HS2 delayed again?

[may032]

Does this help?

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

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

Yes, very interesting, thanks for sharing.

 

[Shrop]

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

I don't disagree, but a route serving Manchester and Leeds would have had inherent benefits to relieving the WCML. It also wouldn't have been too hard, once the route had reached the Rugby area, to provide a link to Birmingham, but without Birmingham being the primary objective.

 

[The Planner]

I don't disagree, but a route serving Manchester and Leeds would have had inherent benefits to relieving the WCML. It also wouldn't have been too hard, once the route had reached the Rugby area, to provide a link to Birmingham, but without Birmingham being the primary objective.

How is that different to what we have got? Birmingham has just ended up as the current primary objective due to political decision making.

 

[FMerrymon]

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

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

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

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310043/gov-res-northolt-bromford.pdf

The disruption seemed to be the bigger concern, but I still find it difficult to believe it was not more expensive for the tunnel.

Its used an example of where costs are increasing at a PAC session in 2013.

Having carefully considered the consultation responses received, the Secretary of State has decided to confirm the proposed change to replace the surface section of track at Northolt with a continuous section of tunnel extending all the way from Old Oak Common to West Ruislip. This will reduce as far as practicable disruption during construction and loss of property. In addition, it would be no more expensive to construct than the surface route and could be completed in less time.

 

[JamesT]

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310043/gov-res-northolt-bromford.pdf

The disruption seemed to be the bigger concern, but I still find it difficult to believe it was not more expensive for the tunnel.

Its used an example of where costs are increasing at a PAC session in 2013.

An overground route through Hanger Lane would have involved replacing several bridges and two tunnel portals, along with compensation for the disruption (both financial and setting up all the diversions etc.). Whereas once you’ve got going, a bit more plain tunnel isn’t _that_ expensive. Completely believable that the tunnel was the cheaper option.

 

[FMerrymon]

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

Totally agree. Hs2 is more a victim of the system and its size just showed the problem more. Hinkley Point C is currently double it's budget from 2015 start, sizewell B 50% above it's original budget. Lower Thames Crossing 9bn for a road tunnel under Thames. EWR is £6.6bn for 36 miles and not even electrified.

I want to hear the government's plan to get a grip on construction inflation and the cost of building anything. Planning reform is a start, but our supply chain needs fixing and so does our energy prices and we need to look at cost of materials (itself influenced by energy prices).

The high construction inflation is a big part of Hs2's issues, govt didn't want to increase annual budget, instead it adds substantial cost overall and delays its revenue earning opening - something alluded to in Wild's letter but I didn't see in the Stewart review.

 

[Maltazer]

I’m not getting this Heathrow thing. If you want HS2 to reduce demand for flying, and avoid the need for a third runway, then it doesn’t need to go to Heathrow at all - it needs to go to where all those plane passengers head to Heathrow from - which presumably is central London…

 

[FMerrymon]

An overground route through Hanger Lane would have involved replacing several bridges and two tunnel portals, along with compensation for the disruption (both financial and setting up all the diversions etc.). Whereas once you’ve got going, a bit more plain tunnel isn’t _that_ expensive. Completely believable that the tunnel was the cheaper option.

That makes sense, perhaps a good example of how a projects initial assumptions are incorrect after a more detailed look.

 

[Krokodil]

I’m not getting this Heathrow thing. If you want HS2 to reduce demand for flying, and avoid the need for a third runway, then it doesn’t need to go to Heathrow at all - it needs to go to where all those plane passengers head to Heathrow from - which presumably is central London…

I think that it was supposed to be about reducing the need for feeder flights. Almost no one uses domestic flights into Heathrow to get to London, they use them to connect with long-haul flights.

 

[Shrop]

I think that it was supposed to be about reducing the need for feeder flights. Almost no one uses domestic flights into Heathrow to get to London, they use them to connect with long-haul flights.

There was a time when HS2 was proposed to link with HS1, which could have produced direct rail links between cities in France, Germany, Belgium etc and provincial UK, thus reducing the need to link to Heathrow. It's already possible to fly direct to a great many cities that Heathrow serves, from other airports in the UK. Serving Heathrow was always an over-stated objective, it just needed greater emphasis on re-thinking our travel strategies.

 

[stuu]

An overground route through Hanger Lane would have involved replacing several bridges and two tunnel portals, along with compensation for the disruption (both financial and setting up all the diversions etc.). Whereas once you’ve got going, a bit more plain tunnel isn’t _that_ expensive. Completely believable that the tunnel was the cheaper option.

DId they ever consider using the existing line and only running at 200 km/h or whatever could have been achieved without much in the way of rebuilding the route? After all it was a double track main line historically

 

[HSTEd]

DId they ever consider using the existing line and only running at 200 km/h or whatever could have been achieved without much in the way of rebuilding the route? After all it was a double track main line historically

The problem, I believe, was the loading gauge.

The clearances for a modern electrified railway required the rebuilding of the gyratory.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 01:16 ==

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310043/gov-res-northolt-bromford.pdf

The disruption seemed to be the bigger concern, but I still find it difficult to believe it was not more expensive for the tunnel.

