More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[zwk500]

Good idea. Though, as the station was never designed for this, I’d like to know what it needs to be capable.

It's a pretty bad idea operationally because you're wasting capacity with the first train waiting for the attaching portion and then multiplying delays if things run late. However from a technical point of view as HS2 will be using ETCS L2 I don't think it'd need anything notably different to allow attachment and detachment. All platforms will be straight, the only question might be whether the Axle Counter or Balise positions might need shifting around but it may well have been designed for portion working from the off in case there was an emergency or timetable change.

 

[LYuen]

I know most members of the forum we would love to have HS2 built, but think about it from jo public point of view. Is it a priority for more capacity on the West Coast Main line? They are certainly not bothered about a 20min faster journey Birmingham to London. The country feels poorer. 1 in 7 are stuck on NHS waiting lists. Most people I talk to want public money spent on NHS, Schools, Police, Pot holes, and local transport So I have to say its a vote winner to cancel the parts of the route that has been started. If politicians ask the public, they will want to cancel as much as the project as possible to get votes. I wonder if the cabinet is being briefed that the project is not a vote winner.

So I am not arguing weather the project should be built or its different because its capital spending but I can understand why politicians are having jitters about the project as the election looms.

It wasn't well communicated, but the purpose of HS2 is to relieve the congestion on WCML - move fast services to HS2 so there is capacity on WMCL for local services.
However, I agree that doesn't make sense with the 225/250mph specification without adopting the continental loading gauge or using locomotive-hauled trains.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

The polling disagrees

We don't get to see the polling and focus group activities that political parties conduct. Instead of being concerned with what a majority of UK voters think about X, Y or Z, political parties specifically want to know what swing voters in marginal constituencies think.

It's a pretty bad idea operationally because you're wasting capacity with the first train waiting for the attaching portion and then multiplying delays if things run late.

My understanding is that even with the originally proposed Y network to Manchester/Leeds and a Euston terminus available, services via HS2 formed from shorter length trains running to/from 'classic' routes such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Newcastle would have split/joined en-route. I can't now recall where that splitting/joining was proposed to take place, and although operationally it would present exactly the constraint you suggest, wasn't it always part of the plan?

 

[Energy]

My understanding is that even with the originally proposed Y network to Manchester/Leeds and a Euston terminus available, services via HS2 formed from shorter length trains running to/from 'classic' routes such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Newcastle would have split/joined en-route. I can't now recall where that splitting/joining was proposed to take place, and although operationally it would present exactly the constraint you suggest, wasn't it always part of the plan?

1tph splits at Crewe for Liverpool (as well as 1tph London - Liverpool) and Lancaster. 2tph London to Edinburgh/Glasgow splits at Carlisle.

 

[wilbers]

This government really is throwing in the towel.

or even throwing in the trowel.

 

[Howardh]

Is it true that if/when HS2 finishes at Handsacre, "ordinary" trains, such as Pendolino's, will simply run down the WCML and transfer on to HS2 but run at their normal top speed (125) or slightly faster on HS2; or will we have to transfer from one train to another, or will trains built for HS2 speed also be able to run on the WCML at slower speed?

Thinking it would be like the original Eurostar which chugged through the suburbs of London at low speed from Waterloo!

 

[Energy]

Is it true that if/when HS2 finishes at Handsacre, "ordinary" trains, such as Pendolino's, will simply run down the WCML and transfer on to HS2 but run at their normal top speed (125) or slightly faster on HS2; or will we have to transfer from one train to another, or will trains built for HS2 speed also be able to run on the WCML at slower speed?

The HS2 stock ordered is compatible with the classic network. Id expect Pendolinos to get moved around before ultimately retired.

 

[Howardh]

The HS2 stock ordered is compatible with the classic network. Id expect Pendolinos to get moved around before ultimately retired.

So basically I'd be boarding HS2 stock at Piccadilly, travel to Handsacre at 125 and then speed up? Will HS2 stock be able to travel a little faster on traditional lines, will they be tilting?

 

[JonathanH]

So basically I'd be boarding HS2 stock at Piccadilly, travel to Handsacre at 125 and then speed up? Will HS2 stock be able to travel a little faster on traditional lines, will they be tilting?

No tilt. Slower on traditional lines as a result to the extent tilt has been a factor in allowing higher speeds. Your 'at 125mph' should be 'at up to 125mph'.

