Future of HS2 2b (Eastern Leg deprioritised)

[The Ham]

I don't quite understand how HS2 will have lower costs, firstly there's approximately £30 Billion in capital investment to build Phase 1, which has financing costs, then there's the depreciation as it slowly wears out, plus the new rolling stock, operating costs, higher energy usage because of the higher speed. I can't see how it be lower cost than an existing line, which is pretty much depreciated and receiving periodic maintenance and upgrades.

Existing rail journeys can be very expensive, I can only see HS2 making this worse.



No, the original point made by another poster was that HS 2 was needed to release capacity on the WCML , my point was that at that point the cost effective solution to that problem would have been convention rail, along an existing disused route. Clearly though that ship has sailed and HS2 is in motion, regardless of its cost effectiveness.

To highlight some of the points others have said, if we take the services to Manchester, currently each train takes 5 hours from leaving Euston to run to Manchester and back and then be ready to run the next service (~2 hours up, ~2 hours back and 20 minutes turn around at each end), HS2 cuts this to 3 hours (~1 hour up, ~1 hour back and 20 minutes turn around at each end).

To highlight how much of a difference this makes we'll look at the number of coaches needed to run the services.

Currently there a mixture of 9+11 coach trains, if we assume 9+9+11 that's 145 coaches needed before you can start sending the same coaches back around again.

If we assume HS2 will have 16 coach trains then you'll need 144 coaches.

However increase the length of the existing trains 9+9+11 in one hour and 9+11+11 in the next and so on then the number of coaches increases to 149 coaches.

However increase it 12 coach trains (which is often cited as an alternative to HS2) and the number of coaches increases to 180, therefore you'd be paying 25% more for 60% of the capacity.

That's before you consider staff costs, as that's not only just 1 driver for 1,100 rather than 660 (on a 12 coach 390), but also over a 7 hour shift only one and half round trips, rather than 2 compleate round trips and time to spare.

 

[Robertj21a]

No wonder the WCML 140mph upgrade never happened with that level of work required.


Upgrading our victorian alignments to work with speeds over 125 mph is a false economy.

As a mere traveller I'm a bit puzzled by this suggestion that we could increase from 125 to 140mph for some bits - is it really needed, by anyone ?

 

[class26]

Joining in the debate regarding 140mph in December`s Modern Railways is a short article about140mph on the ECML between York and Northallerton which it seems the Northern Power House are going to be pushing for.

 

[edwin_m]

The fact HS2 can achieve 18TPH with ETCS Level 2 suggests that there isn't really a capacity benefit for using the future Level 3 on high speed lines. And fixed block does have its benefits - if a train stops somewhere awkward it's probably better not to have three or four more stacked up right behind before the controllers can do anything about it. Especially if it's damaged the OLE and those following trains are therefore also stranded.

 

[Bald Rick]

Thameslink core is more akin to a metro.

So is Crossrail!

As I understand it the crossrail issue is not the train it is integrating the train and several different signalling systems

All the signalling systems that need integrating are on the train...

 

[Ianno87]

The fact HS2 can achieve 18TPH with ETCS Level 2 suggests that there isn't really a capacity benefit for using the future Level 3 on high speed lines. And fixed block does have its benefits - if a train stops somewhere awkward it's probably better not to have three or four more stacked up right behind before the controllers can do anything about it. Especially if it's damaged the OLE and those following trains are therefore also stranded.

18tph is do-able on a 3 minute planning headway (pretty standard for high speed lines around the world) and still have a bit of spare capacity up ones' sleeve for robustness.

 

[Jozhua]

The trouble is that enthusiasts (understandably) tend to like interesting/obscure services, and so favour a less frequent but more varied service, so this sort of thing gets frowned upon on here.

I think this is the key issue at play here ^

Plus, I think from an enthusiast standpoint, seeing them upgrade the existing lines we all know and love to move at higher speeds is probably quite an interesting prospect.
HS2 is cool, but it's basically just a big long straight line, 50% of which is in tunnel, so it begins to get a bit dry from an enthusiast perspective. But it's dryness is what makes it so useful - it's going to be simplified and reliable.

I’ve posted several times elsewhere on the forum about what it takes to lift line speed. Signalling and Level Crossings are part of the issue. But so is the track, what’s lies underneath the track, the structure gauge, the OLE, the power supply, the safety of staff who work trackside, platforms next to the track, tunnels, and more. All of these things have to be studied, and I can tell you for sure that a lot of the track and OLE is not fit for more than 125mph.

