HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[daodao]

So take the Liverpool-Warrington-Manchester (and beyond) passenger traffic off of the M62 and the traffic which remains will flow more freely. Not forgetting all of the traffic from the less-fortunate stops clogging up A and B roads which would be on the rails if you weren't given a choice between being late into the office every day or having to arrive an hour early (such is the inconvenient time that the Liverpool-Airport stopper arrives at Oxford Road). With the fast trains removed from the existing lines you can have more stoppers.

@Xenophon PCDGS has been making a significant number of wise interjections on this thread.

Much of the traffic between the major conurbations in Lancashire and Yorkshire is not between the centres of the major cities and will not benefit from improved rail links. Travelling by public transport using city centre to city centre links that are envisaged by NPR will still be much slower than private transport for most journeys because of the time taken for the "last mile(s)" to reach the city centre, relative to the time potentially saved by speeding up the inter-city travel time over a relatively short distance. This is in contrast to travel from Lancashire and Yorkshire to London, where improved and faster rail links would capture more of the traffic, as the distances from these areas to London are much greater.

Therefore, splashing billions on massive NPR projects (such as the remaining bit of HS2 phase 2b from Manchester Piccadilly to Millington) will have a poor return, and it would be wiser to confine expenditure to electrifying fully and speeding up journeys on the existing line between York and Manchester Victoria via Huddersfield within the TRU (Trans-Pennine Upgrade) project. Full 25kV electrification of the former CLC line via Warrington Central would also be worthwhile. These projects would be a better use of the limited capital funds available in practice for rail development in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

 

[The Planner]

In the HS2 design, the main line to Golborne was rated at 360kph. Diverging lines have to slow down to 230kph, so the turn off to the Manchester spur was 230km/h, which would mean starting to decelerate about 5km before the point of divergence. The loop around South Manchester and the Tunnel from the Airport to Piccadilly was rated at 230kph too.

A direct alignment via Carrington Moss could run at 360kph all the way to the M60, and then go into a 5km tunnel direct to central Manchester. At 6km per minute, it would take under 3 minutes to cover the extra 16km from Hoo Green to the M60.

Such a train would arrive at central Manchester while a train on the HS2 route was still at the platform of the airport station. The time penalty for stopping at a suburban stations like the airport is huge. This map shows how the timings work.

View attachment 158551

Why do you need 5km to slow down from 140 mph to a stop at the Airport station, same goes from 225mph to 140mph?. Trains don't need that long from 125mph now. The divergence are 230kmh due to a limitation in S&C. Presumably you are against Birmingham Interchange and the catchment area it serves if the penalty for stopping is so great?

Presumably Carrington Moss would have the same challenges as Chat Moss in terms of geology, could you build a 360kmh slab track alignment across it?

 

[stephen rp]

...

The expensive bit (tunnelling under Manchester) was originally supposed to be shared with HS2 before our myopic government cut that.

Well, yes. That's why there's no business case for NPR to Liverpool with an expensive bit without HS2 to justify the expense.

In the HS2 design, the main line to Golborne was rated at 360kph. Diverging lines have to slow down to 230kph, so the turn off to the Manchester spur was 230km/h, which would mean starting to decelerate about 5km before the point of divergence. The loop around South Manchester and the Tunnel from the Airport to Piccadilly was rated at 230kph too.

A direct alignment via Carrington Moss could run at 360kph all the way to the M60, and then go into a 5km tunnel direct to central Manchester. At 6km per minute, it would take under 3 minutes to cover the extra 16km from Hoo Green to the M60.

Such a train would arrive at central Manchester while a train on the HS2 route was still at the platform of the airport station. The time penalty for stopping at a suburban stations like the airport is huge. This map shows how the timings work.

View attachment 158551

I suspect there might be reasons why they didn't want to build HS2 across a peat bog. And the tunnel would be more like 7-8km to Piccadilly - plus the cost of a below-ground terminus.

