More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[Grimsby town]

As the Labour Treasury said on leaving office in 2010, "there is no money".
They might make a commitment in principle and restart the planning, but I doubt they will find the construction money in the short term (the next parliament) if the Tories cut the funds before the election.

The whole there is no money for infrastructure just isn't true. Going crazy and building huge amounts of infrastructure isn't a good idea as that can drive inflation and create unsustainable levels of debt for diminishing benefits. See HSR in China and Spain. Nobody can claim the UK overspends on transport infrastructure. Borrowing the money makes sense as borrowing is essentially taking money from future generations and HS2 benefits future generations.

 

[shakey1961]

Oh for God's sake just scrap the scheme!

 

[350401]

Well, the government rather nicely provided the future funds to get it right through from Euston (yes) to Manchester and Yorkshire.

What happened is the project went and spent it all on the first bit, just from London to Birmingham, by the combination we have all seen of gold plating just about every element of it imaginable.

This is wrong. The government and backbench NIMBY MP’s inserted the gold plating via the parliamentary hybrid bill process. The high cost is due to an excessive amount of the line being built in bored tunnels and cut and cover green tunnels in order to appease NIMBY’s. Had the line been on viaducts or built on level ground through NW London and the Chilterns, then the cost would be much lower. The government demanded excessive mitigations then acted surprised at the cost of them.

 

[daodao]

Now got reported on the BBC:

HS2: Government refuses to guarantee Manchester branch

The prime minister and chancellor are said to have concerns over spiralling costs and delays.

www.bbc.co.uk

The report suggests that phases 2a (Birmingham to Crewe) and 2b (Crewe to Manchester) are being lumped together in the current government consideration regarding further delays to the project. However, these 2 phases differ.

Phase 2b is much more expensive because of extensive tunnelling in Greater Manchester and thus poor value for money, only really benefits Greater Manchester and has not yet been approved yet alone started construction.

Phase 2a by contrast is much better value for money, benefits the whole of NW England, much of Scotland and North Wales (although the latter will merely have connections at Crewe), has been approved for some years and initial works have already started, with significant expenditure, which will be wasted if the project is cancelled.

There is an argument for considering the 2 phases separately, as hitherto, as there is a reasonable case for continuing to proceed with phase 2a, even if delayed, but shelving or even scrapping phase 2b.

 

[350401]

Yes and No - phase 2b on its own primarily benefits Cheshire and Manchester BUT it also forms the initial section of HS3 / Northern Powerhouse Rail. NPR uses the Fiddlers Ferry freight line to Warrington (heavily upgraded) then a new line is built along the old alignment of the Altrincham to Stockport line, as far as High Legh (just outside of Hale) where it joins the HS2 line into the Airport and Manchester. If 2B is scrapped, then a line will still need to be built between Warrington and Manchester - unless the existing line is used, which kind of defeats the point of NPR.

However, I can see the government proceeding with phase 2a and scrapping phase 2b despite this. My bet though is that an incoming Labour government may axe Euston entirely (as it’s the south) but instead accelerate 2b and NPR.

 

[HSTEd]

This is wrong. The government and backbench NIMBY MP’s inserted the gold plating via the parliamentary hybrid bill process. The high cost is due to an excessive amount of the line being built in bored tunnels and cut and cover green tunnels in order to appease NIMBY’s. Had the line been on viaducts or built on level ground through NW London and the Chilterns, then the cost would be much lower. The government demanded excessive mitigations then acted surprised at the cost of them.

Ground level construction is hardly cheap in the modern era, which is why railways in China et al are almost entirely built on viaducts.
Attempting to build anything at surface level is a false economy these days.

Even beyond the costs of the political damage of the huge scar in the landscape for years, the enabling works required for roads and utilities wipe out any savings over a viaduct approach. You spend years moving roads, footpaths, cables, pipes and god knows what else, before you can even build the railway.

As for tunnels, the line isn't really that heavy on tunnels compared to many foreign exemplars, many of which are still far cheaper. And it certainly doesn't explain why the Euston cost estimates were junk and collapsed almost immediately when they actually tried to design the station, which necessitated the 11-to-10 platform redesign in the first place!

In reality, the scheme was built upon worthless cost estimates from the beginning, leading to the optimisation process making terrible decisions.
Indeed tunnel sections had to be added into the scheme to keep the cost and schedule within reason - see the tunnel replacement of the proposed surface NNML section which was almost certainly unbuildable.

Things like redesigning tunnel ventilation shafts repeatedly to try and squeeze some material savings out of construction. Whilst running up an enormous bill for their time and effort.
Or the plan to save a tiny amount on muck disposal by reducing the tunnel cross section, which required complex computer simulations and the addition of giant tunnel entrance hoods to reduce sonic boom effects that wouldn't have existed if they'd just bored the tunnel marginally bigger


EDIT:

The 57km Mont d'Ambin Base Tunnel is projected to cost ~€8bn to complete, which is still somehow cheaper than HS2 Phase 1 per km!