Yes there were tests on the ECML - nearly 30 years ago. And they showed what the problems were. If it was easy or worthwhile to resolve, it would have been done.



That would take longer.

Interesting, I've been sat thinking the only barrier to 140mph was signalling and bureaucracy, but (as is often the case with victorian infrastructure) the picture is much more complex than that!

Upgrading to 140mph would doubtless be very disruptive and push more people to driving - something which goes counter to the aims of rail strategy.

I don't quite understand how HS2 will have lower costs, firstly there's approximately £30 Billion in capital investment to build Phase 1, which has financing costs, then there's the depreciation as it slowly wears out, plus the new rolling stock, operating costs, higher energy usage because of the higher speed. I can't see how it be lower cost than an existing line, which is pretty much depreciated and receiving periodic maintenance and upgrades.

Existing rail journeys can be very expensive, I can only see HS2 making this worse.

No, the original point made by another poster was that HS 2 was needed to release capacity on the WCML , my point was that at that point the cost effective solution to that problem would have been convention rail, along an existing disused route. Clearly though that ship has sailed and HS2 is in motion, regardless of its cost effectiveness.

Here's the thing about using disused routes - it's really not that cheap and comes with a heck-ton of compromises.

I.e Costs:
You still have to lay tracks, do groundworks and make everything safe. You will also have to restore structures like bridges, crossings and the like to a modern standard, this means it can fit things like OLE. Bringing up level crossings to a truly modern standard means getting rid of them and grade separating.

You will have to CPO properties that have now been built on the alignment.

I.e Comprimises:
These kind of feed into costs - when you consider all the things that need to be done in order to have this function as a high speed railway ^

-You're stuck with a victorian alignment - designed when trains weren't so fast.This means you're stuck to 100-125mph for most of your trip, like the existing lines, or you can re-align certain sections - at fairly hefty costs.

-The smaller loading gauge and bore will require replacement of bridges and tunnels in order to add OLE to the route. Again-this will contribute significantly to costs.

-The trains will still be dumped into congested stations and junctions, unless existing alignments are widened into city centres. This would probably involve CPO'ing the land next to them, meaning the likely cheaper option would just be to tunnel brand new alignments into city centres.

But you need fewer trains, staff etc to run the same level of service, as round trip times are much shorter. Plus maintainence access is easier, and "maintainability" designed into the infrastructure (e.g. no Victorian earthworks, etc).

The other argument is that the "cost" of HS2 is covered by the wider economic benefits it generates beyond fares receipts - hence why HM Government can justify underwriting the borrowing needed to pay for it. Although it will need renewal over time, it is a long-term asset designed to last 100+ years - and the cost of renewals and maintenance is factored into the economic case.

Absolutely!

The financing costs incurred by the state are so low as to be almost negligible.
Especially as real interest rates on government debt are negative.

Even if you amortise it down, the number of passengers that will use it render this a negligible ticket component.




The majority of the costs involved in building HS2 have very very long lifetimes.
The tunnel bores etc, or the political costs of getting the thing built in compulsory purchased, planning etc.

Tunnels have a very long lifetime when properly engineered.

These costs will amortise to nothing.


The current rolling stock does not have an infinite operational life, and the costs of high speed units are not actually that much greater than that of conventional units, especially when comparing to things like Pendolinos with all the equipment they have that a high speed unit does not have.

Indeed the costs of rolling stock may even be lower for HS2 because the trains can make many more round trips in a given period thanks to their higher average speed



What operating costs are higher?

Instead of two train crew making round trips, I can have one driver making nearly twice as many round trips (on Manchester certainly).
Because of the much shorter journeys most of the expensive catering stuff can be dispensed with, along with the very expensive galley facilities which take up a load of room.

HS2 will need a handful of signallers in an office control room somewhere, it has far less equipment to go wrong than the average railway due to its simple track layout and uniform operating parameter sof the fleet that operates on it.
It will also be built to modern standards, optimised for life cycle costs, rather than built to the standards of Victorian engineers where labour was cheap and material was expensive.


Energy cost of a passenger on a TGV duplex at 320km/h is comparable to a Pendo at 200km/h.

Modern high speed stock is much lighter than the monstrosities tilt forces us to use now.
Even then, energy costs are not significant portions of the price of a ticket.



Because upgrades are horrifyingly expensive, as the experience of the GWRM, WCRM and any other upgrade project in railway history will tell you.