 

[Nottingham59]

Why do you need 5km to slow down from 140 mph to a stop at the Airport station, same goes from 225mph to 140mph?. Trains don't need that long from 125mph now.

I was using round numbers, but that's what the HS2 Train Specification says.

Specifically, an HS2 train at normal service braking will decelerate from 360kph to 230 kph at 0.37m/s2, taking 96 seconds and travelling 8km. From 230 kph to standstill takes 120 seconds and 4km distance.

https://assets.hs2.org.uk/wp-conten...E-000-000007_P11_TTS_Main_Body__External_.pdf Paragraph 7.3.2

EDIT: It's even worse accelerating. HS2 trains take 40km to get back to 360kph. (Para 7.2.1) It makes no sense to have stops on a high speed line closer than 100km apart.

The divergence are 230kmh due to a limitation in S&C.

I understand it's the limit of current technology. I propose that the line to Manchester should be the main line and not the diverging route, so that trains can traverse any junctions at 360kph.

resumably you are against Birmingham Interchange and the catchment area it serves if the penalty for stopping is so great?

It depends on what proportion of Birmingham passengers will use Interchange compared to Curzon St. If it's equal numbers, then it makes sense to stop. If less than a quarter use Interchange, then it saves more time for more people by not stopping. Or have 2tph non-stop to Curzon St and 2tph stopping.

If it's so important, the Solihull catchment could have been served at far less cost by diverting off the mainline onto the WCML at Berkswell, serving Birmingham International, New St, Wolverhampton. Far better interchange than a slow people mover.

Presumably Carrington Moss would have the same challenges as Chat Moss in terms of geology, could you build a 360kmh slab track alignment across it?

Stephenson managed it. Build it on a low viaduct if necessary with piles down to the bedrock. Still much cheaper than a tunnel under Levenshulme.

 

[Krokodil]

Much of the traffic between the major conurbations in Lancashire and Yorkshire is not between the centres of the major cities and will not benefit from improved rail links. Travelling by public transport using city centre to city centre links that are envisaged by NPR will still be much slower than private transport for most journeys because of the time taken for the "last mile(s)" to reach the city centre,

It's the local transport issue I have in mind. Say that you are fortunate enough to live a short walk from the station at Patricroft, with an employer located in St James' Building, a short walk from Oxford Road. In theory that should be a perfect journey for public transport, except that direct trains only run once an hour - and even when on time (some hope at Oxford Road) you'd have to hot foot it to be in the door by nine, let alone at your desk ready to work. To be sure of getting in on time, you either have to catch the 08:14 and change at Victoria (a journey that takes twice as long as the direct journey does) or travel a whole hour earlier. No wonder people join the traffic jams.

Removing the inter-regional trains from the Castlefield Corridor means more paths for stopping trains, and Manchester can have a proper S-Bahn.

This is in contrast to travel from Lancashire and Yorkshire to London, where improved and faster rail links would capture more of the traffic, as the distances from these areas to London are much greater.

Would you like to point out to the government that cancelling phase 2 of HS2 was an idiotic decision? If they hadn't done that then not only would we have the extra long-distance capacity you speak of, but the expensive bit of NPR wouldn't have been charged to NPR's budget.

 

[The Planner]

It depends on what proportion of Birmingham passengers will use Interchange compared to Curzon St. If it's equal numbers, then it makes sense to stop. If less than a quarter use Interchange, then it saves more time for more people by not stopping. Or have 2tph non-stop to Curzon St and 2tph stopping.

If it's so important, the Solihull catchment could have been served at far less cost by diverting off the mainline onto the WCML at Berkswell, serving Birmingham International, New St, Wolverhampton. Far better interchange than a slow people mover.

Nonsense, you need a huge junction at Berkswell to do that, which in turn reduces the capacity of the mainline and then doesn't allow any released capacity on the Cov corridor. The people mover if for Airport transfers and the NEC, there are going to be very few passengers using that as a method of classic to HS2 interchange.