 

[josh-j]

I’ve done Manchester to London before. I assume Birmingham is an hour away? If they scrap this what benefit is it? 20 mins off the journey at most? Seems such a tiny project. When do they expect the Birmingham stretch to open?

The line to Manchester is increased capacity. If it is curtailed at Birmingham, Manchester and many local stations will end up losing out in terms of overcrowding or limited services.

If it does get cancelled, this should be on everybody's minds whenever trains are overcrowded, services too infrequent etc. If a line is at capacity you can't just make the service more frequent. But if you move the fast services onto a brand new line the local services can be improved.

Unfortunately the "few minutes off your journey" justification has been the main one given from the start which probably never really made much sense from a marketing perspective. It's a new line - new line equals new capacity. It will be a real blow if it is curtailed.

 

[stuu]

The 57km Mont d'Ambin Base Tunnel is projected to cost ~€8bn to complete, which is still somehow cheaper than HS2 Phase 1 per km!

The issue is how much would it have cost to build if someone wanted to do it in the UK? Look at the insane projections for NPR - £40bn or whatever it got to, for a line shorter than that tunnel. Where does the money go?

 

[josh-j]

Oh for God's sake just scrap the scheme!

I strongly disagree. The scheme should be built as originally planned right the way through.

If this is scrapped there's going to be a massive limit on rail growth for decades to come, right at the time we should be getting loads more people onto rail and other public transport. For the most part I think the issues that have arisen have come about because the government keeps trying to change the scope, which is not something easily done with a large project. In other words what was a good scheme is being run into the ground; the problem isn't HS2, it's politicians eating the scheme by means of scope changes.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The government set £96 billion as the budget for the Integrated Rail Plan (IRP) in November 2021.
This included the then costs of completing HS2 to Manchester, and £42 billion for other projects in the North and Midlands including NPR.
As inflation bites, that figure will buy you less and less.
I suspect DfT and HS2 Ltd will be asked to rework the plans to meet the original budget.
Inevitably this will mean cuts to plans north of Birmingham, and maybe also to wider NR enhancement plans.

 

[Gerald Fiennes]

The branch to Manchester, as currently proposed, is just unbelievably expensive. Perhaps the focus should be on making it less so? Would using some of the existing route from Crewe to Stockport be such a bad thing? Is a connection to the Airport really worth the cost of the major deep level works involved? Perhaps just a grade-separated junction to get the line into new platforms alongside Piccadilly? Would eg. 300m platforms for Stockport and Piccadilly do the job? A more progressive upgrade from Liverpool eastwards, perhaps as a higher priority given that the existing routes are so obviously slow and both lead to the very congested routes into Manchester? Wouldn't four tracking of some the Chat Moss route be a cheaper and quicker option?

Those that visit France will see here that the TGV planners generally have gone to some lengths either to upgrade the existing corridors into major cities (eg. Paris, Lyon, Bordeaux, Marseilles) or build bypasses in open countryside to avoid the costs of new lines in major cities (eg. Avignon, Montpellier, Lyon-Satolas, the Interconnection route via CDG and the first stages of the TGV Rhin-Rhone). The only exception is the wholly new line at the edge of Lille's city centre for the LGV-Nord branch to the UK via Lille Europe, built at the tail end of the Mitterand period.

Contrary to popular belief in the UK (and here!), the TGV network here has also faced budgetary constraints right from the start and SNCF has often been quite cautious in its proposed scopes, making significant use of existing lines (eg. to access Dijon, Switzerland, Grenoble, the Atlantique region and, until very recently, Bordeaux). The long-running failure to agree a wholly new route from Marseilles along the Cote d'Azur to Nice, obviously a very difficult terrain to construct in, is the best example of this (with the current plan being to upgrade most of the existing alignment), as is the plan for a further TGV to Clermont-Ferrand and possible extension to Lyon to provide further Paris-Lyon capacity (on hold). Whether the Mont d'Ambin tunnel can be built to budget, however, remains to be seen....!

 

[PsychoMouse]

Is a connection to the Airport really worth the cost of the major deep level works involved? Perhaps just a grade-separated junction to get the line into new platforms alongside Piccadilly?

No reason why this shouldn't be a solid option tbh. Have an airport station around Wilmslow and connect it to the airport via the Metrolink line.

This is effectively whats happening at Birmingham Airport already.

 

[AndrewE]

Sadly, I have to agree.

Some time ago I was told off for speculating that this would be the result, given the BCR was below zero, and that this was the only part fully committed part.

