madness not to protect the HS2 route for the possibility that in 10-15 years' time we decide we do need it after all.

In all probability buying anything sold off back at site value is probably illegal (and would need human rights act overriden to do it).

To a lawyer like starmer even considering such a statement would be anathema. A wilier politician like Wilson or Peter the Snake would reason that making such a statement would gum up the works and mean virtually nothing gets sold in the next 18 months. By which time there would be an election and having won it could reverse the policy and buy back what little land had been sold legally.

One reason I am expecting this coming election to be 1992ish not 1997ish.

 

[Tezza1978]

One reason I am expecting this coming election to be 1992ish not 1997ish.

The Labour lead is increasing in recent polls. Im not Starmer's biggest fan but this isnt 1992. The country is heartily sick of them, I cant see any realistic scenario other than a Labour win

 

[coppercapped]

Somebody asked this upthread but I don’t think it was convincingly answered. Can HS2 be cancelled at the stroke of a pen (considering all the consensus and laws and manifesto commitments to put it in place) or would the commitment to build HS2 need to be unmade through similar parliamentary process? Because the legislation is already in place, no?

The act just gives the power to build the line, I don't think it creates an obligation to build the line. Going back to Victorian times, there were many railways that were planned, had a parliamentary bill passed, but ended up with some or all of the plans not being built.

I agree, an Act of Parliament enables the building of the line, it does not mean that it has to be built.

 

[Krokodil]

Manchester is "larger" as it claims all surrounding towns in so called greater manchester. Greater Brum theres isn`t (ok west mids) but add in Coventry, Wolverhamton, etc etc and the picture changes

What's the population within the catchment area of the stations though? Presumably most from Coventry/Wolves will continue to use classic services from their own stations whereas apart from Wigan pretty much everyone from Greater Manchester would descend upon Piccadilly.

Castlefield has nothing to do with HS2 whatsoever. Even most of the services that would go onto NPR serve Victoria, not Castlefield.

None of the Government's wish list has anything to do with HS2 (Tavistock, anyone?). It would have been reasonable to expect however that if the government is scrapping the project to spend money on other projects in the north, one of said projects would be the Castlefield Corridor. Clearly the people who suffer from that unreliable infrastructure don't live in marginal enough seats.

Manchester as a city is significantly smaller than Leeds.

You wait until you see just how small the City of London is.

How does SNCF do it so well?

Apart from being in a far less densely populated country, they don't dither around with endless consultations and burying to (not) appease the Chilterns. They just get on and build it.

 

[squizzler]

The mainstream press is starting (link) to tear the so-called Network North strategy document to shreds.

Not only did he scrap HS2 north of Birmingham, dismissing it as “the ultimate example of the old consensus”, but he had somehow found time to sign off a 40-page prospectus for Network North. Subtitle: TRANSFORMING BRITISH TRANSPORT.

Though no one could possibly believe the document was actually drawn up during a conference all-nighter, it did bear all the hallmarks of something rustled up in a hurry. And some of the things Sunak has said since have illustrated a significant lack of understanding of the realities of transport in the north of England and/or a forgetfulness around what he or his predecessors had already announced.

Here are 10 dodgy bits in and around the Network North announcement:

 

[renegademaster]

Starmer is the guy who turned the semi rural home counties toffs Labour, no way he's going to give those seats back by backing HS2, Manchester is going to vote for him no matter how much he annoys them

 

[Energy]

Starmer is the guy who turned the semi rural home counties toffs Labour, no way he's going to give those seats back by backing HS2, Manchester is going to vote for him no matter how much he annoys them

Scrapping it has hardly appeased the home counties, many are annoyed that they still have a rail line but it goes to only Birmingham.