Stephson managed it. Build it on a low viaduct if necessary with piles down to the bedrock. Still much cheaper than a tunnel under Levenshulme.

He wasn't doing it with a 360kmh proposition. And Chat Moss electrification had enough problems. How do you know that putting piles all the way down to bedrock is cheaper than a tunnel?

 

[Nottingham59]

He wasn't doing it with a 360kmh proposition. And Chat Moss electrification had enough problems. How do you know that putting piles all the way down to bedrock is cheaper than a tunnel?

The peat on Carrington Moss is between 17 and 20 feet. Not all that deep at all.

From "HS2 Cost and Risk Model Report" 2012, a single-bore high speed tunnel costs £45-66,000/m which is four to five times what a 12.6m wide viaduct costs (£13,000/m). And you need two tunnels.

These were the figures in 2012. Inflation since then will have a similar effect on each mode.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7490b040f0b61938c7e79a/hs2-cost-and-risk-model-report.pdf

Appendix A: Infrastructure rate comparison

 

[Meerkat]

The peat on Carrington Moss is between 17 and 20 feet. Not all that deep at all.

From "HS2 Cost and Risk Model Report" 2012, a single-bore high speed tunnel costs £45-66,000/m which is four to five times what a 12.6m wide viaduct costs (£13,000/m). And you need two tunnels.

These were the figures in 2012. Inflation since then will have a similar effect on each mode.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7490b040f0b61938c7e79a/hs2-cost-and-risk-model-report.pdf

Appendix A: Infrastructure rate comparison

Was that the cost of building a viaduct across a bog?

 

[stephen rp]

@Xenophon PCDGS has been making a significant number of wise interjections on this thread.

Much of the traffic between the major conurbations in Lancashire and Yorkshire is not between the centres of the major cities and will not benefit from improved rail links. Travelling by public transport using city centre to city centre links that are envisaged by NPR will still be much slower than private transport for most journeys because of the time taken for the "last mile(s)" to reach the city centre, relative to the time potentially saved by speeding up the inter-city travel time over a relatively short distance. This is in contrast to travel from Lancashire and Yorkshire to London, where improved and faster rail links would capture more of the traffic, as the distances from these areas to London are much greater.

Therefore, splashing billions on massive NPR projects (such as the remaining bit of HS2 phase 2b from Manchester Piccadilly to Millington) will have a poor return, and it would be wiser to confine expenditure to electrifying fully and speeding up journeys on the existing line between York and Manchester Victoria via Huddersfield within the TRU (Trans-Pennine Upgrade) project. Full 25kV electrification of the former CLC line via Warrington Central would also be worthwhile. These projects would be a better use of the limited capital funds available in practice for rail development in Lancashire and Yorkshire.

Absolutely. How much quicker would the existing services be on the CLC if electrified?

(I don't mean extending Merseyrail to Birchwood....)

 

[daodao]

Removing the inter-regional trains from the Castlefield Corridor means more paths for stopping trains, and Manchester can have a proper S-Bahn.

Removing most inter-regional trains (from Cumbria/Scotland/Yorkshire/North Wales), and all trains from Southport, from the Castlefield Corridor would certainly be beneficial, but can be achieved at much less cost by building additional turnback sidings close to Victoria, so that the platforms there aren't blocked by terminating trains.

Would you like to point out to the government that cancelling phase 2 of HS2 was an idiotic decision? If they hadn't done that then not only would we have the extra long-distance capacity you speak of, but the expensive bit of NPR wouldn't have been charged to NPR's budget.

Cancelling phase 2 of HS2 was like a curate's egg - good in parts. I agree that cancelling phase 2a was foolish, but cancelling phase 2b was wise. The potential additional benefit of constructing the more expensive phase 2b section for journeys to/from London was small, given that the population of Greater Manchester (minus Wigan) is no more than 35% of that of North-West England alone. The other 65% of North-West England, and North Wales (even without through trains) and Scotland, would have benefitted from phase 2a, but gained no benefit from phase 2b. I do hope that a future government can resuscitate phase 2a at least partly in due course.

