Future of HS2?

[MarkWi72]

With the Sunak restrictions, cancelling the north leg on the scheme now having an effect on the usage of platforms at Curzon Street, (opening dates vary - some have suggested 2029 or 2030), I was told the other day that the spur from Brum to Handsacre Jn (for which 12 constrcutions are or have taken place)will not be open until c. 2033-2035.

I'm not sure what the impact on WCML will be ; capacity should be increased south of Rugby with the express traffic largely HS2 rather than NS-Euston. This means the capacity will not be reduced any time soon from Euston-Rugby.

As for North of Brum, I was told the HS2 services to Manchester will go via Stafford and Stoke (not Colwich-Stone-Stoke?). In any case, there threatens to be a bottleneck along this part of the WCML where it condenses into 3 tracks then 2 tracks via Shugborough. How will this be managed? Anyone on here have any ideas? Perhaps a few Euston -Manchesters via WCML (semi-fast?) may go that way?

Not to mention the terminus in London - OCC or Euston? So much construction work and for what?

Around Birmingham to Leamington construction is now apace, so you would expect trains to be in service within 5 years. Who knows what the current Government will do? Perhaps the north leg will happen after all. I am aware of lobbyists.

Overall, if we end up with Brum - London only (plus the spur to Handsacre) then this would prove a costly missed opportunity. Look at High Speed lines elsewhere. They function and are interconnected.

 

[Taunton]

It is notable that HS2 budgets, while regularly rolling up and down, have commonly been up around £100bn. Meanwhile the Chancellor reports a national government shortfall of £20bn, presumably repeated each year if not addressed. It seems just too obvious for a government which lasts five years that 20 x 5 = 100, and that one single cancellation of a project controversial anyway can seem to fix the national shortfall.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

As the TSC and NAO reports confirm, there is no operational plan for the truncated HS2 project, beyond an obvious initial OOC-Curzon St shuttle.
The new DfT has yet to pronounce on anything meaningful.
The most obvious answer is that Liverpool/Manchester/Preston/Scotland services north of Handsacre will simply be diverted from current routes onto HS2.
But that's easier said than done once you consider the different characteristics of HS2 sets against Pendolinos.
Until costs and timescale to completion of HS2 Phase 1 (both currently out of control) are known, there's not much that can be decided.

 

[JonathanH]

It seems just too obvious for a government which lasts five years that 20 x 5 = 100, and that one single cancellation of a project controversial anyway can seem to fix the national shortfall.

Other than the fact the £30bn has been spent already and they can't easily cancel the remaining work on Phase 1, so around another £30bn is still committed to (although it isn't expressed in current money terms).

The quote from this week's report says:

As at the end of March 2024, DfT and HS2 Ltd had spent £30.1 billion (in 2019 prices) in total on the programme, with most of the spend on Phase 1 (£27.8 billion).

Prior to the October 2023 decisions, HS2 Ltd estimated that the total costs of Phase 1 would be £49 billion to £57 billion, while DfT estimated a cost to complete of £45 billion to £54 billion. Both estimates are above the current funding envelope of £44.6 billion (all 2019 prices), and HS2 Ltd has since identified cost pressures which will increase their estimated range further.

The estimates differ because HS2 Ltd and DfT disagree over aspects of estimation methodology, including how to calculate the financial value of the programme’s risks. Total costs will also be impacted by the timing of funding.

 

[Robertj21a]

In theory it should be looked upon favourably as it could be a massive infrastructure job, creating work for many businesses and workers.
In practice, despite these attractions, I doubt that the government can justify such significant spending on the railways. The state of the UK roads - and the vastly greater number of people (voters...) using them - is likely to be an earlier priority.

 

[nwales58]

Defer buying the train fleet, for the period only Old Oak-Curzon St.exists, let Ouigo, Trenitalia and Avlo battle it out. Might give us £7 singles while they bankrupt one another and still pay track access charges.

 

[JamesT]

Defer buying the train fleet, for the period only Old Oak-Curzon St.exists, let Ouigo, Trenitalia and Avlo battle it out. Might give us £7 singles while they bankrupt one another and still pay track access charges.

You’re 2.5 years late for that. Trying to vary the already signed contract will almost certainly cost more.

 

[JonathanH]

In theory it should be looked upon favourably as it could be a massive infrastructure job, creating work for many businesses and workers.

It isn't a "jobs at any cost" project though. The government has signalled house building to be of far greater public importance as an example. The way that HS2 has cost far more than the initial estimates and its turn out cost is still uncertain means that politicians are steering well clear.

In practice, despite these attractions, I doubt that the government can justify such significant spending on the railways. The state of the UK roads - and the vastly greater number of people (voters...) using them - is likely to be an earlier priority.