For every train which runs onto HS2 to Old Oak Common off the classic routes at Handsacre, a train into Euston on the south WCML will have to be removed as capacity isn't being increased further north.

However, that begs another question. If 11-car Pendolinos between Euston and Manchester are replaced by 200m HS2 trains between Old Oak Common and Manchester on the same frequency, how is capacity maintained?

 

[Hadders]

WCML and transfer on to HS2 but run at their normal top speed (125) or slightly faster on HS2; or will we have to transfer from one train to another, or will trains built for HS2 speed also be able to run on the WCML at slower speed?

Pendolinos won’t go on HS2 rails. The HS2 trains will be able to run on the classic network at broadly the same speeds as the current fleet.

The time saving between London and (say Manchester) will come once the train is on the High Speed Line. Clearly the longer time spent on a high speed line the larger the time saving.

However, that begs another question. If 11-car Pendolinos between Euston and Manchester are replaced by 200m HS2 trains between Old Oak Common and Manchester on the same frequency, how is capacity maintained?

There will also be trains running on the classic line between London and Manchester to serve places like Watford, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Nuneaton so overall a big capacity increase.

Also the capacity increase comes from taking some trains off the south WCML so the paths can be used by other services giving a better service to places like Rugby, Milton Keynes, Northampton, Leighton Buzzard as well as allowing more freight to run.

 

[jfowkes]

I know most members of the forum we would love to have HS2 built, but think about it from jo public point of view. Is it a priority for more capacity on the West Coast Main line? They are certainly not bothered about a 20min faster journey Birmingham to London. The country feels poorer. 1 in 7 are stuck on NHS waiting lists. Most people I talk to want public money spent on NHS, Schools, Police, Pot holes, and local transport So I have to say its a vote winner to cancel the parts of the route that has been started. If politicians ask the public, they will want to cancel as much as the project as possible to get votes. I wonder if the cabinet is being briefed that the project is not a vote winner.

The project is being scaled back to (ostensibly) save money.

The government can't simultaneously claim to be cutting it to save money AND to have more to spend on schools, hospitals etc. Though I'm sure they'll try to spin it that way.

 

[Confused52]

The problem that I see is the promises already made to the NHS, and those that cannot be avoided in defence, are so huge that the National Debt can be driven to the point where the tax take will not support the extra interest charges that lenders will ask given the ever escalating costs of HS2. Deferring it allows the markets to assume it is going away and right now that is probably essential for Labour and Conservative governments. The things they are doing at the moment aren't about political advantage, the election is almost certainly too far away for the electorate to remember it for that long and the media has the attention span of a Goldfish.

 

[HSTEd]

Pendolinos won’t go on HS2 rails. The HS2 trains will be able to run on the classic network at broadly the same speeds as the current fleet.

Although the way things are going I would not be surprised if they tried to cut the classic compatible order in exchange for Pendolinos at 140mph.
But it is not currently in the plan.

 

[The Planner]

Although the way things are going I would not be surprised if they tried to cut the classic compatible order in exchange for Pendolinos at 140mph.
But it is not currently in the plan.

Would save NR the cash in 390 fitment as well, not that its ever going to happen.

 

[zwk500]

My understanding is that even with the originally proposed Y network to Manchester/Leeds and a Euston terminus available, services via HS2 formed from shorter length trains running to/from 'classic' routes such as Glasgow, Liverpool and Newcastle would have split/joined en-route. I can't now recall where that splitting/joining was proposed to take place, and although operationally it would present exactly the constraint you suggest, wasn't it always part of the plan?

The Split/joins are a bit of a compromise to maximise 400m trains on HS2 proper, as well as serving more destinations than dedicated trains. As mentioned the splits are at stations not on HS2 proper and so the pressure to maximise use of capacity isn't quite as great, and the risk of delay is a risk that is always a compromise/mitigation thing. Splitting at Birmingham Interchange would be a much poorer compromise.

 

[Agent_Squash]

The problem that I see is the promises already made to the NHS, and those that cannot be avoided in defence, are so huge that the National Debt can be driven to the point where the tax take will not support the extra interest charges that lenders will ask given the ever escalating costs of HS2. Deferring it allows the markets to assume it is going away and right now that is probably essential for Labour and Conservative governments. The things they are doing at the moment aren't about political advantage, the election is almost certainly too far away for the electorate to remember it for that long and the media has the attention span of a Goldfish.