What advantage does a line thats been closed for half a century have over a new one?
I can't think of any.

It has many disadvantages however

I think the consideration of upgrading lines closed for half a century is that the land is there (questionable) and the alignment is there (questionable). Even then, you still need structures (no- an 80 year old steel bridge isn't going to cut it), tunnels (no-a 150 year old tunnel won't fit OLE), signals (unless you want to use semaphores!), trains, depots, stations (unless you want to use the existing overcrowded ones - where the whole project will have no capacity benefit)...

And after spending £30bn, just like HS2 is set to cost, all you get is another line that just about has 125mph squeezed out of it, with maximum cornering forces and tilt. Therefore it has no ability to replace the MML and ECML as well - questionable as to whether it will replace the WCML either.

 

[Greybeard33]

According to the Yorkshire Post:

It emerged last week that government advisers will recommend the Eastern leg of HS2 between the West Midlands and Leeds be built in phases, delaying its completion by up to 20 years.

Rail leaders' plea to 'not just build half a project' over high speed rail

Decisions by the Government next month are set to shape the future of Yorkshire’s high speed rail ambitions. Rob Parsons reports.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

The story appears to be based on interviews with Justin Moss, co-chair of Northern Rail Industry Leaders, and Tim Wood, the Northern Powerhouse director at Transport for the North.

 

[Killingworth]

As a mere traveller I'm a bit puzzled by this suggestion that we could increase from 125 to 140mph for some bits - is it really needed, by anyone ?

Far, far less than speeding up sections from main termini, slowly crossing multiple aged junctions out of congested conurbations to reach open tracks, but if it can be done it all helps.

 

[Jozhua]

According to the Yorkshire Post:

Rail leaders' plea to 'not just build half a project' over high speed rail

Decisions by the Government next month are set to shape the future of Yorkshire’s high speed rail ambitions. Rob Parsons reports.

www.yorkshirepost.co.uk

The story appears to be based on interviews with Justin Moss, co-chair of Northern Rail Industry Leaders, and Tim Wood, the Northern Powerhouse director at Transport for the North.

Ugh. With no rhyme or reason. I still hold that HS2's biggest benefits lie in its spurs and failing to complete them properly will fail it as a project. The line from London to Birmingham is the spine, nessacery for the network to function, while the Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds sections are the arms, nessacery for it to actually do things.

Going from cities like Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham is awful currently, the UK's 2nd and 3rd largest cities have a woefully inadequate connection, especially in comparison with what goes to London from both of them. The great thing about HS2 is it doesn't just improve the London connection, but also connections into Birmingham. In fact, building it this way not only allows it to replace three mainlines, but also create better connections between the regions, rather than just focusing on London.

There are so many reasons to do this project properly, but the government always has an eye on cutting corners. (or in the case of a high speed railway, adding them in!)

The biggest thing they can do for cost reduction BY FAR, is to commit 100% backing to the phase 2 project going forwards and use the next five years to really figure out supply chains in detail (reduce costs) , train more engineers (less overtime = reduced costs) and negotiate with contractors. Flip flopping for four years, then doing it last minute helps no-one. These boom and bust cycles are adding up to (1/3rd) to costs, far from doing anything to reduce them.
Plus, how is Network rail supposed to plan upgrades, remodelling, etc, or TOCs supposed to plan rolling stock allocation if there is no certainty as to where HS2 will go?

There is already a planned route which local governments, transport operators, network rail and other DafT departments have got quite detailed planning around. If the Eastern leg is cancelled, or changed significantly, we're going to have trams in the middle of fields, an existing railway network that isn't ready for changing service patterns and a complete waste of 1000's of people's time, energy and money. It's not a sunk cost fallacy either, the business case is there, it's very doable, it's a successful model in other countries. So let's commit to building the damn thing, especially since phase 1 is underway, and use the extra years that buys us to find more constructive ways of reducing cost, impacts on local residents, wildlife, etc.

 

[daodao]

the business case is there, it's very doable, it's a successful model in other countries. So let's commit to building the damn thing, especially since phase 1 is underway

The business case is there - ??? That is very questionable now, particularly with the desirability of reducing travel from a "green" perspective, and with the ability to increase the use of electronic meetings (both for business and social communication) accelerated by the Covid epidemic. The eastern arm, and the western sections north of Crewe, do not have the same case as phase 1 and phase 2a to Crewe in terms of providing extra capacity, as the existing lines are not so congested. and the number of tph that will run on them will be far less than on phase 1 and phase 2a as far as Crewe.

