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

[Krokodil]

Labour delegates have passed a motion supporting the construction of HS2 in full. That will bring some pressure onto the leadership.

Delegates pass motions on public ownership, HS2 and AI in the workplace - LabourList | Latest UK Labour Party news, analysis and comment

Delegates at Labour conference have passed motions on public ownership of energy, delivering HS2 in full, defence policy,…

labourlist.org

 

[LYuen]

I imagine that eventually UK has to move to the East Asian model, in which rail constructions are partially funded by oversite developments (perhaps even offsite if oversite is not enough). It will be controversial as it might look like the government confiscate private assets and resell them at higher value, so some kind of reasonable compensation options have to be offered. Otherwise I can't imagine any trunk lines getting built, ever.

The problem is the UK isn't the same as Hong Kong, or Japan until the end bubble economy, or China until recent years - land and development don't guarantee profits.
Urban regeneration is a cash cow for Hong Kong and congested cities in Japan, but in the UK, it itself is a risk. It is simply not attractive to investors to pay for the construction in return for another risk instead of a likely profitable development.

Along the HS2 corridor, there isn't a lot of space for development anyway - Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street is tight, Birmingham Interchange is far away from the city, so the only feasible place for development is OOC, which isn't a lot of space either. There is no way a development will generate enough profit to fund the construction.
Maybe development at OOC and Euston could fund just the OOC to Euston section? That could be a possibility.

 

[MTR380A]

The problem is the UK isn't the same as Hong Kong, or Japan until the end bubble economy, or China until recent years - land and development don't guarantee profits.
Urban regeneration is a cash cow for Hong Kong and congested cities in Japan, but in the UK, it itself is a risk. It is simply not attractive to investors to pay for the construction in return for another risk instead of a likely profitable development.

Along the HS2 corridor, there isn't a lot of space for development anyway - Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street is tight, Birmingham Interchange is far away from the city, so the only feasible place for development is OOC, which isn't a lot of space either. There is no way a development will generate enough profit to fund the construction.
Maybe development at OOC and Euston could fund just the OOC to Euston section? That could be a possibility.

It might be a bit too late to change the design of OOC now. Euston is already to be developed by private companies, at least it's the plan.

What about Crewe? It doesn't seem to have a lot of space around the present station, though. How about not building it in Crewe but instead on a farmland between Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent, like Audley? Let private developers build dozens of residential highrises (a portion of which affrodable housing), several blocks of offices and a giant outlet surrounding the new station. The government may auction the development rights to fund the revamped Phase 2a, at least part of. If no company is interested then we bury the idea, but I believe it's possible given the housing shortgage now facing UK.

 

[gc4946]

Birmingham should now be the focal point for high speed rail expansion with tracks fanning out as an "X", north west, north east, south west, south east.
Passive provision should be kept for an extension beyond Handsacre, also for a future link to East Midlands Parkway and/or joining the Birmingham-Derby line near Kingsbury.
There should a study commissioned for a link branching south west from Birmingham Interchange towards a point in Worcestershire (south of Bromsgrove) so the south west and south Wales can take advantage of future benefits of high speed rail.

 

[AHBD]

I wonder if the drive to replace private cars with electric ones affects public support for HS2: if the public thinks the the transport carbon problem is solved by replacing their heavy fossil fueled energy guzzling lump of a motor vehicle (overall driven to a low standard resulting in a poor safety record to other innocent users of public all-purpose roads) with an even heavier energy guzzling electric lump with same problems whilst letting them continue driving as normal, an expensive HS2 is a harder sell?

(nb imo An electric bicycle with a trailer would do most local journeys for which people think they require a car with a boot, but for a fraction of the energy).

 

[GJMarshy]

I wonder if the drive to replace private cars with electric ones affects public support for HS2: if the public thinks the the transport carbon problem is solved by replacing their heavy fossil fueled energy guzzling lump of a motor vehicle (overall driven to a low standard resulting in a poor safety record to other innocent users of public all-purpose roads) with an even heavier energy guzzling electric lump with same problems whilst letting them continue driving as normal, an expensive HS2 is a harder sell?

(nb imo An electric bicycle with a trailer would do most local journeys for which people think they require a car with a boot, but for a fraction of the energy)








*(including other said vehicle occupents)

but then most people realise more cars on the road isn’t a good thing because there’s no space without more traffic, in which case what’s the point?