 

[Krokodil]

Removing most inter-regional trains (from Cumbria/Scotland/Yorkshire/North Wales), and all trains from Southport, from the Castlefield Corridor would certainly be beneficial, but can be achieved at much less cost by building additional turnback sidings close to Victoria, so that the platforms there aren't blocked by terminating trains.

So prioritising operational convenience at the expense of what the customer wants? Shortly before the pandemic I was discussing the congestion with my regular passengers. I mentioned that one of the proposed solutions was that their service would be diverted to Victoria, instead of Oxford Road and Piccadilly. The resounding response was "we don't want to go to Victoria". The fact is that Oxford Road and Piccadilly are smack bang in the middle of the major centre of employment, whereas Victoria is on the edge. Just look at the passenger flow data for those flows where passengers have a free choice of which central station to go to (rather than being forced to one because that's where their trains all go), Piccadilly and Oxford Road are each substantially more popular than Victoria.

Even if you do divert all of the long-distance trains into Victoria (let's overlook for a moment that your solution doesn't help the South Pennine services so you'll have to truncate them at Picc if clearing them out of Castlefield is the aim, robbing Liverpool of several through journeys), it doesn't provide enough paths to replace them with more stoppers because you still have the issue of express trains catching up with the stoppers, something that a new line avoids.

 

[stephen rp]

So prioritising operational convenience at the expense of what the customer wants? Shortly before the pandemic I was discussing the congestion with my regular passengers. I mentioned that one of the proposed solutions was that their service would be diverted to Victoria, instead of Oxford Road and Piccadilly. The resounding response was "we don't want to go to Victoria". The fact is that Oxford Road and Piccadilly are smack bang in the middle of the major centre of employment, whereas Victoria is on the edge. Just look at the passenger flow data for those flows where passengers have a free choice of which central station to go to (rather than being forced to one because that's where their trains all go), Piccadilly and Oxford Road are each substantially more popular than Victoria.

Even if you do divert all of the long-distance trains into Victoria (let's overlook for a moment that your solution doesn't help the South Pennine services so you'll have to truncate them at Picc if clearing them out of Castlefield is the aim, robbing Liverpool of several through journeys), it doesn't provide enough paths to replace them with more stoppers because you still have the issue of express trains catching up with the stoppers, something that a new line avoids.

Or you could have a Nottingham service via Sheffield via the "South Pennine" route then on the CLC to Liverpool, and a Cleethorpes service via the South Pennine route reversing at Piccadilly and going to the Airport. Oh wait... that's what we had before the "Manchester Rail Recovery" mangled it all. (Was a 4-minute reversal at Piccadilly really that "operationally difficult"?)

 

[The Planner]

The peat on Carrington Moss is between 17 and 20 feet. Not all that deep at all.

From "HS2 Cost and Risk Model Report" 2012, a single-bore high speed tunnel costs £45-66,000/m which is four to five times what a 12.6m wide viaduct costs (£13,000/m). And you need two tunnels.

These were the figures in 2012. Inflation since then will have a similar effect on each mode.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7490b040f0b61938c7e79a/hs2-cost-and-risk-model-report.pdf

Appendix A: Infrastructure rate comparison

Does the peat rest on bedrock?

 

[Krokodil]

Or you could have a Nottingham service via Sheffield via the "South Pennine" route then on the CLC to Liverpool, and a Cleethorpes service via the South Pennine route reversing at Piccadilly and going to the Airport. Oh wait... that's what we had before the "Manchester Rail Recovery" mangled it all. (Was a 4-minute reversal at Piccadilly really that "operationally difficult"?)