Its used an example of where costs are increasing at a PAC session in 2013.

Running a tunnel boring machine you already have for somewhat longer is not particularly expensive.

This is one of the major advances of the 20th and 21st Centuries.
Tunnels are far less expensive relative to other options than they used to be.

 

[Nottingham59]

I’m not getting this Heathrow thing.

I think it's quite simple.

Many MPs will use the train to get back to their constituencies on a Thursday night, and to return on Sunday. Especially those who represent the big cities in the West and East Midlands, the north west and Yorkshire.



For many of them, the only other time they will ever take a train is to get to Heathrow when they go off on their "fact finding" junkets missions to exotic locations. So I'm not surprisd at all that the HSR proposal to get the most political backing was one to massively speed up journeys to London from the midlands and the north - and also promised direct access to Heathrow.

 

[Shrop]

How is that different to what we have got? Birmingham has just ended up as the current primary objective due to political decision making.

Are we at cross-purposes here? It looks like you’re saying that Birmingham has become the primary objective due to political decision making, however my concern is that Birmingham was ALWAYS the primary objective, when it shouldn’t have been. HS2 was developed from the outset with Birmingham as Phase 1, then Manchester and Leeds as Phase 2, in other words as add-ons to Phase 1.

It’s this phasing that was so fundamentally wrong, the whole principle (as some of us were saying 20 years ago) should have been that HS2 must go to Leeds and Manchester as first priority, because building a shorter project would be far too expensive for the relatively small value it would bring, along with relatively small time savings. It would also risk bringing rail projects into disrepute.

 

[Farnborough]

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

High Speed Two: A Greengauge 21 Proposition

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

So...

1. Using St Pancras
2. Connecting to HS1 and Stratford
3. Connecting to Heathrow

Nil for three...

 

[deltic]

I think it's quite simple.

Many MPs will use the train to get back to their constituencies on a Thursday night, and to return on Sunday. Especially those who represent the big cities in the West and East Midlands, the north west and Yorkshire.



For many of them, the only other time they will ever take a train is to get to Heathrow when they go off on their "fact finding" junkets missions to exotic locations. So I'm not surprisd at all that the HSR proposal to get the most political backing was one to massively speed up journeys to London from the midlands and the north - and also promised direct access to Heathrow.

Simple and reality are often completely divorced from each other. MPs had virtually no input into the idea to serve Heathrow Airport. It came from Lord Adonis who was famous for proposing ideas with no supporting evidence to back them up. The idea was dropped when it was demonstrated there was insufficient demand from the Midlands and the North to justify using an hourly path to serve the airport.

Less than a quarter of MPs travelled overseas on official business in 2024. Many were not to locations you would call exotic.

 

[Farnborough]

There was a time when HS2 was proposed to link with HS1, which could have produced direct rail links between cities in France, Germany, Belgium etc and provincial UK, thus reducing the need to link to Heathrow. It's already possible to fly direct to a great many cities that Heathrow serves, from other airports in the UK. Serving Heathrow was always an over-stated objective, it just needed greater emphasis on re-thinking our travel strategies.

Heathrow is full, and there are limited slots for domestic flights - Manchester, Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow being the four that I can think of...

For many people in the Regions, Amsterdam, Frankfurt and Paris are the hubs that they (have to) fly through.

 

[The Planner]

Are we at cross-purposes here? It looks like you’re saying that Birmingham has become the primary objective due to political decision making, however my concern is that Birmingham was ALWAYS the primary objective, when it shouldn’t have been. HS2 was developed from the outset with Birmingham as Phase 1, then Manchester and Leeds as Phase 2, in other words as add-ons to Phase 1.

It’s this phasing that was so fundamentally wrong, the whole principle (as some of us were saying 20 years ago) should have been that HS2 must go to Leeds and Manchester as first priority, because building a shorter project would be far too expensive for the relatively small value it would bring, along with relatively small time savings. It would also risk bringing rail projects into disrepute.

No it wasn't, Handsacre was the primary objective of phase 1 as it allowed Manchester and Scotland services from day 1, Curzon St on the spur was just part of it. I very much doubt there would have been the resources to do it all in one go. Phase 1 is certainly one of the largest consumers of concrete and aggregate the construction industry has seen.

 

[FMerrymon]

No it wasn't, Handsacre was the primary objective of phase 1 as it allowed Manchester and Scotland services from day 1, Curzon St on the spur was just part of it. I very much doubt there would have been the resources to do it all in one go. Phase 1 is certainly one of the largest consumers of concrete and aggregate the construction industry has seen.

A Birmingham only railway would likely be a bit different too, unlikely to have a spec for 18 trains an hour for a start.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 11:41 ==

I’m not getting this Heathrow thing. If you want HS2 to reduce demand for flying, and avoid the need for a third runway, then it doesn’t need to go to Heathrow at all - it needs to go to where all those plane passengers head to Heathrow from - which presumably is central London…

One of the original 4 stated aims for a new line was to improve links to international gateways. Reducing connecting flights also frees up airport slots.

Network rail also did a high speed rail study before hs2 and also included a link to Heathrow.

