Government announces independent review into HS2 programme

[GRALISTAIR]

Just heard this. I feel sick to the stomach. I have a horrible feeling that it will be scrapped. If not scrapped in totality, the North of Birmingham phase stands little chance. I didn't think life under the Tories could get much worse. Boris is bulldozing his way through everything. Somebody needs to save the UK. Very sad indeed.

Never ever forget please, Labour have never been big on infrastructure spend - that is actually a Conservative strength. Example (trying not to get too off topic) Channel Tunnel approved by a Conservative Heath Government and cancelled by an incoming Harold Wilson Labour government. Started again, approved and got built under a Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher. Also care to guess in the last 100 years how many miles of railways Labour electrified and how many miles got electrified under Conservative governments?

 

[irish_rail]

With Boris announcing a new line to connect the norths cities this will help to placate those in the north who wanted HS2. When you actually look at it, everything starts to make sense and you quickly realise there is more chance of hell freezing over than there is of HS2 In it's current guise actually happening!

 

[irish_rail]

Just heard this. I feel sick to the stomach. I have a horrible feeling that it will be scrapped. If not scrapped in totality, the North of Birmingham phase stands little chance.

I didn't think life under the Tories could get much worse. Boris is bulldozing his way through everything.

Somebody needs to save the UK. Very sad indeed.

Crikey , be glad you don't live in the South West!! Brand new line across the pennines plus countless other schemes / new trains etc etc. Although i do agree with you that Boris is slowly wrecking this country.

 

[MarkyT]

I just don’t see why services to Bristol, Swansea, Cheltenham, Hereford and Penzance would need to serve another major station just minutes after Paddington.

Having a second station like OOC on the periphery of a very large city like London can serve to split demand and offer a different range of connections. OOC will also be better for parking for London residents heading West as well as those heading north on HS2. Shinkansen routes in Tokyo have such edge city hubs which almost all trains stop at as well as a city centre terminal.

 

[HSTEd]

Also care to guess in the last 100 years how many miles of railways Labour electrified and how many miles got electrified under Conservative governments?

Has that been normalised to per year and for GDP changes?

 

[matacaster]

Anyone wishing for HS2 to be cancelled need to provide the answer to the question of the extra passengers which are using the WCML compared to the predictions.

London to NW sure have been ~10 million trips per year at the opening of Phase 2a yet in 2018 it was ~11 million. If you compare 2018 actually & 2018 predicted the numbers are much more stark. 2018 actual ~11 million 2018 predicted ~ 8 million, so about 3 million extra passengers (or getting on for 50% more than expected).

View media item 3340
That's just on 1 of the flows which would benefit from HS2.

With the extra services proposed by First on the ICWC franchise it's likely that growth will continue.

This sort of data is that which the review will be aware of and without an argument against it those opposed to HS2 aren't going to get very far in HS2 being cancelled. Even with higher costs, as there's extra people using the services.

It's also why the likes of Coventry aren't going to see the decimation of its rail services (not that it ever was, just that the model assumed 1/3 IC services and said nothing about the existing non IC services).

Your passenger stats of WCML growth to and from Manchester might be easier to accept as proof of the need for extra capacity if you also showed the current capacity for each hour of the day. I suspect that many Virgin trains have plenty of capacity.

 

[irish_rail]

Having a second station like OOC on the periphery of a very large city like London can serve to split demand and offer a different range of connections. OOC will also be better for parking for London residents heading West as well as those heading north on HS2. Shinkansen routes in Tokyo have such edge city hubs which almost all trains stop at as well as a city centre terminal.

Except old oak common isn't exactly outer London.

 

[HSTEd]

Your passenger stats of WCML growth to and from Manchester might be easier to accept as proof of the need for extra capacity if you also showed the current capacity for each hour of the day. I suspect that many Virgin trains have plenty of capacity.

Unfortunately you can't force a passenger wishing to travel to A onto a train to B at gunpoint.

 

[matacaster]

It is electrified, it'd just require an extra unit in the diagram.

Thanks!

 

[Aictos]

For the Virgin Birmingham trains clogging up the station, why not just electrify to Wolverhamton (if its not already electrified?) and terminate them in Wolverhampton?

Point 1. Wolverhampton is already electrified.

Point 2. Just terminating the ICWC services at Wolverhampton merely relocates the issue of platform bottlenecks from Birmingham New Street to Wolverhampton.

Point 3. HS2 with 7? brand new platforms at Curzon Street means Point 2 no longer applies.