Any infrastructure spending is reported to be on watch for cancellation given the 'black hole' in the finances.

 

[deltic]

The future will be a shuttle service between Old Oak and Birmingham New Street and not much else for the foreseeable future.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Defer buying the train fleet, for the period only Old Oak-Curzon St.exists, let Ouigo, Trenitalia and Avlo battle it out. Might give us £7 singles while they bankrupt one another and still pay track access charges.

The two worst train operators in the EU pitted against the part-owners of the execrable Avanti West Coast, the TOC whose only benefit is that they're not Northern and haven't (yet) done an LNER style price increase scam trial. No, thanks. Best place for them is within their own national borders so they can wreck their domestic railways and not do things to ours.

 

[MarkWi72]

It will be 805s, rather than Pendolinos which will be in service when HS2 happens. I think the HS2 sets would be broader stock and longer so certain stations will struggle unless there an extension to platforms.

Overall the UK cannot ever get it right regards rail infrastructure - the media is right wing and car promotive ("war on motorists" and all that rubbish). There's no political will to develop clean, green travel, which HS2 would be. It's a 100 year investment. Politicians are short sighted as per the political system which generally fails most of us.

 

[poffle]

The 805s ( & 807s) were bought to run on the WCML after HS2 was built. Part of their purpose was to service North Wales and to provide semi-fast services on the existing WCML after the fast services moved to HS2. They're only micro fleets anyway with 13x805s purchased.

Potentially Pendolino type trains would start from Birmingham Interchange and go north from there. If the London - Birmingham HS2 was run as a very frequent shuttle like Elizabeth line without bookings and reservations and people could just change cross platform at Interchange to Pendolinos heading to Scotland.

I don't know whether there is anywhere south of Interchange where the trains coming from the north could be turned around and serviced. And there's still the issue of how the trains join onto the legacy WCML. ( Keeps coming back to Crewe.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

It will be 805s, rather than Pendolinos which will be in service when HS2 happens. I think the HS2 sets would be broader stock and longer so certain stations will struggle unless there an extension to platforms.

There will be 23x805/807 (114 vehicles), and 57 Pendolinos (583 vehicles) on the WCML, total 697 vehicles, 65 of which are in 5x805 bi-mode sets for off-wire routes.
So Pendolinos will dominate services for the forseeable future, with about 85% of available capacity..
805/807 vehicles are 26m long, 390s are around 24m.
The HS2 order so far is for 54 8-car sets (432 vehicles of 26m).
The HS2 sets will be able to run on all Pendolino routes in 8-car form, but not in 16-car form unless platforms are lengthened to 400m.
Width does not come into it, but like the 80x they will not have the Pendolino tilt profile.

Train lengths are:
805 - 130m (2x805 is 260m)
807 - 182m
390/9 - 216m
390/11 - 264m
HS2/8 - 200m
HS2/16 - 400m

The Pendolino network is generally sized for an 11-car 390 (264m); there are some longer platforms, but only a few can cope with 400m trains.
These are:
Euston P1 398m and P15 402m
Crewe P6 (Down, 446m) and P12 (424m/432m) - but neither can be used for 400m Manchester trains

Manchester Piccadilly's longest platforms are P5 340m and P8 344m.

 

[MarkWi72]

There will be 23x805/807 (114 vehicles), and 57 Pendolinos (583 vehicles) on the WCML, total 697 vehicles, 65 of which are in 5x805 bi-mode sets for off-wire routes.
So Pendolinos will dominate services for the forseeable future, with about 85% of available capacity..
805/807 vehicles are 26m long, 390s are around 24m.
The HS2 order so far is for 54 8-car sets (432 vehicles of 26m).
The HS2 sets will be able to run on all Pendolino routes in 8-car form, but not in 16-car form unless platforms are lengthened to 400m.
Width does not come into it, but like the 80x they will not have the Pendolino tilt profile.

Train lengths are:
805 - 130m (2x805 is 260m)
807 - 182m
390/9 - 216m
390/11 - 264m
HS2/8 - 200m
HS2/16 - 400m

The Pendolino network is generally sized for an 11-car 390 (264m); there are some longer platforms, but only a few can cope with 400m trains.
These are:
Euston P1 398m and P15 402m
Crewe P6 (Down, 446m) and P12 (424m/432m) - but neither can be used for 400m Manchester trains

Manchester Piccadilly's longest platforms are P5 340m and P8 344m.

Thanks for this, interesting and informative. So presumably on WCML, the HS2 sets cannot travel at current maximum line speed of 125mph?

 

[JamesT]

Thanks for this, interesting and informative. So presumably on WCML, the HS2 sets cannot travel at current maximum line speed of 125mph?