It's very doable - ??? Yes, but not "very" - it will cost more and be more difficult to achieve than elsewhere. Most other countries are less densely populated, so the destructive impact of new lines cutting across the country is less. Planning controls are also less and governments can railroad projects through. The H&S culture is also less of an issue. England is not China.

It's a successful model in other countries - ??? Even ignoring China, other European countries are wealthier and much bigger, and distances between cities are much greater than in England. In terms of speed, all that is required is to reduce journey times from London to all cities with a population >100k in England to less than 3 hours to kill off intercity air travel completely, and ideally to <2 hours for the 4 major cities in Northern England (Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester & Sheffield). HS1 and HS2a to Crewe will achieve this for Liverpool and Manchester, and also for Sheffield even if the eastern arm isn't built and trains are routed via Derby and the existing MML. It is possible to run non-stop from King's Cross to Leeds via the ECML in 2 hours, and some small improvements to that line should enable this to be achieved on a regular all day basis.

I have not mentioned Scotland, as I expect that (all being well) it will be independent and have re-joined the EU by the time HS2 opens, and international passenger rail travel, particularly across a hard border, is typically much less than that within countries without barriers on the border. Elsewhere in Europe, international passenger rail travel is continuing to decline even if domestic rail travel is holding up.

So let's commit to building the damn thing - ??? Not the typically English way of doing things!

Especially since phase 1 is underway - ??? That is not a reason to build HS2 lines north of Crewe or the eastern arm. The English financial situation is likely to head in the same direction as Argentina post-Covid and post a hard Brexit, with unsympathetic rulers in Beijing/Berlin/Brussels/Washington. It is very questionable whether building the bits of HS2 where construction has not yet started is affordable.

 

[Bald Rick]

You will have to CPO properties that have now been built on the alignment.

A small correction, you have to secure the land needed for constructing the railway via CPO or other means, and not just ‘properties’ that have been built on it. Land owners generally don’t want their prime farmland cut in two just as much as anyone wouldn’t want their house demolished.

And as I’ve mentioned elsewhere, replacing existing infrastructure of a long closed railway can often cost more than simply building new. This is particularly the case for a railway that will see high levels of traffic.

 

[21C101]

Ugh. With no rhyme or reason. I still hold that HS2's biggest benefits lie in its spurs and failing to complete them properly will fail it as a project. The line from London to Birmingham is the spine, nessacery for the network to function, while the Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds sections are the arms, nessacery for it to actually do things.

I think a few more spurs would help.

One from HS2 to the Leamington to Oxford line as near to Oxford as practicable would enable rapid northeast to southwest services via HS2.

As to the Chiltern opposition they have persued the wrong strategy and ended up with nothing. A strategy of fierce opposition while simultaneous fierce campaigning for an Aylesbury Parkway station if it went ahead might have got them some local benefit. Too late now.

Personally I would have campaigned for a a four track HS2 from Northolt to Brackley with "Chiltern Javelins" running from Marylebone to the HS2 relief lines at Northolt and "HS2 relief line" stations at Amersham, Aylesbury Parkway Finmere Parkway (for Bicester) and Brackley, with the possibility of later extension to Leicester via Rugby. Too late now.

All the signalling systems that need integrating are on the train...

I think we are moving towards arguments about the number of engineers can fit on a pinhaead territory here so time to bring this to a close.

 

[Bald Rick]

One from HS2 to the Leamington to Oxford line as near to Oxford as practicable would enable rapid northeast to southwest services via HS2.

No capacity for that, and to be honest if it avoided Birmingham the trains would be largely empty.

 

[The Ham]

One from HS2 to the Leamington to Oxford line as near to Oxford as practicable would enable rapid northeast to southwest services via HS2.

How would this help more than going to Old Oak Common and going to the SW from there?

 

[jfowkes]

Personally I would have campaigned for a a four track HS2 from Northolt to Brackley with "Chiltern Javelins" running from Marylebone to the HS2 relief lines at Northolt and "HS2 relief line" stations at Amersham, Aylesbury Parkway Finmere Parkway (for Bicester) and Brackley, with the possibility of later extension to Leicester via Rugby. Too late now.

Better to leave the HS2 design alone and campaign for electrification of the Chiltern mainline and completion and electrification of EWR. That would serve the Chilterns far better than changes to HS2 for the sake of placating it's critics.

