HS2 phase 2 cancellation : what could/should happen now?

[paul1609]

It wouldn’t.
The reduction from the full scheme was claimed to be 49 minutes for Euston to Glasgow. But Phase 1 saves 14 minutes for Manchester trains, so presumably would do the same for Glasgow. Which implies Handsacre to Golborne saves 35 minutes.

Given that a pendolino only takes 40 mins from Colwich to Golborne with a stop at Warrington presumably the Glasgow HS2 stock was going to exceed Warp 9.9?

 

[Chris 76]

Depending on how much of the junction gets built as part of phase 1, there's a good case for a curve onto the Birmingham - Derby line around Kingsbury. To avoid building a second bridge over the M42, the curve would have to be quite tight and slow.

Fitting around existing flows might require using the outer tracks at Burton as passing loops, and/or faster stock than 170s for the Cardiff-Nottingham traffic. And electrifying Water Orton to Derby, of course.

Would it speed up Sheffield to London going that way? Certainly would relieve the southern MML by having fewer long distance non-stop trains.

I've thought about this too, a connection from HS2 to the Birmingham-Derby line near Kingsbury. But not as easy as it might look on a map. The line through Tamworth and Burton would need substantial upgrading, German 'ausbaustrecke' style. Wilnecote/Tamworth is too urbanised for four tracking. Perhaps four-tracking from north of Tamworth, with grade separation of Wichnor junction. There's plenty of railway land through Burton for extra tracks and line speed improvement.
Another option would be a connection from HS2 to the Lichfield-Wichnor Junction line but imposing more HS2 construction on Lichfield is probably a political no-no. And the line is earmarked for extension of Birmingham's Cross-City line to Burton, which would be a great local asset, with a reopened Alrewas station.
But I'm not really convinced that trains from HS2 to the East Midlands and Sheffield would give much benefit for the huge investment. Much better to seize on the idea in the Network North wishlist for an upgraded line from Nottingham to the East Coast Mainline near Newark. This could join a new ECML Doncaster by-pass which would join the Selby diversion and eliminate the issue of numerous level crossings on the parallel classic ECML. Improvements between Birmingham and Nottingham would enable high speed cross country services from the South West and South Wales through Birmingham and Nottingham to ECML destinations in Yorkshire and the North East. Also fast inter-regional Midlands services between the West Midlands and Nottingham, which is currently one of the slowest routes between any pair of regional centres.
Greengauge 21 have made proposals on these lines. They rightly argue that future high speed rail development should focus on connecting all parts of the country with a mix of upgraded and new lines. This approach for the NE-Midlands-SW axis would be transformative for inter-regional connectivity.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

I’m confused regarding Handsacre. Presumably Euston - Manchester services will run as now. Then if you have northbound HS2 OOC -Manchester services , will they all be pathed via Stoke? Is there capacity? Also the Handsacre-Colwich section capacity. They can’t go through Shugborough and via Stafford can they? Double track will bottleneck traffic?

Current fast (Avanti) WCML trains will simply use HS2 south of Handsacre, and classic routes north of there.
There might be some residual or extra services via Rugby but they will have more stops.
HS2 trains will be able to run via Shugborough (they were always planned to before Phase 2a opened).
HS2 trains might even reach Euston via the classic route, though without tilt they will be slower than Pendolinos.

 

[Noddy]

Given that a pendolino only takes 40 mins from Colwich to Golborne with a stop at Warrington presumably the Glasgow HS2 stock was going to exceed Warp 9.9?

I was reading off the table on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_Speed_2#To_other_stations

Unfortunately the source link is now broken, but it also says the saving to Crewe was 34 minutes and Preston was 50 minutes. Both these figures make sense given current journey times, and the (former) likely HS2 patterns. So a reduction to Glasgow of 49 minutes (bearing in mind it wouldn’t stop between Birmingham interchange and Preston) is probably right in fact, unless you think the time to Crewe is wrong as well?

 

[paul1609]

Unfortunately the source link is now broken, but it also says the saving to Crewe was 34 minutes and Preston was 50 minutes. Both these figures make sense given current journey times, and the (former) likely HS2 patterns. So a reduction to Glasgow of 49 minutes (bearing in mind it wouldn’t stop between Birmingham interchange and Preston) is probably right in fact, unless you think the time to Crewe is wrong as well?