You're still putting a fast service down the CLC (probably at the expense of two potential stopping paths) and crossing the entire station throat for the reversing move. NPR gives Sheffield the half-hourly direct service calling both at the Airport and at Liverpool, without a flat crossing across the station.

Remove all long-distance trains from Castlefield using NPR and grade-seperate Slade Lane and you've got a Manchester S-Bahn with no interference from outside, bar the one freight per hour.

 

[daodao]

NPR gives Sheffield the half-hourly direct service calling both at the Airport and at Liverpool, without a flat crossing across the station.

How, in terms of route?

 

[stephen rp]

You're still putting a fast service down the CLC (probably at the expense of two potential stopping paths) and crossing the entire station throat for the reversing move. NPR gives Sheffield the half-hourly direct service calling both at the Airport and at Liverpool, without a flat crossing across the station.

Remove all long-distance trains from Castlefield using NPR and grade-seperate Slade Lane and you've got a Manchester S-Bahn with no interference from outside, bar the one freight per hour.

Cleethorpes-Airport can come in and out SL from Slade Lane so doesn't need to cross Piccadilly throat.

Until the Manchester Rail Recovery group cut the CLC service, it had two fast and two stoppers every hour. Worst that usually happened was late expresses to Liverpool having to turn round at Warrington.

I don't think anyone has proposed NPR trains Liverpool to Sheffield, have they?

 

[Purple Orange]

The fact is that Oxford Road and Piccadilly are smack bang in the middle of the major centre of employment, whereas Victoria is on the edge

A point of order here, in that the opposite is true. The biggest employment centres in Central Manchester are Spinningfields, St. John's, NOMA, the central office district (bounded by Market Street, Cross Street, Princess Street and Moseley Street), The Oxford Road corridor and Salford Quays. Based upon that, it would be preferable to be heading to head to Victoria on trains that can also call at Salford Central, for better access to more of the major employment centres, and have Victoria and Salford Central operate like Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

Alternatively, it would be to have better onward travel from Piccadilly and Oxford Road to Spinningfields, St John's and NOMA. Yet as far as locations are concerned, Victoria is a far better located station, but not better for connections for onward travel elsewhere.

I also think many people look down upon Victoria, and prefer Piccadilly because it is a nicer station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

My money is on much improved industrial relations within a year.

Your crystal ball seems to have been spot on and the first to be aware that a General Election would be called on 4th July....

 

[Krokodil]

Your crystal ball seems to have been spot on and the first to be aware that a General Election would be called on 4th July....

My crystal ball was rather pessimistic, it didn't anticipate it quite as soon as that!

 

[HSTEd]

A point of order here, in that the opposite is true. The biggest employment centres in Central Manchester are Spinningfields, St. John's, NOMA, the central office district (bounded by Market Street, Cross Street, Princess Street and Moseley Street), The Oxford Road corridor and Salford Quays. Based upon that, it would be preferable to be heading to head to Victoria on trains that can also call at Salford Central, for better access to more of the major employment centres, and have Victoria and Salford Central operate like Piccadilly and Oxford Road.

Alternatively, it would be to have better onward travel from Piccadilly and Oxford Road to Spinningfields, St John's and NOMA. Yet as far as locations are concerned, Victoria is a far better located station, but not better for connections for onward travel elsewhere.

I also think many people look down upon Victoria, and prefer Piccadilly because it is a nicer station.

The location of the "centre of employment" would depend entirely on where you deem "Central Manchester" to end. You can make fairly persuasive arguments for any of the stations in central manchester, with the probable exception of Deansgate.

The geography of the transport system, however, has concentrated other modes far closer to Piccadilly than to Victoria.

We also have a large fairly available site on the Castlefield Corridor and nothing near Victoria of the same scale.

Perhaps for the small subgroup of people in very central Manchester, Victoria is more convenient, but for the vast majority of Greater Manchester and its surrounds, the Castlefield corridor will always triumph.
The two largest single employers in inner Manchester, other than the council, are probably the two Universities after all.