 

[chris2]

This consultation document from 2015 is part of the bundle of documents in the Phase 2A hybrid bill. It has relevance now as it outlines alternative schemes to Phase 2A. Although the exercise is meant to begin as an honest assessment of whether a certain proposal for a scheme is in fact the best one, obviously this study was carried out in order to prove that Phase 2A was the best option to progress with.

But in the event that Phase 2A is not resurrected, these options would presumably form a starting point for the inevitable upgrade that will be required.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

The document outlines the following key constraints (as others have already said in relation to this)...

...the key capacity constraints impacting Phase One services running on the WCML in 2026 between Handsacre and Crewe are expected to be:

• the two-track section through Shugborough Tunnel, which is located between Colwich Junction and Stafford; and,
• Colwich Junction where northbound services running via Stoke conflict with southbound services coming from the Stafford direction towards London.

(from page 6)

Three options (from a range of possibilities) are highlighted to demonstrate the range of possible alternatives.







And here are the construction cost comparisons...

All of the options avoid building the highest cost section of Phase 2a which north of Baldwin’s Gate involves some relatively expensive sections involving tunnelling and a complex junction with the WCML at Crewe.

One thing that seems obvious from this is that the land on the line of route immediately north of Phase 1 really must be held onto for the time being.

How would the cost of the Handsacre junction compare with these?

 

[MPW]

The problem is the UK isn't the same as Hong Kong, or Japan until the end bubble economy, or China until recent years - land and development don't guarantee profits.
Urban regeneration is a cash cow for Hong Kong and congested cities in Japan, but in the UK, it itself is a risk. It is simply not attractive to investors to pay for the construction in return for another risk instead of a likely profitable development.

Along the HS2 corridor, there isn't a lot of space for development anyway - Euston and Birmingham Curzon Street is tight, Birmingham Interchange is far away from the city, so the only feasible place for development is OOC, which isn't a lot of space either. There is no way a development will generate enough profit to fund the construction.
Maybe development at OOC and Euston could fund just the OOC to Euston section? That could be a possibility.

I think the developable land is much greater when you consider the increased capacity on existing routes which should have more local services. This extends the connectivity benefit further than just 500m of the central hs2 station and will make current light industrial or brownfield sites more attractive for developers.

Bradford seems to have the most developable (or intensification) land nearest a potential HS route somewhere to south of city centre (admittedly NPR not HS2)

 

[Peter Sarf]

That is building 2A. Handsacre is Phase 1, so you would have to commit to 2A being built now to get rid of Handsacre. It would save probably around a billion quid. In my view that is what should have been done anyway.


.........................................

Above is answer to your question at end of your post below. So takes the cost of Phase 2a (£3,163bn) down to that of High Cost Option alternative/compromise (£2,018bn) in your post (below) but with better results of course. So we could save 1/3rd of Phase 2a just by foregoing Handsacre junction !.

This consultation document from 2015 is part of the bundle of documents in the Phase 2A hybrid bill. It has relevance now as it outlines alternative schemes to Phase 2A. Although the exercise is meant to begin as an honest assessment of whether a certain proposal for a scheme is in fact the best one, obviously this study was carried out in order to prove that Phase 2A was the best option to progress with.

But in the event that Phase 2A is not resurrected, these options would presumably form a starting point for the inevitable upgrade that will be required.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

The document outlines the following key constraints (as others have already said in relation to this)...


(from page 6)

Three options (from a range of possibilities) are highlighted to demonstrate the range of possible alternatives.

View attachment 144603

View attachment 144606

View attachment 144595

And here are the construction cost comparisons...

View attachment 144599


One thing that seems obvious from this is that the land on the line of route immediately north of Phase 1 really must be held onto for the time being.

How would the cost of the Handsacre junction compare with these?

My bold - answer at top of post.

 

[Matt P]

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.

I appreciate the issues with upgrades, although if route modernisation and new build are off the table then we have kinda backed ourselves into a corner in terms of providing additional rail capacity .

The alternatives to cancellation of phase 2a I suggested were actually a truncated or mini phase 2a. The need for a Stafford bypass has been acknowledged for some time. Even two of the options for BR's IC250 included a Stafford bypass, with a route not a million miles from that proposed for HS2.