 

[daodao]

How would this help more than going to Old Oak Common and going to the SW from there?

HS2, particularly if built fully as proposed, will encourage journeys to be routed via OOC/London that are currently done on XC routes via Birmingham, e.g. Leeds to Exeter. In France, equivalent journeys, e.g. Lille to Strasbourg, are now encouraged to be done by changing at Paris, or if direct go via bypass lines around Paris, and the slow historic "direct" routes closed or left with just local services.

 

[Ianno87]

As to the Chiltern opposition they have persued the wrong strategy and ended up with nothing.

Not quite true - alot more route is in tunnel compared to that first proposed.

No intermediate stations south of Birmingham has been pretty fundamental to HS2 throughout, for good reason. It would have to have been a pretty convincing case for anything else.

 

[21C101]

No capacity for that, and to be honest if it avoided Birmingham the trains would be largely empty.

They were well enough used when such a route existed.

Too late now though, much harder to "retrofit" once the line is built.

 

[Ianno87]

HS2, particularly if built fully as proposed, will encourage journeys to be routed via OOC/London that are currently done on XC routes via Birmingham, e.g. Leeds to Exeter. In France, equivalent journeys, e.g. Lille to Strasbourg, are now encouraged to be done by changing at Paris, or if direct go via bypass lines around Paris, and the slow historic "direct" routes closed or left with just local services.

But that won't be the case in Britain. Bristol-Birmingham will always be faster via the current route, and easily justified retention of fast services in its own right.

 

[21C101]

Not quite true - alot more route is in tunnel compared to that first proposed.

No intermediate stations south of Birmingham has been pretty fundamental to HS2 throughout, for good reason. It would have to have been a pretty convincing case for anything else.

Yes, I know. In France though they very reluctantly caved in and built similar stations in equivalent locations to buy off local protestors.

 

[Ianno87]

They were well enough used when such a route existed.

Too late now though, much harder to "retrofit" once the line is built.

The Heathrow spur was dropped for the same reason - each path needed for it (orginally 2tph) was at the expense of a better-loaded path to/from Euston.


XC services do have a significant "churn" of passengers at New Street, and always have.

Yes, I know. In France though they very reluctantly caved in and built similar stations in equivalent locations to buy off local protestors.

To the expense of line capacity in almost all cases.

 

[21C101]

The Heathrow spur was dropped for the same reason - each path needed for it (orginally 2tph) was at the expense of a better-loaded path to/from Euston.


XC services do have a significant "churn" of passengers at New Street, and always have.



To the expense of line capacity in almost all cases.

I gaher the stations concerned get a desultory service for that reason.

HS1 is unusual if not unique in being a high speed commuter line with just a couple of intercities a hour.

 

[Ianno87]

I gaher the stations concerned get a desultory service for that reason.

1-2tph at most seems common.

Haute Picardie (on LGV Nord - "Gare des Betteraves") doesn't even get Paris services - only trains via the Interconnection.

HS1 is unusual if not unique in being a high speed commuter line with just a couple of intercities a hour.

And the "Intercity" service frequecy is limited by another constraint - the Channel Tunnel.

 

[The Planner]

I think a few more spurs would help.

One from HS2 to the Leamington to Oxford line as near to Oxford as practicable would enable rapid northeast to southwest services via HS2.

The closest you can get to Leamington to Oxford on the HS2 trace is either Kenilworth or Claydon on E-W. It wouldn't really work.

 

[Bald Rick]

Haute Picardie (on LGV Nord - "Gare des Betteraves") doesn't even get Paris services - only trains via the Interconnection.

Indeed next train in an hour and a half, next one after that nearly three hours later (southbound). Vendôme is similar.

 

[Jozhua]

The business case is there - ??? That is very questionable now, particularly with the desirability of reducing travel from a "green" perspective, and with the ability to increase the use of electronic meetings (both for business and social communication) accelerated by the Covid epidemic. The eastern arm, and the western sections north of Crewe, do not have the same case as phase 1 and phase 2a to Crewe in terms of providing extra capacity, as the existing lines are not so congested. and the number of tph that will run on them will be far less than on phase 1 and phase 2a as far as Crewe.

It's very doable - ??? Yes, but not "very" - it will cost more and be more difficult to achieve than elsewhere. Most other countries are less densely populated, so the destructive impact of new lines cutting across the country is less. Planning controls are also less and governments can railroad projects through. The H&S culture is also less of an issue. England is not China.

