HS2 needs a rebrand

[JonathanH]

I strongly suspect Euston tunnelling will be signed off soon for a start.

Where does Euston tunnelling sit in the context of the Government’s £22bn 'black hole'. Is it already in the transport budget, or does it require a cut elsewhere.

While there have been points made about the tunnelling only being possible in a certain time window due to access, it is unnecessary expenditure if HS2 is never going to reach Euston.

 

[Tezza1978]

Where does Euston tunnelling sit in the context of the Government’s £22bn 'black hole'. Is it already in the transport budget, or does it require a cut elsewhere.

While there have been points made about the tunnelling only being possible in a certain time window due to access, it is unnecessary expenditure if HS2 is never going to reach Euston.

Realistically, of course it will reach Euston. Haigh has already said she wants and expects it to, they are just reviewing multiple options for the station design, including reinstating the full number of platforms. They are assembling the TBMs as we speak.

 

[snowball]

Where does Euston tunnelling sit in the context of the Government’s £22bn 'black hole'. Is it already in the transport budget, or does it require a cut elsewhere.

Nowhere. The black hole is all part of spending in the current financial year.

 

[Rhydgaled]

Why does it even need a brand ?

Politically being a brand made it so much easier for many to campaign against it.

If its exended now its even unlikely to be high speed at 250mph, drop the insistence of calling it HS2 and lets just call it a rail line!

It would also feel more intergrated rather than segregated for the National Rail network too!

I agree, it would have been best for it not to really have a name at the planning/construction stage. It should have been just another part of a much wider Next Generation Rail Programme, the first priority of which should have been (and still should be, we still need the Next Generation Rail Programme) to support the net-zero by 2050 greenhouse gas commitment. The NGRP should acheive this both through removing diesel trains from the network (particularly diesel under the wires) with rolling electrification and through supporting modal shift from road to rail (including for freight). The modal shift element is where new lines, such as what we currently call HS2, come in.

However, once any new line is built a name will need to be found for it just so it can easily be discussed. For example, where would we be without the existing names for the WCML and ECML? I would have to type 'London to Edinburgh main line' (or more) every time I wanted to write about the ECML!

HS2 needs more than just a rebrand though. The main reason for it, supposedly, is that the WCML is full (or nearly full). However, that argument falls down if considered over a longer period because, if the WCML can be full then so can any other railway. Unless the population somehow reduces, or modal shift doesn't happen, the ECML and GWML will also be full one day etc. and by some accounts HS2 as currently planned is actually likely to fill the GWML up quicker. Ultimately, there are two options for providing wider capacity release than just the WCML:

• The Euston Cross proposal for an underground through station beneath London - combining this concept with a 4-track core (rather than the double track of HS1 or HS2) between Old Oak Common (where new 2-track routes would branch off for Bristol and Birmingham) and Stratford International (where a new 2-track route would branch off towards Newcastle, and the core would connect to HS1) would releive the WCML, GWML and ECML
• Shifting demand around (allowing more of the load to be taken by upgrading classic routes rather than directly releiving the main lines to/from London) by developing regional towns and cities instead of London - this means focusing on linking them together directly (rather than via London) - HS2 east looked like it could work wonders in this regard by massively improving links between the North East and Bristol but for the lack of electrification south of Birmingham and the fact Curzon Street is being planned as a terminus with no way out onto the line towards Bristol - this is why I think HS2's designers should have looked to the longer term and designed Curzon Street as a subsurface station rather like Old Oak Common

 

[The Planner]

HS2 needs more than just a rebrand though. The main reason for it, supposedly, is that the WCML is full (or nearly full). However, that argument falls down if considered over a longer period because, if the WCML can be full then so can any other railway. Unless the population somehow reduces, or modal shift doesn't happen, the ECML and GWML will also be full one day etc. and by some accounts HS2 as currently planned is actually likely to fill the GWML up quicker. Ultimately, there are two options for providing wider capacity release than just the WCML:

There is no supposedly about the WCML, it is full once the 2nd Liverpool and OAO paths are utilised. I don't think anyone is disputing the fact other main lines will also fill up.

 

[Rhydgaled]

I don't think anyone is disputing the fact other main lines will also fill up.

I've not seen anyone disputing that either. However, the design of HS2 doesn't seem to recognise it and seems focused on addressing the WCML only.

 

[The Planner]

I've not seen anyone disputing that either. However, the design of HS2 doesn't seem to recognise it and seems focused on addressing the WCML only.

It would have eased the MML and ECML if completed as originally envisaged. The WCML is the biggest earner.

 

[Rhydgaled]

It would have eased the MML and ECML if completed as originally envisaged. The WCML is the biggest earner.

MML yes if the revised phase 2 had gone ahead (ie. cut back to East Midlands Parkway to give access to Derby and Nottingham). Not sure either version would have done much for the ECML though - given the dogleg via Birmingham International I expect London-Leeds journey times on HS2 would have been similar to the ECML. HS2 East always looked like it was (badly, given the way all the cities along the route were on spurs rather than the trunk) aimed at XC's Plymouth-Edinburgh route, but the planned Curzon Street on a viaduct puts a big drop in the way of that.

 

[camflyer]

I've not seen anyone disputing that either. However, the design of HS2 doesn't seem to recognise it and seems focused on addressing the WCML only.

The HS2 programme (as originally envisaged) should have been the part of an even bigger scheme to build a network of new lines (some HS, some conventional) across the country with extra legs including Scotland, the Bristol/Cardiff/Swansea corridor, the Oxford-Cambridge arc and on commuter lines around London and other major cities - and, of course, cross-Pennine links in the north of England.

Instead, we will end up with a HS line from London-ish to Birmingham with still no clear plan of what to do with the rest of the country.

 

[HSTEd]

MML yes if the revised phase 2 had gone ahead (ie. cut back to East Midlands Parkway to give access to Derby and Nottingham). Not sure either version would have done much for the ECML though - given the dogleg via Birmingham International I expect London-Leeds journey times on HS2 would have been similar to the ECML. HS2 East always looked like it was (badly, given the way all the cities along the route were on spurs rather than the trunk) aimed at XC's Plymouth-Edinburgh route, but the planned Curzon Street on a viaduct puts a big drop in the way of that.

London-Leeds via HS2 would still beat the convnetional journey even if it travels on the conventional line from Manchester to Leeds!
With a continuous high speed line it would absolutely crush it.

I'd argue that it was HS2's insistence of being the one true high speed rail project, trying to replace multiple main line's fast trains, that made failure inevitable.
It was too grand an objective for a project that has to actually get through multiple hoops before it can realise the majority of its ambition.

A WCML focussed project probably would have gone better in that regard, not that it matters now.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I've not seen anyone disputing that either. However, the design of HS2 doesn't seem to recognise it and seems focused on addressing the WCML only.

It should have been called the ‘West Coast relief line’ or the ‘West Coast bypass line‘ to show the main focus of the project was on increasing capacity instead of speed.