What I'd envisaged for the ECML was a dusting down of Virgin's 2000 ECML franchise bid which included a couple of high speed cut offs. One major issue with it is though is that it didn't address capacity constraints at the southern end. In an ideal world a new cut off to bypass the section from Alexandra Palace to somewhere near Hitchen to would be added to the cut offs Virgin proposed. However Virgin also proposed reopening Leamside and as that was proposed by the government as a project in lieu of HS2 Phase 2 and then dropped 24 hrs later, I accept that a project for the ECML even remotely close to what I have suggested is nothing but pipe dream.

 

[JonathanH]

I appreciate the issues with upgrades, although if route modernisation and new build are off the table then we have kinda backed ourselves into a corner in terms of providing additional rail capacity .

I'd imagine the favoured option of the government and Treasury is simply not providing additional rail capacity.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I'd imagine the favoured option of the government and Treasury is simply not providing additional rail capacity.

With Sunak as PM this is very likely correct.

 

[Austriantrain]

This consultation document from 2015 is part of the bundle of documents in the Phase 2A hybrid bill. It has relevance now as it outlines alternative schemes to Phase 2A. Although the exercise is meant to begin as an honest assessment of whether a certain proposal for a scheme is in fact the best one, obviously this study was carried out in order to prove that Phase 2A was the best option to progress with.

But in the event that Phase 2A is not resurrected, these options would presumably form a starting point for the inevitable upgrade that will be required.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

The document outlines the following key constraints (as others have already said in relation to this)...


(from page 6)

Three options (from a range of possibilities) are highlighted to demonstrate the range of possible alternatives.

View attachment 144603

View attachment 144606

View attachment 144595

And here are the construction cost comparisons...

View attachment 144599


One thing that seems obvious from this is that the land on the line of route immediately north of Phase 1 really must be held onto for the time being.

How would the cost of the Handsacre junction compare with these?

Seems like a very intelligent proposal. In truth, stage 2a should have been retained up to the point it reaches the Stafford - Crewe line (and Handsacre cancelled instead). Canceling this bit especially feels like done out of spite or stupidity.

 

[350401]

With Sunak as PM this is very likely correct.

Being an optimist, this government will hopefully be gone in a year. What are the odds that a Network Rail, under a Labour government, when faced with the issues presented by Handsacre, present to the DFT a proposal for fixing the worst bottlenecks around Colwich in order to enable more trains to run off HS2 Handsacre, and given the high BCR of this, it is approved?

Also, unless the government actively repeal the hybrid bill for phase 2a, it remains on the statue books and the land acquisition powers remain until 2026. Therefore, this part of HS2 Phase 2 could be relatively easily be re-instated. Given the much lower cost of 2a versus 2b, I'm still cautiously optimistic for the medium term.

 

[Arkeeos]

Being an optimist, this government will hopefully be gone in a year. What are the odds that a Network Rail, under a Labour government, when faced with the issues presented by Handsacre, present to the DFT a proposal for fixing the worst bottlenecks around Colwich in order to enable more trains to run off HS2 Handsacre, and given the high BCR of this, it is approved?

I feel that it is fairly high odds, there's no reason Labour would continue with these rogue, unworkable plans. The remaining phases of HS2 all have good BCRs, so once you have built the hardest and most expensive part, there's no reason why you wouldn't continue, especially since the remaining phases of HS2 are popular.

You will have to pay for new contracts, buy back the land, maybe Phase 2a would need royal assent again, but that should be relatively easy. All of that would have to happen for *any* future infrastructure project anyway, unless they aren't planning on building new infrastructure, completing HS2 will be a preferable option.

There's still a chance that the repeal of HS2 phase 2a doesn't pass the vote as well.

 

[AndrewE]

What about Crewe? It doesn't seem to have a lot of space around the present station, though. How about not building it in Crewe but instead on a farmland between Crewe and Stoke-on-Trent, like Audley? Let private developers build dozens of residential highrises (a portion of which affrodable housing), several blocks of offices and a giant outlet surrounding the new station. The government may auction the development rights to fund the revamped Phase 2a, at least part of. If no company is interested then we bury the idea, but I believe it's possible given the housing shortgage now facing UK.