It's a successful model in other countries - ??? Even ignoring China, other European countries are wealthier and much bigger, and distances between cities are much greater than in England. In terms of speed, all that is required is to reduce journey times from London to all cities with a population >100k in England to less than 3 hours to kill off intercity air travel completely, and ideally to <2 hours for the 4 major cities in Northern England (Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester & Sheffield). HS1 and HS2a to Crewe will achieve this for Liverpool and Manchester, and also for Sheffield even if the eastern arm isn't built and trains are routed via Derby and the existing MML. It is possible to run non-stop from King's Cross to Leeds via the ECML in 2 hours, and some small improvements to that line should enable this to be achieved on a regular all day basis.

I have not mentioned Scotland, as I expect that (all being well) it will be independent and have re-joined the EU by the time HS2 opens, and international passenger rail travel, particularly across a hard border, is typically much less than that within countries without barriers on the border. Elsewhere in Europe, international passenger rail travel is continuing to decline even if domestic rail travel is holding up.

So let's commit to building the damn thing - ??? Not the typically English way of doing things!

Especially since phase 1 is underway - ??? That is not a reason to build HS2 lines north of Crewe or the eastern arm. The English financial situation is likely to head in the same direction as Argentina post-Covid and post a hard Brexit, with unsympathetic rulers in Beijing/Berlin/Brussels/Washington. It is very questionable whether building the bits of HS2 where construction has not yet started is affordable.

The business case is there :

-you're misguided if you think that travel is permanently reduced because of covid. Trust me, in 6 months no-one will be saying this.

Let's entertain the possibility though, even if it is, the climate change crisis leaves us desperately in need of modal shift. Not just climate change actually, pollution and congestion are issues that affect us now.

It's very doable:

-It actually doesn't cost more than lines elsewhere. The only reason it seems worse than comparable projects in Europe is because they tend to be built in phases, with station upgrades done as seperate projects.

Dense, rich countries with high H&S standards such as South Korea and Japan have managed to do it, why not us?

Successful model in other countries:

-Honestly, pointing at specific journey times kind of misses the point. HS2 is primarily about capacity, both on the line and the existing network. The speed is a byproduct of this, and also enables us to use a single route coming out of London, to replace three mainlines.

HS2 will, however, decrease journey times to the South West massively, a big driver of domestic air travel in the UK. My uni friends who live down there very often fly/drive from Manchester because the train is overcrowded, smelly and slow.

Plus, HS2's biggest benefit is on the existing network, that's more commuter, regional and freight (don't forget about freight!) trains, that will help to replace the road traffic that currently chokes our cities.

Scotland
Those comments belong in the speculative section, realistically. Even if Scotland leaves, remember the cities like Newcastle up on the east of the country, they'll benefit from HS2, too, with reduced journey times to Birmingham and London.

Not typically the English way of doing things:
Yes and that has left us with a more overcrowded, expensive and slower network than our friends on the continent have.

The economic argument:

It's actually a fallicy as to wether we can "afford it". The reality is, we cannot afford not to spend money on infrastructure. Money spent on HS2 will help to kick-start the economy Post-Covid and all the well paying jobs created by it will move our economy forwards, and centre us as a hub for skilled manufacturing.
Countries like Germany and Japan have not become so successful because of some inate cultural differences. The difference between them and us is they have invested in Infrastructure, Health and Education to help facilitate good economic growth and a high quality of life for their citizens. (which is what any good economy should aim to provide)

It's time Britain did the same. We're the 5th largest economy in the world, but frankly looking at the state of the country, it does not feel like that.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Ugh. With no rhyme or reason. I still hold that HS2's biggest benefits lie in its spurs and failing to complete them properly will fail it as a project. The line from London to Birmingham is the spine, nessacery for the network to function, while the Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds sections are the arms, nessacery for it to actually do things.

Going from cities like Manchester and Leeds to Birmingham is awful currently, the UK's 2nd and 3rd largest cities have a woefully inadequate connection, especially in comparison with what goes to London from both of them. The great thing about HS2 is it doesn't just improve the London connection, but also connections into Birmingham. In fact, building it this way not only allows it to replace three mainlines, but also create better connections between the regions, rather than just focusing on London.

There are so many reasons to do this project properly, but the government always has an eye on cutting corners. (or in the case of a high speed railway, adding them in!)