 

[ABB125]

Personally I think that reviews of major projects like this are necessary, especially when they (project management) don't appear to understand the concept of joined-up thinking.
If i were in charge I would:

• Look at what savings could be made by reducing the speed from 250mph to 200mph (320km/h), not because of the arguments frequently stated by those against HS2 that slower=cheaper, but because it may permit some realignment of the route (due to sharper curves etc) which may reduce the cost substantially. (Note my use of "could", "may" etc.)
• Explore the possibilities of better integrating HS2 with the existing network. For example, look at the feasibility of platforms of the existing lines at Curzon Street, Birmingham. (Yes, I am aware that the line is on a viaduct which then becomes a box-shape cutting and tunnel.) Or, at Leeds, investigate how, combined with NPR, a through station could be built next to (or under?) the existing one. Similarly in Manchester.
• Consider what the long-term future high speed network might look like (such as a Scottish branch, or an eastern leg to London) and work out what changes might be needed to the current plan to accommodate these proposals without disrupting services once they're running (eg: a short (100m -ish) spur, with full track and electrification, onto which the new line can be built and connected without disrupting existing services).

These are all things that a review should look at. Some may be easy to say "that's not going to happen" about, others not so clear. That's what a review is for.

 

[matacaster]

Quite the opposite. Removing the fast London (and Birmingham) trains from the approaches to Manchester will allow a hugely improved local service due to the capacity release by lower speed differentials.

Not with Northern providing the trains and staff it won't.

 

[ABB125]

Not with Northern providing the trains and staff it won't.

That's not the fault of HS2 though

 

[matacaster]

Heathrow connections as well as easier Crossrail interchange with all Paddington Crossrail terminators extended westwards.
along with the Paddington throat rebuild it will actually increase GWML Main/Fast Line capacity

No need for extra connections to Heathrow if the new runway gets cancelled and any extra flights are simply spread around other airports in the country which already have said capacity. Manchester has loads of spare capacity for example and if northerners are forced to go south, then it is only fair that southerners use Manchester rather than fouling up their own air quality.

 

[Aictos]

I'm not sure that's a great argument in favour - you could achieve the same by adding an extra EMU into the diagram and sending it to Wolves to terminate (or indeed Walsall, which it seems they are going to do). The benefit to Birmingham is the faster service to London which will also be more punctual and reliable.

The one place that will really suffer (and I can only think of the one) is Coventry, but Coventry is a bit like somewhere like one of the smaller Merseyrail stations (e.g. Aughton Park or Town Green) in having an excellent service purely because it is operationally convenient to give it; it can't justify 3 fast trains per hour to London on its own, really, though it probably would justify one fast per hour plus additional locals, which I suspect is what it will see.

It’s nothing to do with diagramming as IC services need a decent turnaround time, moving them to a purpose built station frees up platform capacity in the former station.

 

[The Planner]

Phase 1 and 2A gets built (2A is easy in comparison), eastern leg gets to Toton if its really lucky, more likely dumps itself out around Kingsbury where it crosses the Derby line anyway. Phase 2b to Manchester gets "dropped" with a re-brand to NPR saying we have culled another bit of HS2 look at the money we have saved. London to Leeds is via Manchester. Cigars and trebles all round.

 

[quantinghome]

A west facing Heathrow chord at Langley for services from reading would be far more useful for people travelling to Heathrow from the west which I believe is in the pipeline. There is just no justification if that does happen for stuff from the far south west to stop at old oak.

For the same reason long-distance trains stop at Stratford or Clapham junction: it provides a wide range of convenient connections, and will be a destination in itself, for the cost of 3 minutes on a long journey. More people will be attracted to using rail than will be put off be the small time penalty.

 

[matacaster]

Unfortunately you can't force a passenger wishing to travel to A onto a train to B at gunpoint.

True, but if they can't get on the train, it might 'encourage' them to take a different train with capacity. Most business people have considerably more flexibility than they pretend anyway and businesses could relax the rules regarding attendance through flexible working.

 

[ABB125]

Phase 1 and 2A gets built (2A is easy in comparison), eastern leg gets to Toton if its really lucky, more likely dumps itself out around Kingsbury where it crosses the Derby line anyway. Phase 2b to Manchester gets "dropped" with a re-brand to NPR saying we have culled a bit of HS2 look at the money we have saved. London to Leeds is via Manchester. Cigars and trebles all round.

London to Leeds via Manchester. Might that require a through station?
It's almost as if it's a good idea:

1. Postpone the eastern leg of Phase 2b.
2. Send Leeds trains via Manchester. This necessitates a through station. Win-win for everyone.
3. Realise that, after all, the eastern leg is needed, so gets built a few years late.
4. And you now have a much better network.

 

[matacaster]

Personally I think that reviews of major projects like this are necessary, especially when they (project management) don't appear to understand the concept of joined-up thinking.
If i were in charge I would:

• Look at what savings could be made by reducing the speed from 250mph to 200mph (320km/h), not because of the arguments frequently stated by those against HS2 that slower=cheaper, but because it may permit some realignment of the route (due to sharper curves etc) which may reduce the cost substantially. (Note my use of "could", "may" etc.)
• Explore the possibilities of better integrating HS2 with the existing network. For example, look at the feasibility of platforms of the existing lines at Curzon Street, Birmingham. (Yes, I am aware that the line is on a viaduct which then becomes a box-shape cutting and tunnel.) Or, at Leeds, investigate how, combined with NPR, a through station could be built next to (or under?) the existing one. Similarly in Manchester.
• Consider what the long-term future high speed network might look like (such as a Scottish branch, or an eastern leg to London) and work out what changes might be needed to the current plan to accommodate these proposals without disrupting services once they're running (eg: a short (100m -ish) spur, with full track and electrification, onto which the new line can be built and connected without disrupting existing services).