 

[chris2]

Am I right in saying that the recent election call doesn’t effect the passage of the Phase 2B bill as it’s a hybrid bill, (unlike other legislation which will fall)?

 

[Purple Orange]

The location of the "centre of employment" would depend entirely on where you deem "Central Manchester" to end. You can make fairly persuasive arguments for any of the stations in central manchester, with the probable exception of Deansgate.

The geography of the transport system, however, has concentrated other modes far closer to Piccadilly than to Victoria.

We also have a large fairly available site on the Castlefield Corridor and nothing near Victoria of the same scale.

Perhaps for the small subgroup of people in very central Manchester, Victoria is more convenient, but for the vast majority of Greater Manchester and its surrounds, the Castlefield corridor will always triumph.
The two largest single employers in inner Manchester, other than the council, are probably the two Universities after all.

From a connectivity perspective to most of Greater Manchester and the rest of the country, Piccadilly is the better connected station. The city’s economic performance has boomed over the last decade, with the vast majority of new jobs being located in those locations I listed, where Victoria is either closer or equal to Piccadilly.

Going forward, we should be seeing more economic development around Piccadilly, but equally there will still be development taking place along the corridor following Victoria to Salford Central. There really needs to be more frequent trams between Victoria & Piccadilly, bus services connecting at Piccadilly Station (rather than terminating at Picc Gardens), additional platforms at Salford Central and metrolink extended to the Spinnungfields & New Bailey areas.

 

[daodao]

The location of the "centre of employment" would depend entirely on where you deem "Central Manchester" to end. You can make fairly persuasive arguments for any of the stations in central manchester, with the probable exception of Deansgate.

The geography of the transport system, however, has concentrated other modes far closer to Piccadilly than to Victoria.

We also have a large fairly available site on the Castlefield Corridor and nothing near Victoria of the same scale.

Perhaps for the small subgroup of people in very central Manchester, Victoria is more convenient, but for the vast majority of Greater Manchester and its surrounds, the Castlefield corridor will always triumph.

This really isn't true. Both Victoria and Piccadilly are at the fringe of the city centre and neither are optimally sited for other transport links. However, any expansion for the Castlefield line will be very expensive because it runs on a viaduct which by its very nature is cramped and which cannot be widened easily beyond the current 2 track layout. Therefore, its best use is primarily for local passenger trains stopping at all stations (Knott Mill & Deansgate/Oxford Road/Piccadilly platforms 13/14) with short dwell times, although the 2 tph Sheffield-Liverpool trains and some off-peak freight traffic will need to be accommodated.

Am I right in saying that the recent election call doesn’t effect the passage of the Phase 2B bill as it’s a hybrid bill, (unlike other legislation which will fall)?

I hope that you are wrong and that this relatively early general election will kill off the HS2 phase 2b bill, but we will find out by tomorrow evening whether it reaches the statute book.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Am I right in saying that the recent election call doesn’t effect the passage of the Phase 2B bill as it’s a hybrid bill, (unlike other legislation which will fall)?

The party whips have to agree which Bills carry over to the next parliament and which fail.
Essentially it's a Labour veto, and they can agree to take the Bill on.
I expect them to keep the HS2 Manchester Bill, as part of the bi-partisan approach for the last 15 years.
There won't be time now for the Tories to impose wrecking clauses on selling off the un-needed parts of the route.
The Rail Reform Bill (draft) will also fall unless Labour want to use it as a basis for their policy.

 

[Peter Sarf]

In terms of connectivity to employment in central Manchester. I consider that most employment in central London is further from the nearest Terminus than the distance across Manchester from Piccadilly to Victoria - that's walking distance as I have done it.

I am of the view that the nicest way to have a new line is with a through station slap bang in the middle of Manchester with minimal stops. So like HS2 its purpose should be to take faster long distance trains of the existing station ridden network. But then that is fine if money is plentiful for a subterranean masterpiece.