Taking Rugeley TV as the starting point to Golborne Jnc a Pendolino currently takes 42 mins which includes a 2 min dwell time at Warrington. If a HS2 train to Glasgow is going to save 35 mins over that section it means that the reduced journey time nett is 5 mins for the 63 miles. Round it down to 60 miles that's an average speed over the cancelled section of 720 mph/1160 kmh it's total tosh I'm afraid.

 

[frodshamfella]

Depends on how fast the trains can go on ordinary track... If they are faster than the current trains, or slower!!!


It's not a dedicated service, it's a Liverpool 400m service which splits at Crewe... because the city can't handle 400m trains. Lancaster, Preston, Wigan.

Yes, when normal timetable if established and 2tph Liverpool-London starts, the station will just about have capacity left for a half hourly Chester/Wrexham service, and that's it.

There has been talk of bringing some local services such as Wigan into Central by way of an un used tunnel, thereby freeing some capacity at Lime Street . Do you know about this ?

To some degree it’s not even that. The £12 billion is simply a political gesture because they knew Liverpool-Manchester NPR improvements required HS2. Removing HS2 has destroyed this so they had to offer something else instead. £12 billion for a high speed rail between Liverpool-Manchester makes a nice soundbite, but that is all it is. It’s never going to make any sense unless the issues around Manchester are sorted and it’s never going to makes sense from a BCR perspective (unless tagged on to another scheme).

But I agree about the devolution issue. Which is why I’m not in favour of combined authorities (that’s another story). Sunak is ‘giving’ it to the combined authorities as part of a divide and conquer strategy so in the end noone will get anything and it’ll be diverted to road schemes managed centrally by Highways England.

What about electrification to the CLC, surely that needs doing before any new line, cheaper too id imagine, perhapes could save money and help with fixing the Manchester bottleneck?

 

[Noddy]

Taking Rugeley TV as the starting point to Golborne Jnc a Pendolino currently takes 42 mins which includes a 2 min dwell time at Warrington. If a HS2 train to Glasgow is going to save 35 mins over that section it means that the reduced journey time nett is 5 mins for the 63 miles. Round it down to 60 miles that's an average speed over the cancelled section of 720 mph/1160 kmh it's total tosh I'm afraid.

Your maths is fundamentally flawed because you’ve not checked the data. You are assuming that the saving over that single stretch of railway (Phase 2) must account for the full 35 minutes (actually 34 minutes), if the Phase 1 saving to Manchester is ‘only’ 15 minutes. That is a incorrect assumption, because quoted 15 minute reduction of HS2 Phase 1 to Manchester is compared to the record of a specially prepared non-stop speed record train (1hr 54min), whereas all the other journey times including Glasgow are compared to timetabled times. The current fasted time to Manchester is AFAIU 2hr 5m so actually the comparable saving on Phase 1 is 25 minutes. It also ignores the fact that HS2 trains will already be slowing while still on HS2 Phase 1 in order to rejoin the WCML, which wouldn’t happen once Phase 2 is built and the fact that HS2 trains would be slower than current times north of Handsacre on the WCML to Manchester.

 

[345 050]

She also says

8TPH isn't going to throw much extra burden on the WCML now and substantiates why a six platform Euston is all that is needed.

I'm sorry but surely 6 platforms can cater for more than 8 tph? That is almost a dwell time of 60 minutes for every train! Surely you could squeeze in a few more services than that?! If we assume 3tph for both Birmingham and Manchester, that doesn't leave a lot of paths for North Wales, Liverpool or Scotland!?

 

[Bald Rick]

Its time to look at four tracking Colwich Stafford with a second Shugborough Tunnel and grade separating Colwich.

It isn’t. Phase 2a was easier, and probably cheaper! Ultimately, building a new two track railway in Staffordshire is going to have the same challenges whether it is specified for 3-400km/h or 200 km/h. The difference being that the former was already consented after the best part of a decade’s hard work.

We hear much about HS2 increasing capacity into Manchester, however doing something like what was done at Bermondsey at Slade Lane would provide extra capacity a lot more cheaply than £36 billion.