Please... This is a capacity enhancement for the existing railway, NOT an airline-on-wheels, so driving unsustainable development in an out-of-town place is mad. Maybe locate one of the recently-proposed New Towns on it and that could work, but somehow I doubt that it will come to pass. You would be better looking at places with good transport links (and potential to improve further) and turning them into new towns, maybe even somewhere like Crewe - or Tamworth or Worcestershire Parkway.

Crewe is where all the connections are for lots of NW destinations, and where lots of routes feed in for journeys onward to the "far NW" of England - if you insist on looking at it from the London end - and Scotland.

 

[HSTEd]

Going to Crewe only really makes sense if you assume the east west connections between Liverpool and Manchester remain the same as now, if you assume any improvements at all then the optimal route shifts to the east.

There's still a chance that the repeal of HS2 phase 2a doesn't pass the vote as well.

The only way Sunak can possibly repeal HS2 Phase 2A's enabling act is to do so over the objection of the Lords, which means he needs votes in the Commons at least a year apart to impose the change through the Parliament Act.
Which means a repeal act would have to be passed by the Commons by Christmas and he would have to hold the latest possible election, even though winter elections don't often go well for the government.

 

[Arkeeos]

The only way Sunak can possibly repeal HS2 Phase 2A's enabling act is to do so over the objection of the Lords, which means he needs votes in the Commons at least a year apart to impose the change through the Parliament Act.
Which means a repeal act would have to be passed by the Commons by Christmas and he would have to hold the latest possible election, even though winter elections don't often go well for the government.

Does repealing acts go through the lords?

Bernadette Kelly the permanent transport secretary confirmed that there needs to be some primary legislation passed to result in what is laid out, that will have to go through the Lords.

 

[HSTEd]

Does repealing acts go through the lords?

The only way to repeal an act of parliament is through another act of parliament.
Otherwise, the compulsory land purchase powers granted by the Phase 2A act will not expire until 2026 at the earliest.

 

[Arkeeos]

The only way to repeal an act of parliament is through another act of parliament.
Otherwise, the compulsory land purchase powers granted by the Phase 2A act will not expire until 2026 at the earliest.

That is good to know.
It's confusing to why Sunak has left this decision so late into his role, given it is going to struggle to be permanent. I can only assume it is just throwing red meat to their core base.
I suppose the real question is how much of an impact could descoping have between now and October.

 

[HSTEd]

That is good to know.
It's confusing to why Sunak has left this decision so late into his role, given it is going to struggle to be permanent. I can only assume it is just throwing red meat to their core base.
I suppose the real question is how much of an impact could descoping have between now and October.

Ultimately I think Sunak has just become frustrated with the whole thing and is willing to eat the damage from the party grandees (Cameron et al) by cancelling it now.

He was reportedly never particularly in favour of the project to start with.

 

[Arkeeos]

Ultimately I think Sunak has just become frustrated with the whole thing and is willing to eat the damage from the party grandees (Cameron et al) by cancelling it now.

He was reportedly never particularly in favour of the project to start with.

This being is personal decision is the only way I can make sense of it, we know most of his cabinet including Jeremy Hunt was against this decision, In fact it was only Hunt and Street that "saved" Euston and Handsacre (Both of these are still up in the air), Sunak seemed fine to just cut it to OOC to Curzon street. Also tracks with there being no consultation with HS2 Ltd or Network Rail as well.

 

[JonathanH]

I feel that it is fairly high odds, there's no reason Labour would continue with these rogue, unworkable plans. The remaining phases of HS2 all have good BCRs, so once you have built the hardest and most expensive part, there's no reason why you wouldn't continue, especially since the remaining phases of HS2 are popular.

I think it has to be remembered that an incoming Labour government will have multiple requirements for funding, including other priorities already announced, and will also need to fit within the targets it has set itself for economic stability and spending.

While the cancellation of Phase 2a is seen as a disappointment, it just isn't going to be an early area of focus for an incoming administration. It might also be remembered that Phase 1 may well not open before a 2029 general election.

 

[Arkeeos]

I think it has to be remembered that an incoming Labour government will have multiple requirements for funding, including other priorities already announced, and will also need to fit within the targets it has set itself for economic stability and spending.