This is all just a rouse to avoid the real issue; taxes are too low to support strategic government spending.

 

[The Ham]

I know most members of the forum we would love to have HS2 built, but think about it from jo public point of view. Is it a priority for more capacity on the West Coast Main line? They are certainly not bothered about a 20min faster journey Birmingham to London. The country feels poorer. 1 in 7 are stuck on NHS waiting lists. Most people I talk to want public money spent on NHS, Schools, Police, Pot holes, and local transport So I have to say its a vote winner to cancel the parts of the route that has been started. If politicians ask the public, they will want to cancel as much as the project as possible to get votes. I wonder if the cabinet is being briefed that the project is not a vote winner.

So I am not arguing weather the project should be built or its different because its capital spending but I can understand why politicians are having jitters about the project as the election looms.

The problem is (although again few probably understand this) you can't swap between capital expenditure and operating expenditure.

Let's take for example the NHS and assume that we were at the point of spending £100bn on RP6 (railway project 6).

Some would argue that we should spend that £100bn in the NHS, even if you could, then it's going to have to be spread over a timeframe. As otherwise you'll end up spending more than the £100bn (for example, £100bn every year going forwards would be £1trilluon in 10 years time).

Therefore over what timeframe. Over a short time (say) 10 years, you've then got to cut services in year 11 by £10bn to revert to the current funding package (which isn't likely long enough to be sure that those voting for you will actually benefit from the extra funding).

Over a long time (say) 40 years then the extra £2.5bn is so small that it's not likely to make much of a difference (at least not on the NHS where there's already £181.7bn a year being spent).

Also, given the recent fuss the government made about rebuilding 50 schools a year, when the reality is that at rate of rebuilding it would take 440 years to rebuild every school in the UK (to put that in perspective Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne 440 years ago) which is much longer than the design life of buildings (yes there's buildings that old, and older, but they are the exception rather than what is expected).

I, personally, would be very cautious about trusting the current government on anything they promised. I don't expect that I'm alone (although how many I don't know), so it may not be that clear cut.

Of course if the expected announcement on the removal of inheritance tax comes about (only paid in about 5% of estates) then I really don't know how to justify that whilst cutting HS2 due to costs.

 

[LYuen]

Is it true that if/when HS2 finishes at Handsacre, "ordinary" trains, such as Pendolino's, will simply run down the WCML and transfer on to HS2 but run at their normal top speed (125) or slightly faster on HS2; or will we have to transfer from one train to another, or will trains built for HS2 speed also be able to run on the WCML at slower speed?

Thinking it would be like the original Eurostar which chugged through the suburbs of London at low speed from Waterloo!

HS2 is planned to be completed in 2030-2040 even without delay. Pendolino will be approaching their end of life by then anyway.
It might be more sensible to look at newer rolling stocks such as the IET.

 

[350401]

The Split/joins are a bit of a compromise to maximise 400m trains on HS2 proper, as well as serving more destinations than dedicated trains. As mentioned the splits are at stations not on HS2 proper and so the pressure to maximise use of capacity isn't quite as great, and the risk of delay is a risk that is always a compromise/mitigation thing. Splitting at Birmingham Interchange would be a much poorer compromise.

IF Phase 2b is cancelled, is there an argument for ordering say, 10 or 11 car HS2 trains for the WCML services past Birmingham, instead of using 8 car units. Currently 8 car 200m trains are proposed, which is 25m per car, and this seats 528 people. An 11 car unit would be 275m (slightly longer than a 11 car pendolino) but based on IET capacity of 88 seats, then rounding down for the slightly shorter coaches, could sit another 80 per coach - 240 total - i.e. 768 per 11 car train. This is based on these extra coaches being standard class only and no extra accessible toilets or buffets being needed.

 

[mrmartin]

Let's assume that Euston and Phase 2a continues to go ahead, and it's just the Phase 2b that gets canned (for now at least). This may be ridiculously hopeful, but let's see.

How much of a capacity uplift will there be on this? You'll have the 'fast' birmingham, chester/nwales, glasgow, manchester, liverpool trains off the WCML south of Crewe.

Are the lines between Crewe and Chester, Manchester, Lpool and Glasgow at capacity? My guess is that only the Manchester line would be a bottleneck at current service levels, but I could be totally wrong.