How would such a project increase capacity?

In places like France where extensive high speed lines, the lines they replaced are slow goat tracks (and said goat tracks now have appalling residual services).

Not so - the old PLM (Paris, Lyon, Marseille) line was largely 200km/h, the line down to Bordeaux the same, and indeed had some stretches at 210km/h IIRC

We had years of Digswell viaduct not being suitable for anymore traffic yet more traffic was added. Conversely its a relatively short section to quadruple so would seem an appropriate recipient of the phase 2 "windfall".

Absolutely no chance. And it provides no additional capacity on its own.

Your maths is fundamentally flawed because you’ve not checked the data. You are assuming that the saving over that single stretch of railway (Phase 2) must account for the full 35 minutes (actually 34 minutes), if the Phase 1 saving to Manchester is ‘only’ 15 minutes. That is a incorrect assumption, because quoted 15 minute reduction of HS2 Phase 1 to Manchester is compared to the speed record of a specially prepared non-stop speed record train (1hr 54min), whereas all the other journey times including Glasgow are compared to timetabled times. The current fasted time to Manchester is AFAIU 2hr 5m so actually the comparable saving on Phase 1 is 25 minutes. It also ignores the fact that HS2 trains will already be slowing while still on HS2 Phase 1 in order to rejoin the WCML, which wouldn’t happen once Phase 2 is built and the fact that HS2 trains would be slower than current times north of Handsacre.

Is early the right answer.

HS2 Euston to Handsacre with an OOC stop is going to be in the region of 45 minutes. This compares with Euston to Handsacre today of 66mins non stop or 71mins with one stop.

HS2 services will, however, lose time compared to Pendolinos on the route to Manchester via Stoke (a could have minutes) and Scotland (About 7 IIRC).

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I'm sorry but surely 6 platforms can cater for more than 8 tph? That is almost a dwell time of 60 minutes for every train! Surely you could squeeze in a few more services than that?! If we assume 3tph for both Birmingham and Manchester, that doesn't leave a lot of paths for North Wales, Liverpool or Scotland!?

Im surmising what she is saying is the business case is built on 8TPH. Weve got another 6-10 years to speculate on what timetable we might end up with.

 

[21C101]

It isn’t. Phase 2a was easier, and probably cheaper! Ultimately, building a new two track railway in Staffordshire is going to have the same challenges whether it is specified for 3-400km/h or 200 km/h. The difference being that the former was already consented after the best part of a decade’s hard work.

I'm hearing noises that 2a cant be canned without parliamentary consent so I'm not sure this is over yet.

Especially as it dawns that Colwich to Stafford is going to make Welwyn look like a vicarage tea party if phase 1 is built without it

As I see it an issue with phase 2a currently is that you need to be able to get on it south of Rugeley as well as off it south of Rugely, to get rid of the Shugborough bottleneck. Personally I think it would be better built as an all purpose railway and isn't needed north of Norton Bridge but, agreed cost of redesigning it all would be monumental.

 

[Energy]

I'm hearing noises that 2a cant be canned without parliamentary consent so I'm not sure this is over yet.

From what I understand Rishi can indefinitely delay it and can likely sell off the land... with the government still having compulsory purchase rights.

If he wants to undo those rights it would have to go through parliament, given the split in the conservative party at the moment I'd be very surprised if it got through.

 

[21C101]

From what I understand Rishi can indefinitely delay it and can likely sell off the land... with the government still having compulsory purchase rights.

If he wants to undo those rights it would have to go through parliament, given the split in the conservative party at the moment I'd be very surprised if it got through.

If the compulsory repurchasing rights remain he will struggle to find buyers.

 

[Energy]

If the compulsory repurchasing rights remain he will struggle to find buyers.

At a heavy discount, or no buyers.

Big concern for future buyers is that for the next government evaluating how much the land is worth, the sale price 1 year ago would be a good indicator and if that's 50% off then they aren't getting much for the land.

 

[Agent_Squash]

In fact, indicative of the sinister political goings on in keeping opposition to HS2 under control, 2tph Liverpool-London should have been able to be delivered by 2019 (with procurement etc needing to start several years earlier).

Liverpool got 2tph to London with the LNR original recast, did it not?