Depends on the section, some parts allow 125mph for more than just the tilting ones. There was also planned to be some work to make that more widespread before the introduction of the HS2 rolling stock.

 

[BingMan]

The Pendolino network is generally sized for an 11-car 390 (264m); there are some longer platforms, but only a few can cope with 400m trains.
These are:
Euston P1 398m and P15 402m
Crewe P6 (Down, 446m) and P12 (424m/432m) - but neither can be used for 400m Manchester trains

Manchester Piccadilly's longest platforms are P5 340m and P8 344m.

Operating trains longer than the intermediate platforms is hardly unprecedented on the current network
I remember a trip south from Plymouth on an eight coach train which stopped at stations with platforms only three coaches long

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Thanks for this, interesting and informative. So presumably on WCML, the HS2 sets cannot travel at current maximum line speed of 125mph?

The non-tilt speed profile on the WCML is in process of being revised to an MU level so that 80x and HS2 trains can use higher speeds than the PS 110mph.
It's yet to be unveiled but there still won't be much 125mph running.
The current sections of the WCML where 125mph is allowed for 10 miles or so (Rugby-Coventry and Wolverhampton-Stafford) aren't going to be used by HS2 trains.
The MU profile will apply south of Weaver Jn - no plans yet further north.
Crewe-Manchester (well, Sandbach-Cheadle Hulme) stays at 110mph, as it was never configured for tilt or 125mph.

 

[Mikey C]

In theory it should be looked upon favourably as it could be a massive infrastructure job, creating work for many businesses and workers.
In practice, despite these attractions, I doubt that the government can justify such significant spending on the railways. The state of the UK roads - and the vastly greater number of people (voters...) using them - is likely to be an earlier priority.

HS2 only benefits one part of the country. The same Phase 1 money spent around the country could have delivered rail benefits to a lot more people.

Indeed in retrospect, it seems a bit curious to go ahead with HS2 ahead of a mass electrification programme. Maybe it was considered more sexy or transformational.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The original HS2 Y was indeed transformational, replacing the southern WCML/MML/ECML and benefitting everything en route and further north, including Scotland.
Canning the eastern leg removed the MML/ECML benefits, and the Phase 1 plan just replaces WCML south of Lichfield.

HS1 and Crossrail "only benefit one part of the country", and they were delivered by all-UK taxation.

 

[al78]

It will be 805s, rather than Pendolinos which will be in service when HS2 happens. I think the HS2 sets would be broader stock and longer so certain stations will struggle unless there an extension to platforms.

Overall the UK cannot ever get it right regards rail infrastructure - the media is right wing and car promotive ("war on motorists" and all that rubbish). There's no political will to develop clean, green travel, which HS2 would be. It's a 100 year investment. Politicians are short sighted as per the political system which generally fails most of us.

I agree about the UK trying to emulate America with its right wing car culture but I would question how "green" HS2 is. The energy required to move a vehicle increases quadratically with speed, so it may be the case that the energy consumption or carbon footprint per passenger isn't much, if at all better than if they travelled by car. The transition to renewable energy helps but electric car usage is going up as well.

The UK seems to have a problem with big construction projects in that they take a long time to get from the planning to the construction stage and the costs seem to spiral above comparable projects in other countries. A combination of very high land values and environmental regulation.

 

[Mikey C]

I agree about the UK trying to emulate America with its right wing car culture but I would question how "green" HS2 is. The energy required to move a vehicle increases quadratically with speed, so it may be the case that the energy consumption or carbon footprint per passenger isn't much, if at all better than if they travelled by car. The transition to renewable energy helps but electric car usage is going up as well.

The UK seems to have a problem with big construction projects in that they take a long time to get from the planning to the construction stage and the costs seem to spiral above comparable projects in other countries. A combination of very high land values and environmental regulation.

That's simply not true, our road network is comparable to that of mainland Europe. Indeed possibly worse.

 

[HSTEd]

Indeed in retrospect, it seems a bit curious to go ahead with HS2 ahead of a mass electrification programme. Maybe it was considered more sexy or transformational.

This was an era when the government was hostile to electrification, and significant figures in the railway industry were demanding the de-electrification of Edinburgh-Newcastle.

I expect HS2 was designed more to keep up with the railway systems of Western Europe than anything else, although perhaps I am too cynical.
I do think the project has had great difficulty actually defining its true purpose in a coherent manner from the beginning.

Beyond that, they created a scheme that either has to be built in its entirety or it does not really work at all. Phasing has hardly been its strong point.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

No mention of HS2 in Rachel Reeves statement earlier.

 

[swt_passenger]

This was an era when the government was hostile to electrification, and significant figures in the railway industry were demanding the de-electrification of Edinburgh-Newcastle.