Interesting quote in the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...confirm-hs2-will-run-to-manchester-sunak-hunt (HS2 at risk of further cuts to route north of Birmingham amid budget squeeze) says

He added: “Given that phase 1, the most expensive bit of the route, is already under way and that the strongest benefit-cost ratios are found in the northern sections, it makes no sense to stop now.”

The cost of HS2 has escalated, partly because of high inflation in wages and building materials, although supporters have said that delay, indecision and reviews have also piled on added cost.

This is wrong. The government and backbench NIMBY MP’s inserted the gold plating via the parliamentary hybrid bill process. The high cost is due to an excessive amount of the line being built in bored tunnels and cut and cover green tunnels in order to appease NIMBY’s. Had the line been on viaducts or built on level ground through NW London and the Chilterns, then the cost would be much lower. The government demanded excessive mitigations then acted surprised at the cost of them.

I understood that it was even worse, that the super-high speed line required slab track or cemented ballast but the cost of that was compounded by the insistence that the contractors took all the risk of maintaining it in perfect condition (infinitely more difficult than doing the same with ballasted track) which brought long-term finance and insurance companies in to parasitise the contracts too.

 

[Taunton]

This is wrong. The government and backbench NIMBY MP’s inserted the gold plating via the parliamentary hybrid bill process. The high cost is due to an excessive amount of the line being built in bored tunnels and cut and cover green tunnels in order to appease NIMBY’s. Had the line been on viaducts or built on level ground through NW London and the Chilterns, then the cost would be much lower. The government demanded excessive mitigations then acted surprised at the cost of them.

The figures are all published for what the cost estimates were with the current extent of tunnelling, and what the subsequently revised, and re-revised, estimates now are. The ballooning and the gravy train for those involved has just carried on and on.

 

[JamesT]

Interesting quote in the Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/busines...confirm-hs2-will-run-to-manchester-sunak-hunt (HS2 at risk of further cuts to route north of Birmingham amid budget squeeze) says


I understood that it was even worse, that the super-high speed line required slab track or cemented ballast but the cost of that was compounded by the insistence that the contractors took all the risk of maintaining it in perfect condition (infinitely more difficult than doing the same with ballasted track) which brought long-term finance and insurance companies in to parasitise the contracts too.

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/slab-track-for-hs2/ claims the whole life cost of slab track is lower.

For the above reasons, HS2 concluded that, although ballasted track would be less expensive to install, slab tracks will have a lower whole-life cost, a lower whole-life carbon footprint and will avoid the need for the unacceptable disruptive maintenance and renewals associated with ballasted track. HS2 must take a long-term view and so, rightly, chose slab track.

It also says there would be issues with ballasted track even down at 300kph, so you would have to downgrade significantly if you wanted to go back to that.

 

[stuu]

I understood that it was even worse, that the super-high speed line required slab track or cemented ballast but the cost of that was compounded by the insistence that the contractors took all the risk of maintaining it in perfect condition (infinitely more difficult than doing the same with ballasted track) which brought long-term finance and insurance companies in to parasitise the contracts too.

The contract cost for phase 1 is £260m, and the slab track system is modular, a bit like Hornby track which can be (relatively) easily replaced if needed. No mention of long term maintenance

 

[Taunton]

It also says there would be issues with ballasted track even down at 300kph, so you would have to downgrade significantly if you wanted to go back to that.

One wonders how the French TGV manages to run at 300kph on ballasted track then. Sounds like engineers' hyperbole to protect their gold plating.

It's like saying don't have a mortgage for your house, pay cash, it works out cheaper long-term. Maybe, but I haven't got the cash. This is not some economist's theory being discussed, this is real world.

 

[MattRat]

https://www.railengineer.co.uk/slab-track-for-hs2/ claims the whole life cost of slab track is lower.

It also says there would be issues with ballasted track even down at 300kph, so you would have to downgrade significantly if you wanted to go back to that.

I mean, maybe that would actually be a good thing. The line is needed for more capacity, why did we go all out on speed? 250 kph would be fine for our needs in the UK, and it would easier to extend to places like Scotland.

 

[Goldfish62]

One wonders how the French TGV manages to run at 300kph on ballasted track then. Sounds like engineers' hyperbole to protect their gold plating.

It's like saying don't have a mortgage for your house, pay cash, it works out cheaper long-term. Maybe, but I haven't got the cash. This is not some economist's theory being discussed, this is real world.

Indeed. And a few months ago I was sailing through Kent at 300kph on blasted track on HS1.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No reason why this shouldn't be a solid option tbh. Have an airport station around Wilmslow and connect it to the airport via the Metrolink line.

I can see there may well be certain problems arising from this aspiration as the future Metrolink expansion plans that currently lie dormant are all situated within Greater Manchester, which Wilmslow most certainly is not. Ask yourself the reason why the proposed HS2 Manchester Airport station was planned to be situated where it was.