It may be the long way round, but hardly a conspiracy not to give it. And the point is moot as 2tph Liverpool will exist before HS2 anyway.

It's not a dedicated service, it's a Liverpool 400m service which splits at Crewe... because the city can't handle 400m trains. Lancaster, Preston, Wigan.

The new service splitting at Crewe would have been a new service for Lancaster, Preston and Wigan. It’s an opportunity that would only exist with HS2 - the semantics are perhaps not there but it removes the traffic from Anglo-Scots.

I find it hard to believe that Handsworth to Golborne the bit that's been cancelled reduced Glasgow journey times by an hour.

With the full HS2 package you’re near enough an hour - and in the sub 4 hour range that makes it an attractive alternative to airlines.

 

[Arkeeos]

From what I understand Rishi can indefinitely delay it and can likely sell off the land... with the government still having compulsory purchase rights.

If he wants to undo those rights it would have to go through parliament, given the split in the conservative party at the moment I'd be very surprised if it got through.

It would be unlikely if any significant progress could be made between now and the election in terms of these HS2 plans, at least not enough to render it totally unbuildable.

Even at Euston, its going to take years until there is a new design proposal, Nevertheless actually building it.

This isn't even including the scrutiny the new HS2 proposals will get, I imagine the Transport select committee is going rip to shreds the Network North plan.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are legal challenges, HS2 should publish a report effectively debunking what the government has said.

 

[Energy]

Liverpool got 2tph to London with the LNR original recast, did it not?

It may be the long way round, but hardly a conspiracy not to give it. And the point is moot as 2tph Liverpool will exist before HS2 anyway.

It did but they weren't particularly reliable, and being an all-station stopper they were very slow.

It would be unlikely if any significant progress could be made between now and the election in terms of these HS2 plans, at least not enough to render it totally unbuildable.

Even at Euston, its going to take years until there is a new design proposal.

Agreed, I doubt Rishi can get anything through Parliament at this point in time.

I imagine the Transport select committee is going rip to shreds the Network North plan.

It doesn't take a lot of time to notice issues.

I wouldn't be surprised if there are legal challenges, HS2 should publish a report effectively debunking what the government has said.

I think we need to separate this from the government, as its really just the Rishi administration who came up with Network North without outside consideration.

 

[Arkeeos]

Agreed, I doubt Rishi can get anything through Parliament at this point in time.

Sunaks cabinet struggles to get legislation through even on a good day. If this faces any legal opposition it will never get through

I think we need to separate this from the government, as its really just the Rishi administration who came up with Network North without outside consideration.

Agreed, this a rogue prime minister breaking a decade long consensus on the future of transportation in the UK. The idea that we should follow this, and not attempt to reverse it as much as feasibly possible is ridiculous.

 

[Dan G]

Nigel Harris on Times Radio saying the HS2 stock will only be able to run at 110 mph north of Birmingham (as they can't tilt). Is that the case (I know they won't be able to tilt)? Just how much of the 125 mph running the Pendolinos do north of Birmingham is only possible because of tilt?

 

[Agent_Squash]

Nigel Harris on Times Radio saying the HS2 stock will only be able to run at 110 mph north of Birmingham (as they can't tilt). Is that the case (I know they won't be able to tilt)? Just how much of the 125 mph running the Pendolinos do north of Birmingham is only possible because of tilt?

Pretty much all of it.

There’s a section between Wolves and Stafford passed for 125 non tilting, but the rest is all 110mph max.

The difference can be up to 25mph iirc.

 

[daodao]

The key problem that HS2 & NPR was intended to solve, is congestion in central Manchester. This was studied at length and half baked solutions won't fix it

The primary aims of that part of HS2 that had regulatory approval (before Sunak's decision) were to reduce journey times from London to the Midlands and North of England and to relieve capacity on the southern part of the WCML as far north as Crewe. They had nothing to do with central Manchester or any issues with rail capacity there. Greater Manchester's rail issues can be solved relatively cheaply by reducing cross-flows on the flat particularly at/near Piccadilly and Victoria, mothballing the Ordsall curve for scheduled trains, increasing train lengths and building some sidings near Victoria so that more trains can terminate there instead of running through Castlefield. There is no need for HS2 phase 2b or any expensive tunnelling whatsoever.