 

[Nottingham59]

Network rail also did a high speed rail study before hs2 and also included a link to Heathrow.

Is that study available online, please?

 

[Shrop]

No it wasn't, Handsacre was the primary objective of phase 1 as it allowed Manchester and Scotland services from day 1, Curzon St on the spur was just part of it. I very much doubt there would have been the resources to do it all in one go. Phase 1 is certainly one of the largest consumers of concrete and aggregate the construction industry has seen.

Isn't this just part of the poor planning? From Handsacre to Glasgow, HS2 trainsets are around 13 minutes slower than existing Pendolino trainsets due to their inability to tilt, as well as reducing trainset capacity.

Pendolino plan for HS2 - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article Under current plans, in about seven years’ time HS2 trains from Old Oak Common (OOC) will join the West Coast Main Line (WCML) at Handsacre Junction just north of Lichfield. These trains will replace most of the WCML long distance trains that currently start at London...

www.railengineer.co.uk

As for the resources to do it all in one go, this is my concern, ie that the UK has become such a "can't do" country. Other countries that have made the decision to invest in High Speed Rail, have done so on the basis that they will then do whatever is necessary to see the project through to completion. Sadly the UK has become a country where driving is sacrosanct, as Rachel Reeves demonstrated when she failed to make the expected change to fuel tax levy at her first budget, leading to her desperate measures to poach money from wherever else she could. Even more sad is that so many in the rail industry also pander to this, rather than focussing on railways being a way forward for the country and an industry to be proud of. There are so many easy ways to make money from the car industry, to make driving safer and to better inform drivers how they could save money WITHOUT needing to harm the economy, if only people were more prepared to focus on this. And then this money could be invested in our railways!

 

[FMerrymon]

Is that study available online, please?

Here it is: https://web.archive.org/web/2009090...ines Programme/5886_NewLineStudy_synopsis.pdf

Their plan was just a repeat of the west coast mainline. Interesting point in it was that they didn't see value in a link to Leeds.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: Yesterday at 12:18 ==

Isn't this just part of the poor planning? From Handsacre to Glasgow, HS2 trainsets are around 13 minutes slower than existing Pendolino trainsets due to their inability to tilt, as well as reducing trainset capacity.

Only connecting at Handsacre was found to have several issues with capacity anyway, which is why phase 2a was brought forward and was intended to open at the same time services reached Manchester, Glasgow etc.

 

[The Planner]

Isn't this just part of the poor planning? From Handsacre to Glasgow, HS2 trainsets are around 13 minutes slower than existing Pendolino trainsets due to their inability to tilt, as well as reducing trainset capacity.

For phase 1 only.

Pendolino plan for HS2 - Rail Engineer

Listen to this article Under current plans, in about seven years’ time HS2 trains from Old Oak Common (OOC) will join the West Coast Main Line (WCML) at Handsacre Junction just north of Lichfield. These trains will replace most of the WCML long distance trains that currently start at London...

www.railengineer.co.uk

As for the resources to do it all in one go, this is my concern, ie that the UK has become such a "can't do" country. Other countries that have made the decision to invest in High Speed Rail, have done so on the basis that they will then do whatever is necessary to see the project through to completion.

Do other countries complete their schemes in one go?

 

[Shrop]

For phase 1 only.

Do other countries complete their schemes in one go?

Or more to the point, how many countries abandon their schemes half way through?

 

[Zomboid]

Or more to the point, how many countries abandon their schemes half way through?

Have a look at the Nagasaki Shinkansen, where they haven't even worked out how they're going to connect it to the main network.

I don't think that cancelling phase 2 was the right call, but none of it has actually been built yet.

 

[The Planner]

Or more to the point, how many countries abandon their schemes half way through?

That isn't anything to do with the railway itself, its route, rolling stock etc...

 

[Shrop]

That isn't anything to do with the railway itself, its route, rolling stock etc...

Genuine political support has always been woeful, as has support from most of the media. But I don't understand why our rail community accepts all of this so readily.

 

[Elecman]

HS2 should have had a dual start with both London to Birmingham/Handsacre AND Manchester to Handsacre being constructed simultaneously

 

[MarlowDonkey]

The Chiltern route was the best route

They are using the route of the Great Central's London extension and related projects up to a point For example the Old Oak Common to Ruislip section is underneath the GWR's New North main line. I think here and there, they are actually using the old GCR alignment.

The London extension mostly ran through open country which lead to its closure in the 1960s. Lack of intermediate stations or target destinations is perhaps suited for an ultra high speed line.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

They are using the route of the Great Central's London extension and related projects up to a point For example the Old Oak Common to Ruislip section is underneath the GWR's New North main line. I think here and there, they are actually using the old GCR alignment.
The London extension mostly ran through open country which lead to its closure in the 1960s. Lack of intermediate stations or target destinations is perhaps suited for an ultra high speed line.

While short lengths of the GC main line and others (eg Kenilworth-Berkswell) have been reused, the land take for HS2 has been vastly larger (eg at Calvert).
In no sense could the narrow GC route have been used for a 400km/h alignment, especially with sizeable towns now being along the route.