That's exactly what I want, I would be fine with it if it was completed in that way, I also think that HS3 and Phase 2b should be a priority and done in a similar tunnelled route,with a few more classic rail connections.
If you build you phase 2b first either you have to build Curzon Street anyway (which would push the costs up for phase 2b and reduce the costs for phase 1) as I'm not sure what extra services you could run without it, or you would be limited to running Leeds/York to the East Midlands.
Now it could be that phase 2b could be started to be built sooner and/or faster so that it opens sooner. Although given the size of the project doing this could be difficult and run the risk of costs being higher than you would otherwise need.
This would be supply and demand, if HS2 had more works at the same time then there would be a need for more construction resources. Let's say that there's a limit of 100 of HS2 is taking 15 then there's still lots left for other works. However if it requires 30 then sky-high there's still a lot left that's likely to mean that the cost will have gone up to use them as there would be more other projects bidding to use them.
There is the risk to fall into the HS2 paradox, we want HS2 in the North more than in the South, that's not on the table and so we don't want HS2 at all.
Clearly it's better to get HS2 in 2040, or even 2060, than not have it at all. Yes there'll be less of us around to see it, but actually what does it matter if we can use it. The question should be, would the country be better off of HS2 existed? Part of that requires you to answer other questions including:
Do we need or not more rail capacity?
How will this help with carbon neutral goals?
What's the alternative if we don't?
Are there better value ways (these may not be just the cheaper ones) to achieve this?
I know I keep harping on about it, but rail growth has it performed what it should have done to justify HS2, which then results in it being better value than it otherwise would be. This also allows it to absorb some of the additional costs.
View media item 3340
In 2009 rail usage between London and the North West had 6,576,000 passenger movements per year. Based on predictions (2.5% growth per year) the target passenger movements per year for future years would have been:
2018 - 8,213,000
2026 - 10,280,000
2027 - 10,537,000
2033 - 11,894,000
Well in 2018 the actual figure was 11,213,000 which is:
36.5% higher than predicted for 2018
9.1% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 1
6.4% higher than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a
5.7% lower than predicted for the opening of Phase 2a
If growth continues at an average of 2.5% per year then there's a 1/3 extra passenger movements to cover the post of the increases in costs.
If growth broadly results in passenger movements being the same then there could be problems with the increased costs. However when has that ever happened when you've provided extra capacity? As such that's a fairly unlikely outcome, which makes the outcome that passenger numbers will fall even less likely.
However another possible outcome is that there would be faster than 2.5% per year growth. If that happens then it could be that by 2040 could have seen growth, assuming 2.75% growth per year, to 20,366,000 (81.6% higher than today).
Assuming that the average loading of trains today was currently the first figures then the second figure would be the loadings in 2040 without building HS2:
40% / 72%
50% / 90%
60% / 109%
70% / 127%
80% / 145%
90% / 163%
Now if we build HS2 with its trains axle to carry 1,100 passengers then those loadings drop from/to:
72% / 38%
90% / 48%
109% / 58%
127% / 68%
145% / 77%
163% / 87%
That would mean that in 2040 comparable HS2 services could be almost as busy as they are now in passenger loading terms. The above is based on the assumption that we are comparing 11 coach trains with the new HS2 services.
That's with 2.75% growth per year, which is hardly a large amount. If it is lower growth then we'll hit those capacity figures a bit later. If it's higher than we got then sooner:
1.5% growth then 2060
2% growth then 2050
3% growth then 2038
4% growth then 2033
Now that higher figures are fairly unlikely, and is unlikely to be achieved, mostly because there'd be so little time after any part of HS2 is built for you to see growth because of the extra capacity.
However the opposite is also true, that growth of as little of 1.5% is also unlikely because of the big capacity improvements from HS2 attracting more users.
Either way, comparable services could be as well loaded by about the middle of this century with HS2 as they are now without it.