 

[JamesT]

Pretty much all of it.

There’s a section between Wolves and Stafford passed for 125 non tilting, but the rest is all 110mph max.

The difference can be up to 25mph iirc.

Though aren’t Network Rail look at allowing more 125mph non tilt on the WCML? Avanti’s future 80x trains won’t tilt either.

 

[Agent_Squash]

Though aren’t Network Rail look at allowing more 125mph non tilt on the WCML? Avanti’s future 80x trains won’t tilt either.

It’s MU profile (which the HS2 trains may not have) and only up to Weaver Jct.

 

[Matt P]

I am sure many would agree but cancelling Phase 2a was a major mistake and limits the potential HS2 to relieve the southern section of the WCML. Relying on the planned connection at Hansacre is also an error for much the same reason.

Whether it could be badged as something else, but something that does some of what Phase 2a should be considered. Revisiting the WCRM Stafford bypass scheme would be a start. I also wonder if as part of that a relatively short extension to HS2 to join the Stoke line north of Colwich Junction would make sense. These could all be classed as WCML upgrades instead of HS2, especially if built as conventional rail for 125mph. It would be a sleight of hand to some extent but would mitigate some of the loss of Phase 2a.

A connection to the Derby line should be considered although having read earlier comments this may be easier said than done. However as the cancellation of HS2 to Manchester effectively means accepting running on existing lines (making HS2 more like many of its European counterparts) ironically the curtailed Eastern leg of HS2 to East Mids Parkway makes more sense.

Looking at some higher speed/capacity releasing cut offs and 4 tracking 2 track sections of the ECML should now also be considered to ensure Leeds and the North East get some of the benefits they were promised by HS2. Unfortunately I think the days of any rail projects that involve significant lengths of new line being built are over for the foreseeable future.

 

[Grimsby town]

The primary aims of that part of HS2 that had regulatory approval (before Sunak's decision) were to reduce journey times from London to the Midlands and North of England and to relieve capacity on the southern part of the WCML as far north as Crewe. They had nothing to do with central Manchester or any issues with rail capacity there. Greater Manchester's rail issues can be solved relatively cheaply by reducing cross-flows on the flat particularly at/near Piccadilly and Victoria, mothballing the Ordsall curve for scheduled trains, increasing train lengths and building some sidings near Victoria so that more trains can terminate there instead of running through Castlefield. There is no need for HS2 phase 2b or any expensive tunnelling whatsoever.

That might be sufficient to improve reliability but its not going to allow maybe a dozen extra local services that need to run every hour to meet TfGMs strategic aims. Look at Manchester's local rail services. Compared to Liverpool or Birmingham they're incredibly poor. Sure the city has Metrolink and if you live near it as I do then it's great. If you live near heavy rail you likely have a far worse public transport. That has to change. The way to do that is to remove the intercity services so that other lines can prioritise local rail services.

 

[Matt P]

The primary aims of that part of HS2 that had regulatory approval (before Sunak's decision) were to reduce journey times from London to the Midlands and North of England and to relieve capacity on the southern part of the WCML as far north as Crewe. They had nothing to do with central Manchester or any issues with rail capacity there. Greater Manchester's rail issues can be solved relatively cheaply by reducing cross-flows on the flat particularly at/near Piccadilly and Victoria, mothballing the Ordsall curve for scheduled trains, increasing train lengths and building some sidings near Victoria so that more trains can terminate there instead of running through Castlefield. There is no need for HS2 phase 2b or any expensive tunnelling whatsoever.

To deliver significant additional rail capacity across Greater Manchester without HS2 would require a scheme or schemes far more significant and far more extensive. Essentially Greater Manchester equivalents of Crossrail and a German style S-Bahn.

There is an urgent need for additonal capacity via the Castlefield corridor. Mothballing Ordsall wouldn't really address the fundamental issue of a 2 track corridor that is vital to local, regional and freight traffic. The corridor needs solutions that takes traffic from it entirely. This can really only be achieved by quadrupling the existing corridor, building new lines in tunnels and/or relocating the freight terminal from Trafford Park. Any of these would be extremely expensive and would take years to gain the necessary approvals.