The biggest thing they can do for cost reduction BY FAR, is to commit 100% backing to the phase 2 project going forwards and use the next five years to really figure out supply chains in detail (reduce costs) , train more engineers (less overtime = reduced costs) and negotiate with contractors. Flip flopping for four years, then doing it last minute helps no-one. These boom and bust cycles are adding up to (1/3rd) to costs, far from doing anything to reduce them.
Plus, how is Network rail supposed to plan upgrades, remodelling, etc, or TOCs supposed to plan rolling stock allocation if there is no certainty as to where HS2 will go?

There is already a planned route which local governments, transport operators, network rail and other DafT departments have got quite detailed planning around. If the Eastern leg is cancelled, or changed significantly, we're going to have trams in the middle of fields, an existing railway network that isn't ready for changing service patterns and a complete waste of 1000's of people's time, energy and money. It's not a sunk cost fallacy either, the business case is there, it's very doable, it's a successful model in other countries. So let's commit to building the damn thing, especially since phase 1 is underway, and use the extra years that buys us to find more constructive ways of reducing cost, impacts on local residents, wildlife, etc.

The benefits to HS2, yes. Those urban spurs are indeed very important for the benefits of HS2, as these can be some of the slowest and most congested parts of an InterCity rail journey today. The contention between fast and local services is also felt most acutely here as cutting journey times to London often means it's impossible to fit in more local services.

The difficulty I perceive is that the business case for spending all that money to benefit HS2 services alone is not really that good. It's not that there's no way of making it happen. Rather, that you need to make these spurs more generally useful for the rail network. In theory, why shouldn't a 200km/h service from Leeds to London via the ECML not use the same express line into Leeds as one that goes via HS2? For as long as there is a desire to run many express services on the classic lines, it won't be possible to metro-ify them. Yes, after HS2 is built, the primary Leeds to London flows would go via HS2. The remaining services to King's Cross can therefore be optimised for serving intermediate markets like Peterborough and giving them both northbound and southbound connections. The fact that more of the Leeds services will call at Retford, Newark and Grantham isn't much consolation if you're sitting at Outwood watching them whizz by at line speed while waiting for a half hourly train to Leeds.

Remember that Phase 1 and 2a are now basically settled. With the government's refusal to back the idea of cutting costs on Phase 1 by cutting max tph down, it seems that the concept of running trains towards Sheffield, Leeds and York/Newcastle is also fine. The problem now is that actually defining the infrastructure needed in each of the city centres (Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds) gets far too tied up in the world of NPR. However, not defining these yet doesn't mean HS2 can't progress. If nothing else, it would be perfectly possible to run a classic-compatible HS2 service into each of these cities with not much more than is planned already. Just find a way of taking the HS2 mainline over to Doncaster and you can run Leeds and York/Newcastle services just like today. The East Midlands Hub station has a useful function just by providing a 400m station where 200m classic-compatibles can split and join to reach the various destinations north of there. By decoupling the project like that you can provide a bit of breathing room to make the best choices for new infrastructure within each of the cities. Rushing it could result in some pretty spectacular misses (like having NPR trains reverse at Piccadilly!)

 

[Jozhua]

The benefits to HS2, yes. Those urban spurs are indeed very important for the benefits of HS2, as these can be some of the slowest and most congested parts of an InterCity rail journey today. The contention between fast and local services is also felt most acutely here as cutting journey times to London often means it's impossible to fit in more local services.

The difficulty I perceive is that the business case for spending all that money to benefit HS2 services alone is not really that good. It's not that there's no way of making it happen. Rather, that you need to make these spurs more generally useful for the rail network. In theory, why shouldn't a 200km/h service from Leeds to London via the ECML not use the same express line into Leeds as one that goes via HS2? For as long as there is a desire to run many express services on the classic lines, it won't be possible to metro-ify them. Yes, after HS2 is built, the primary Leeds to London flows would go via HS2. The remaining services to King's Cross can therefore be optimised for serving intermediate markets like Peterborough and giving them both northbound and southbound connections. The fact that more of the Leeds services will call at Retford, Newark and Grantham isn't much consolation if you're sitting at Outwood watching them whizz by at line speed while waiting for a half hourly train to Leeds.