If I can digress a bit Liverpool would be a new through station with a terminus across the Mersey handling turnrounds, cleaning and a connection for passengers from the that side. Worse still I would have done Euston as a smaller through station with a terminus beyond (as in way South of the Thames) on low value land.

Who is gonna pay !.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In terms of connectivity to employment in central Manchester. I consider that most employment in central London is further from the nearest Terminus than the distance across Manchester from Piccadilly to Victoria - that's walking distance as I have done it.

I am of the view that the nicest way to have a new line is with a through station slap bang in the middle of Manchester with minimal stops. So like HS2 its purpose should be to take faster long distance trains of the existing station ridden network. But then that is fine if money is plentiful for a subterranean masterpiece.

If I can digress a bit Liverpool would be a new through station with a terminus across the Mersey handling turnrounds, cleaning and a connection for passengers from the that side. Worse still I would have done Euston as a smaller through station with a terminus beyond (as in way South of the Thames) on low value land.

Who is gonna pay !.

The aspirational reason why such a through railway "slap bang" in the middle of Manchester is one that would incur the wrath of more organisations than you could possibly imagine.

 

[Austriantrain]

The "wrath" you mention seems a bit of a lack of fantasy. While underground railways through cities do entail a lot of disruption during construction, it is usually accepted elsewhere - Crossrail in London comes to mind. When it's done, nobody notices it anymore on the surface.

Costs are the issue, especially since for such a tunnel to channel HS2, NPR and much other traffic from the West towards Piccadilly would probably entail a 4-track- railway and a behemoth of an underground station.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Costs are the issue, especially since for such a tunnel to channel HS2, NPR and much other traffic from the West towards Piccadilly would probably entail a 4-track- railway and a behemoth of an underground station.

I think that post-General Election time, the next Government will have a list of financial priorities and you can be sure that such a Manchester project that you mention above would be well down the pecking order, if even at all.

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think that post-General Election time, the next Government will have a list of financial priorities and you can be sure that such a Manchester project that you mention above would be well down the pecking order, if even at all.

Perhaps these aspirations serve a purpose - making cheaper schemes look more attractive ?.

 

[Greybeard33]

I am not that good with legal language so hopefully someone can explain todays Parliamentary motion in plain English

Am I reading it correctly they are still planning the section south of Manchester, (which is a common section with Northern Powerhouse rail line)

https://commonsbusiness.parliament.uk/Document/87864/Pdf?subType=Standard

In the Commons debate on 21 May, the DfT motion was passed by an overwhelming majority, without the amendments tabled by the anti-HS2 MPs. This issued Instruction No.3, as described in the above post, to the Select Committee considering the High Speed Rail (Crewe to Manchester) Bill. Although the title remains unchanged, it has effectively become the NPR (High Legh to Manchester) Bill.

Am I right in saying that the recent election call doesn’t effect the passage of the Phase 2B bill as it’s a hybrid bill, (unlike other legislation which will fall)?

In the debate the Labour Shadow Rail Minister supported the motion, thereby confirming that current Labour policy is to leave Phase 2b cancelled but to support NPR Liverpool - Manchester via the HS2 route. So I imagine the hybrid Bill might continue to progress in the next parliament, whatever the result of the election.

High Speed Rail (Crewe - Manchester) Bill (Instruction) (No. 3)

– in the House of Commons at 4:36 pm 21 May 2024

www.theyworkforyou.com

The Instruction has left the surviving portion of the line, including the Piccadilly and Airport stations and the HS2/NPR junctions, unchanged from the HS2 Ltd designs for now. AIUI this leaves the way clear for a future government to reinstate the Crewe to High Legh portion, and the Golborne link, if there should be a change of heart.

During the debate Rail Minister Huw Merriman said that he was advised that changes to the route would cause a five year delay, due to the need to restart the hybrid Bill process after the redesign.