The loss of HS2 Phase 2b also means no additonal capacity on the Crewe to Manchester corridor, particular from Stockport northwards. There is no easy or cheap way to deliver additional capacity on this corridor without new lines. This would also require tunnels and/or demolition and critically all of the necessary legislative approvals.

Whatever the faults of HS2 it was the only project at an advanced enough stage in the planning process that would start to tackle some of GM's rail capacity issues. Unless elements proceed as part of NPR, then there will be no significant additional rail capacity in GM for decades.

 

[daodao]

There is an urgent need for additonal capacity via the Castlefield corridor. Mothballing Ordsall wouldn't really address the fundamental issue of a 2 track corridor that is vital to local, regional and freight traffic. The corridor needs solutions that takes traffic from it entirely. This can really only be achieved by quadrupling the existing corridor, building new lines in tunnels and/or relocating the freight terminal from Trafford Park. Any of these would be extremely expensive and would take years to gain the necessary approvals

Mothballing the Ordsall curve and running all trains from Warrington BQ/Chester, Southport and Cumbria/Scotland into/through Victoria, which is already quadrupled, should be enough to relieve the Castlefield corridor, with the proviso that some extra sidings for long-distance terminating trains would be needed near Victoria. HS2 phase 2b was irrelevant to rail service issues in Manchester.

 

[The Planner]

Mothballing the Ordsall curve and running all trains from Warrington BQ/Chester, Southport and Cumbria/Scotland into/through Victoria, which is already quadrupled, should be enough to relieve the Castlefield corridor, with the proviso that some extra sidings for long-distance terminating trains would be needed near Victoria. HS2 phase 2b was irrelevant to rail service issues in Manchester.

How many trains per hour is that into Victoria and how many of them are going to terminate there? How does that work with any TRU service increases?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I am sure many would agree but cancelling Phase 2a was a major mistake and limits the potential HS2 to relieve the southern section of the WCML. Relying on the planned connection at Hansacre is also an error for much the same reason.

Whether it could be badged as something else, but something that does some of what Phase 2a should be considered. Revisiting the WCRM Stafford bypass scheme would be a start. I also wonder if as part of that a relatively short extension to HS2 to join the Stoke line north of Colwich Junction would make sense. These could all be classed as WCML upgrades instead of HS2, especially if built as conventional rail for 125mph. It would be a sleight of hand to some extent but would mitigate some of the loss of Phase 2a.

A connection to the Derby line should be considered although having read earlier comments this may be easier said than done. However as the cancellation of HS2 to Manchester effectively means accepting running on existing lines (making HS2 more like many of its European counterparts) ironically the curtailed Eastern leg of HS2 to East Mids Parkway makes more sense.

Looking at some higher speed/capacity releasing cut offs and 4 tracking 2 track sections of the ECML should now also be considered to ensure Leeds and the North East get some of the benefits they were promised by HS2. Unfortunately I think the days of any rail projects that involve significant lengths of new line being built are over for the foreseeable future.

We need another dose of WCML upgrading to help focus minds on starting from scratch rather than tinkering.

What about a solution to replace Phase 2a with a "link" from the North end of HS2 phase 1 to Crewe but save money by not building Handsacre junction ?. How much would that save ?. No link to/from the WCML at Handsacre BUT this could be added in the future if justified later. (no don't say the obvious).

 

[HSTEd]

It’s MU profile (which the HS2 trains may not have) and only up to Weaver Jct.

I'd be very surprised if HS2 stock doesn't qualify for MU rating!

Looking at some higher speed/capacity releasing cut offs and 4 tracking 2 track sections of the ECML should now also be considered to ensure Leeds and the North East get some of the benefits they were promised by HS2. Unfortunately I think the days of any rail projects that involve significant lengths of new line being built are over for the foreseeable future.

Given the last two major main line reconstructions (West Coast Main Line and Great Western) both failed miserably, what makes you think you will get money to try a third time on the ECML?

Major upgrades have been shown time and again not to work the way that their proponents claim.

EDIT:
TPRU has now ballooned to £11+bn and had years added to its timescales.
Unless someone can get these costs under control the railway industry is going to be serious trouble going forward, the political consenus for mass railway spending is evaporating.