Remember that Phase 1 and 2a are now basically settled. With the government's refusal to back the idea of cutting costs on Phase 1 by cutting max tph down, it seems that the concept of running trains towards Sheffield, Leeds and York/Newcastle is also fine. The problem now is that actually defining the infrastructure needed in each of the city centres (Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield and Leeds) gets far too tied up in the world of NPR. However, not defining these yet doesn't mean HS2 can't progress. If nothing else, it would be perfectly possible to run a classic-compatible HS2 service into each of these cities with not much more than is planned already. Just find a way of taking the HS2 mainline over to Doncaster and you can run Leeds and York/Newcastle services just like today. The East Midlands Hub station has a useful function just by providing a 400m station where 200m classic-compatibles can split and join to reach the various destinations north of there. By decoupling the project like that you can provide a bit of breathing room to make the best choices for new infrastructure within each of the cities. Rushing it could result in some pretty spectacular misses (like having NPR trains reverse at Piccadilly!)

Yeah, I mean I agree with you mostly on this.

Cutting costs on phase 1 by reducing speeds is a bit of a misnomer - you still have to build the same length of track for 140 or 220mph, so doing so brings really minimal costs. The 220mph sections are the ones that cost the least to construct anyway, as they'll be through mostly open countryside. The really expensive bits are those going into the cities - and the stations. The tunnel into London is going to be a fairly big chunk of phase 1's cost and is not going to be running anywhere near 220mph. They wouldn't have chosen these speeds if they weren't just a side effect of building a modern high speed railway.

I.e Piccadilly Station and NPR reversals, I studied the plans a little bit when filling in Phase 2b surveys. The station at Piccadilly appears to be using the old warehouse underneath the current station - where Metrolink's most "metro" feeling station currently resides. Basically it means extending a tunnel beyond it isn't really possible.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Yeah, I mean I agree with you mostly on this.

Cutting costs on phase 1 by reducing speeds is a bit of a misnomer - you still have to build the same length of track for 140 or 220mph, so doing so brings really minimal costs. The 220mph sections are the ones that cost the least to construct anyway, as they'll be through mostly open countryside. The really expensive bits are those going into the cities - and the stations. The tunnel into London is going to be a fairly big chunk of phase 1's cost and is not going to be running anywhere near 220mph. They wouldn't have chosen these speeds if they weren't just a side effect of building a modern high speed railway.

I.e Piccadilly Station and NPR reversals, I studied the plans a little bit when filling in Phase 2b surveys. The station at Piccadilly appears to be using the old warehouse underneath the current station - where Metrolink's most "metro" feeling station currently resides. Basically it means extending a tunnel beyond it isn't really possible.

I think the primary cost cutting that was on the table for Phase 1 was reducing the maximum train service frequency. HS2 Phase 1 will be one of the most intensively used high speed railways in the world pretty much from opening day. While the basic signalling etc might handle 18tph with ease, the physical infrastructure will need maintenance in proportion to how intensively it's used. With the plan for only 5 hours of closure overnight and 8 hours on a Sunday morning, you can work out whether it'll be possible to keep certain things maintained as fast as they wear away without needing to close the railway for longer. Below a certain TPH treshold I think it's also possible to simplify the junctions. For instance, the current plan for the line between Birmingham Interchange and the Leeds junction is for a fairly complex four-track (!) railway allowing maximum flexibility for trains to head to and from Crewe, the East Midlands, Curzon Street and London.

The HS2 station at Piccadilly has always been planned to go above ground level. You can't really build a station at ground level in a city like Manchester as then you wouldn't be able to cross it by foot or vehicle. It'll be up on a viaduct like the current station so that the concourse and cross streets can be below it and the approach tracks. If it were to be extended through as a loop, that would involve a separate station built underground. That would be connected by tunnel to a junction at the point where the terminus viaduct route runs into the tunnels that go to the Airport station. Both the loop and the reversal option have been officially mooted for NPR at Piccadilly. However, it's one of those lynchpin things which then defines the rest of the NPR network.

With the way that Manchester is the most important city to serve with 400m sets ASAP, I think the Piccadilly terminus and Airport tunnel will plough ahead. However, by adding in passive provision for tunnelled connections in both directions (i.e. for both the reversal and loop concepts) we would have maximum flexibility to make more use of the Airport tunnel for NPR. Putting in passive provision can be the difference between a scheme being impossible to add in later on, and being trivial.

The motorway network rarely had the same problems because of how its earthworks and finishing are fundamentally easier to amend. Nonetheless, many motorway schemes were built with passive provision for later schemes which hadn't been finalised yet. You don't need to have a full engineering design for every part of the network to be able to build one of them. Just have enough of an idea to provide the passive provision and it'll probably be fine.