While the cancellation of Phase 2a is seen as a disappointment, it just isn't going to be an early area of focus for an incoming administration. It might also be remembered that Phase 1 may well not open before a 2029 general election.

I don't see why a climate conscious and non populist Labour party that appears to be thinking about the future, and is aiming for at least 2 terms, would keep with what is essentially no long term plan for transportation in England.
I could be wrong, and like all of politics everything turns out to be lies. But I do not see Labour sticking with these new transport "plans" and if they want to draw up new plans, then HS2 would logically be included.
If "Network North" was an actual plan and not something hastily drawn together in a week, then I could see Labour sticking with the cancellation, but it isn't.

 

[350401]

That is good to know.
It's confusing to why Sunak has left this decision so late into his role, given it is going to struggle to be permanent. I can only assume it is just throwing red meat to their core base.
I suppose the real question is how much of an impact could descoping have between now and October.

The main civil works contracts are in build; so very hard to alter. OOC is in the build phase so again very hard to change. Curzon St and Interchange haven’t started main civils works yet; but the design is nearly complete. I suppose these could be descoped; but at great cost and delay - basically having to do design again.

The rolling stock contract has been let but will need renegotiation as 54x200m units doesn’t fit the new needs. The railway systems contracts are also still to be let. I expect a move to ballast track and a reduction in the maximum design speed of the OHLE from 400kph to 360 or 320kph. Beyond that, it’s very hard to cut further.

 

[The Planner]

The main civil works contracts are in build; so very hard to alter. OOC is in the build phase so again very hard to change. Curzon St and Interchange haven’t started main civils works yet; but the design is nearly complete. I suppose these could be descoped; but at great cost and delay - basically having to do design again.

The rolling stock contract has been let but will need renegotiation as 54x200m units doesn’t fit the new needs. The railway systems contracts are also still to be let. I expect a move to ballast track and a reduction in the maximum design speed of the OHLE from 400kph to 360 or 320kph. Beyond that, it’s very hard to cut further.

Would like to know your definition of main civils considering the amount of piers and deck construction at Curzon Street.

 

[350401]

Would like to know your definition of main civils considering the amount of piers and deck construction at Curzon Street.

Fair cop, those are technically the enabling works, carrying the track into the station and providing the slab for the main station to be built on. The main station construction has not started yet. Realistically, either way, it’s too late to substantially change it now.

 

[Krokodil]

I think it has to be remembered that an incoming Labour government will have multiple requirements for funding, including other priorities already announced, and will also need to fit within the targets it has set itself for economic stability and spending.

While the cancellation of Phase 2a is seen as a disappointment, it just isn't going to be an early area of focus for an incoming administration. It might also be remembered that Phase 1 may well not open before a 2029 general election.

The most important thing is to avoid this government's abandonment becoming irreversible. Maintaining the protection from development on Phase 2 is one thing, but even more critical is making sure that Euston isn't cut back and hemmed in by development.

Fair cop, those are technically the enabling works

Enabling works are the things you do before you build anything - things like diverting utilities and relocating newts.

 

[350401]

The most important thing is to avoid this government's abandonment becoming irreversible. Maintaining the protection from development on Phase 2 is one thing, but even more critical is making sure that Euston isn't cut back and hemmed in by development.


Enabling works are the things you do before you build anything - things like diverting utilities and relocating newts.

At risk of going off topic, for some stations there are more stages than just enabling works then the main civil works. For Curzon St, it was ground clearance, utility diversion, then building the piers for the line to come into the station and for the tracks to fan out, and then the main civils works to build the platforms and then the main building structure. All have separate designs and contracts. The ones that haven’t started are at risk of redesign and descope.

 

[JonathanH]

I don't see why a climate conscious and non populist Labour party that appears to be thinking about the future, and is aiming for at least 2 terms, would keep with what is essentially no long term plan for transportation in England.

I don't either, but they will still have to identify priorities. While they are thinking about the future, they have also commented on the vast scale of the 'rebuilding' effort they see as being necessary. HS2 Phase 2a simply isn't the only issue on that broad agenda.

One thing it has going for it is the enabling powers, but from the perspective of contribution towards long term planning, interventions elsewhere could also be seen as being just as important and worthy of funding.

As you say, a long term plan is needed but that will take time to assess.