These are all things that a review should look at. Some may be easy to say "that's not going to happen" about, others not so clear. That's what a review is for.

Your broad thrust is quite reasonable. A station under current Leeds station would be VERY expensive. Its built over the river Aire and a canal from memory, so would need to be pretty deep, building a new deck above the existing station would not be cheap, but possibly doable.

 

[matacaster]

That's not the fault of HS2 though

Agreed, but simply making extra paths available does not guarantee that anyone will actually provide a service in the North. We have been crying out for doubling length of 185's to meet capacity on TPE for MANY YEARS, which involved little more than buying some more train sets, but NO. Higher speed is nice but an hour from Manchester to Leeds is not the end of the world.

 

[ABB125]

Your broad thrust is quite reasonable. A station under current Leeds station would be VERY expensive. Its built over the river Aire and a canal from memory, so would need to be pretty deep, building a new deck above the existing station would not be cheap, but possibly doable.

I don't really know Leeds at all, so the purpose of a review would be to establish that a station under the existing one isn't going to happen, and consider the alternatives.

 

[ABB125]

Agreed, but simply making extra paths available does not guarantee that anyone will actually provide a service in the North. We have been crying out for doubling length of 185's to meet capacity on TPE for MANY YEARS, which involved little more than buying some more train sets, but NO. Higher speed is nice but an hour from Manchester to Leeds is not the end of the world.

Who is it that decides whether an operator gets more trains? Could it be the DfT, well known for it's love of appeasing all passengers with loads of capacity and seats?
I agree that TPE should have had longer trains many years ago.

 

[matacaster]

London to Leeds via Manchester. Might that require a through station?
It's almost as if it's a good idea:

1. Postpone the eastern leg of Phase 2b.
2. Send Leeds trains via Manchester. This necessitates a through station. Win-win for everyone.
3. Realise that, after all, the eastern leg is needed, so gets built a few years late.
4. And you now have a much better network.

That is a much better idea. To cheer up the locals in Sheffield, complete electrification of MML through to Leeds!!

 

[Taunton]

If it is to be scrapped, we'll have to start looking at other less pleasant solutions, like LO style "standing stock" for south WCML commuter services.

Or maybe just not running 4-car sets to save the access charges.

simply making extra paths available does not guarantee that anyone will actually provide a service

Nor does buying extra units, especially as leases now have a significant mileage component. Those travelling around London, standing, when they pass the depot full of stabled stock can bear witness.

 

[matacaster]

Who is it that decides whether an operator gets more trains? Could it be the DfT, well known for it's love of appeasing all passengers with loads of capacity and seats?
I agree that TPE should have had longer trains many years ago.

I think DfT actually has a bit of form here and there!

 

[daikilo]

There is of course already a government select committee on HS2 which has been meeting weekly, videos are available on the parlement website. They have already asked many of the questions raised; whether they were satisfied with the answers is another issue. For their sakes I do hope their reports will be reviewed. Indeed, I note that the TofR for the new committee do not seem to be taking into account key issues like the loss of parts of golf courses or the mating habits of water voles in Staffordshire which presumably were considered relevant by the previous government.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Five, how would Shapps explain cancellation to the Mayors, and indeed the people, of Birmingham, Greater Manchester and Merseyside? But he won’t have to.
This is a pre-election stunt. It’s more Tory dishonesty. And it will convince no-one.

Andy Street, metro mayor of West Midlands, is on the review panel.
So is John Cridland, chair of Transport for the North.
They don't have veto powers, though.

 

[ABB125]

That is a much better idea. To cheer up the locals in Sheffield, complete electrification of MML through to Leeds!!

In terms of journeys to London, (which, to be honest, are the only terms that the DfT care about) I think the Eastern leg has the weakest case. However, it would be hugely beneficial to CrossCountry services to the north. So on the one hand the eastern leg would be relatively easy to cancel, but on the other hand it has the potential to completely transform travel in the East Midlands and Yorkshire. I believe it is also the leg which has the cheapest per-mile cost.

 

[matacaster]

Crikey , be glad you don't live in the South West!! Brand new line across the pennines plus countless other schemes / new trains etc etc. Although i do agree with you that Boris is slowly wrecking this country.

Err, the brand new line across the pennines has not been built and if going through centre of Bradford has less chance than the deviation from the Dawlish sea wall or HS2. Current transpennine works via Huddersfield likely all that will happen.