Railway myth, I will suggest. It’s nearly 20 years ago that Chris Garnett of GNER apparently claimed the northern ECML wiring was so unreliable it might as well be removed. It was a clever way of complaining about its maintenance standards but never a serious proposal. But it was a long time before HS2 was even first thought of by Adonis.

 

[Senex]

Manchester Piccadilly's longest platforms are P5 340m and P8 344m.

I seem to remember reading at the time that these—the ends respectively of the down fast and up fast lines—were designed for 15-coach trains.

 

[fishwomp]

You’re 2.5 years late for that. Trying to vary the already signed contract will almost certainly cost more.

Would HS2 stock be worth anything outside of UK? Thinking government could buy it outright from the leasing co - and flog on. Or within the UK, is it 'ordinary' enough to run somewhere like ECML - or has some mad platform height thing been done?

Govt always messes up rolling stock and big projects...
.. 1970s - Mk3 sleeper stock - half sold abroad before turning a wheel. BR/Govt didn't anticipate that faster HST services meant fewer would want to travel over night, and probably also more extensive motorway network
.. 1990s - Channel Tunnel sleeper stock - all sold to Canada before turning a wheel. Ditto - plus the arrival of cheaper airlines.
.. 2010s - IEP bought assuming more electrification would've been completed, but GWR electrification is delayed and curtailed - extra ££ and engine mods/adds. Just incompetence.
.. 2020s - franchise rules mean SWT rolling stock replaced by new order before 'old' stuff has even turned a wheel. Madness.
.. 2020s - full order for HS2 stock placed yet only partial order for HS2 route made. Olympic incompetence.

The true list is going to be much longer.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Would HS2 stock be worth anything outside of UK? Thinking government could buy it outright from the leasing co - and flog on. Or within the UK, is it 'ordinary' enough to run somewhere like ECML - or has some mad platform height thing been done?

Govt always messes up rolling stock and big projects...
.. 1970s - Mk3 sleeper stock - half sold abroad before turning a wheel. BR/Govt didn't anticipate that faster HST services meant fewer would want to travel over night, and probably also more extensive motorway network
.. 1990s - Channel Tunnel sleeper stock - all sold to Canada before turning a wheel. Ditto - plus the arrival of cheaper airlines.
.. 2010s - IEP bought assuming more electrification would've been completed, but GWR electrification is delayed and curtailed - extra ££ and engine mods/adds. Just incompetence.
.. 2020s - franchise rules mean SWT rolling stock replaced by new order before 'old' stuff has even turned a wheel. Madness.
.. 2020s - full order for HS2 stock placed yet only partial order for HS2 route made. Olympic incompetence.

The true list is going to be much longer.

presumably it will still be built to classic loading gauge so rather cramped to what most other overseas operators would aspire to - however if the price is right!!

 

[Greybeard33]

As for North of Brum, I was told the HS2 services to Manchester will go via Stafford and Stoke (not Colwich-Stone-Stoke?). In any case, there threatens to be a bottleneck along this part of the WCML where it condenses into 3 tracks then 2 tracks via Shugborough. How will this be managed? Anyone on here have any ideas? Perhaps a few Euston -Manchesters via WCML (semi-fast?) may go that way?

If, as suggested in the OP above, (some?) HS2 Manchester services are routed Handsacre - Stafford - Norton Bridge - Stone - Stoke, instead of using the more direct Colwich - Hixon - Stone line, might that help to maximise capacity through the Trent Valley? It would avoid capacity-eating crossing moves at Colwich Junction and leverage the sunk investment in the Norton Bridge flyover.

London - Manchester journey time would be longer than using the Hixon line, but would still be improved relative to the pre-HS2 WCML services. Journey time would also be closer to that of the route via Crewe and Wilmslow, which might also be used by HS2 services. This would help even up demand between the services on the two routes - important if only 200m trainsets are used.

 

[The Planner]

If, as suggested in the OP above, (some?) HS2 Manchester services are routed Handsacre - Stafford - Norton Bridge - Stone - Stoke, instead of using the more direct Colwich - Hixon - Stone line, might that help to maximise capacity through the Trent Valley? It would avoid capacity-eating crossing moves at Colwich Junction and leverage the sunk investment in the Norton Bridge flyover.

London - Manchester journey time would be longer than using the Hixon line, but would still be improved relative to the pre-HS2 WCML services. Journey time would also be closer to that of the route via Crewe and Wilmslow, which might also be used by HS2 services. This would help even up demand between the services on the two routes - important if only 200m trainsets are used.

They will go via Hixon. Journey time will be key.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

presumably it will still be built to classic loading gauge so rather cramped to what most other overseas operators would aspire to - however if the price is right!!

If they really are based on the Zefiro (Frecciarossa 1000). then Trenitalia might be interested in taking them on.