 

[HSTEd]

One wonders how the French TGV manages to run at 300kph on ballasted track then. Sounds like engineers' hyperbole to protect their gold plating.

By burning huge amounts on track maintenance every year, and operating far less intensely than is proposed for HS2.

There is a reason Shinkansen are now built almost entirely on slab track, even at speeds as low as 260kph.

 

[stuu]

One wonders how the French TGV manages to run at 300kph on ballasted track then. Sounds like engineers' hyperbole to protect their gold plating.

By mostly not running anything like as many services as (were) planned, and having a daylight hour with no services at all for inspection

 

[The Planner]

One wonders how the French TGV manages to run at 300kph on ballasted track then. Sounds like engineers' hyperbole to protect their gold plating.

It's like saying don't have a mortgage for your house, pay cash, it works out cheaper long-term. Maybe, but I haven't got the cash. This is not some economist's theory being discussed, this is real world.

Indeed. And a few months ago I was sailing through Kent at 300kph on blasted track on HS1.

How often are they replacing it?

 

[PsychoMouse]

I can see there may well be certain problems arising from this aspiration as the future Metrolink expansion plans that currently lie dormant are all situated within Greater Manchester, which Wilmslow most certainly is not. Ask yourself the reason why the proposed HS2 Manchester Airport station was planned to be situated where it was.

I'm just throwing out possibilites. A tram line or even a people mover sounds cheaper and easier than tunnelling though Manchester.

 

[Geogregor]

However, I can see the government proceeding with phase 2a and scrapping phase 2b despite this. My bet though is that an incoming Labour government may axe Euston entirely (as it’s the south) but instead accelerate 2b and NPR.

Not going to happen. Euston is needed for services running anywhere else than Birmingham.

Old Oak Common does not have enough capacity to turn around too many services. Not enough platforms.

 

[Richardr]

Not going to happen. Euston is needed for services running anywhere else than Birmingham.

Old Oak Common does not have enough capacity to turn around too many services. Not enough platforms.

Isn't Old Oak Common also a single point of failure for journeys onward and capacity constrained in that it is just the Elizabeth Line from there, and that can be pretty full today. Euston has the Northern, Victoria, Circle, Met, Hammersmith and City, trains elsewhere, and Kings Cross and St Pancras a short walk away with other trains northward and southward, and the Piccadilly line.

 

[Manutd1999]

I some ways I think Phase 2b has a better justification than 2a.

Phase 2b unlocks a lot of extra capacity in Manchester and deals with probably the most complex part of NPR at the same time. In contrast Phase 2a is a "only" journey time reduction. I don't see a great need for additional capacity on the WCML north of Handsacre.

Maybe the priority of the two phases should be switched? Phase 2b could be delivered earlier and tweaked to better align with NPR (e.g. including the full section towards Warrington), connecting to the existing line to Crewe south of the Airport.

An incoming Labour government could also spin it as starting the next phase in the North to aid "leveling up".

 

[Howardh]

Reading social media etc, am I now to believe the chances of it ever reaching Manchester are slim?? I've lost touch as to what's going on, thinking at 65 this month, I'm very unlikely to be able to use it so I just switch off. What's the latest??

 

[Geogregor]

Maybe the priority of the two phases should be switched? Phase 2b could be delivered earlier and tweaked to better align with NPR (e.g. including the full section towards Warrington), connecting to the existing line to Crewe south of the Airport.

An incoming Labour government could also spin it as starting the next phase in the North to aid "leveling up".

The problem with that idea is that while phase 2a is practically ready to build (and it is relatively simple stretch to construct) the 2b is years away, even it gets go ahead. It still doesn't have parliamentary approval. After that there will be years of design before anything approaching construction can happen. And it will be long and complicated construction.

Reading social media etc, am I now to believe the chances of it ever reaching Manchester are slim?? I've lost touch as to what's going on, thinking at 65 this month, I'm very unlikely to be able to use it so I just switch off. What's the latest??

Unless you live until 90 you are unlikely to use HS2 to Manchester. And even that I would say is slim chance...

 

[The Planner]

Not going to happen. Euston is needed for services running anywhere else than Birmingham.

Old Oak Common does not have enough capacity to turn around too many services. Not enough platforms.

Why? Birmingham is 3tph, OOC can cope with more terminating than that. It cant do the full service but it could easily fit more.

I some ways I think Phase 2b has a better justification than 2a.

Phase 2b unlocks a lot of extra capacity in Manchester and deals with probably the most complex part of NPR at the same time. In contract Phase 2a is a "only" journey time reduction. I don't see a great need for additional capacity on the WCML north of Handsacre.

Maybe the priority of the two phases should be switched? Phase 2b could be delivered earlier and tweaked to better align with NPR (e.g. including the full section towards Warrington), connecting to the existing line to Crewe south of the Airport.

Colwich says hello.