 

[zwk500]

IF Phase 2b is cancelled, is there an argument for ordering say, 10 or 11 car HS2 trains for the WCML services past Birmingham, instead of using 8 car units. Currently 8 car 200m trains are proposed, which is 25m per car, and this seats 528 people. An 11 car unit would be 275m (slightly longer than a 11 car pendolino) but based on IET capacity of 88 seats, then rounding down for the slightly shorter coaches, could sit another 80 per coach - 240 total - i.e. 768 per 11 car train. This is based on these extra coaches being standard class only and no extra accessible toilets or buffets being needed.

Perhaps a question for a speculative thread.

Let's assume that Euston and Phase 2a continues to go ahead, and it's just the Phase 2b that gets canned (for now at least). This may be ridiculously hopeful, but let's see.

How much of a capacity uplift will there be on this? You'll have the 'fast' birmingham, chester/nwales, glasgow, manchester, liverpool trains off the WCML south of Crewe.

Are the lines between Crewe and Chester, Manchester, Lpool and Glasgow at capacity? My guess is that only the Manchester line would be a bottleneck at current service levels, but I could be totally wrong.

Chester/North Wales trains are staying on the classic WCML in all current plans due to need for non-electric capability beyond Crewe Electric Depot and desire to keep HS2 to pure EMUs. Long-term potential for Chester extension is written into most planning documents, and consideration of operational solutions to the question of best way to get an EMU over non-electric track has been done.

 

[philosopher]

Let's assume that Euston and Phase 2a continues to go ahead, and it's just the Phase 2b that gets canned (for now at least). This may be ridiculously hopeful, but let's see.

How much of a capacity uplift will there be on this? You'll have the 'fast' birmingham, chester/nwales, glasgow, manchester, liverpool trains off the WCML south of Crewe.

Are the lines between Crewe and Chester, Manchester, Lpool and Glasgow at capacity? My guess is that only the Manchester line would be a bottleneck at current service levels, but I could be totally wrong.

From what I understand, you would not be able to increase the total number of London to Manchester services due to the Crewe to Manchester line being at capacity. In effect the current London to Manchester via Crewe service would switch to HS2, but the other current two Manchester services would have to remain on the WCML for the entire length.

 

[matacaster]

I know most members of the forum we would love to have HS2 built, but think about it from jo public point of view. Is it a priority for more capacity on the West Coast Main line? They are certainly not bothered about a 20min faster journey Birmingham to London. The country feels poorer. 1 in 7 are stuck on NHS waiting lists. Most people I talk to want public money spent on NHS, Schools, Police, Pot holes, and local transport So I have to say its a vote winner to cancel the parts of the route that has been started. If politicians ask the public, they will want to cancel as much as the project as possible to get votes. I wonder if the cabinet is being briefed that the project is not a vote winner.

So I am not arguing weather the project should be built or its different because its capital spending but I can understand why politicians are having jitters about the project as the election looms.

Of course the unreliability of the train services due to repetitive strike action, regardless of whether you support them or not, may well be a factor in the governments decision making.me sunak may well feel that he doesn't like the railways being held hostage by the unions.

 

[350401]

From what I understand, you would not be able to increase the total number of London to Manchester services due to the Crewe to Manchester line being at capacity. In effect the current London to Manchester via Crewe service would switch to HS2, but the other current two Manchester services would have to remain on the WCML for the entire length.

The 2 services via Macclesfield (one non stopping) and Stoke on Trent would join HS2 at the Handsacre link in that scenario?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

How much of a capacity uplift will there be on this? You'll have the 'fast' birmingham, chester/nwales, glasgow, manchester, liverpool trains off the WCML south of Crewe.
Are the lines between Crewe and Chester, Manchester, Lpool and Glasgow at capacity? My guess is that only the Manchester line would be a bottleneck at current service levels, but I could be totally wrong.

You won't get the Chester/North Wales service off the WCML because HS2 trains won't go west of Crewe (same for Shrewsbury from Wolverhampton).
Chester capacity is also poor because of the long signal sections west of Crewe.
Probably in order of increasing congestion on the main line, it's Liverpool, Glasgow and Manchester.
But with HS2 only to Handsacre you've still got the North Staffs route to Manchester as well as via Wilmslow.

What you can't do is simply add HS2 trains to the timetable.
Pendolinos will have to be taken out and the timetable structured around HS2 trains at whatever speeds are defined for them.

 

[HSTEd]

From what I understand, you would not be able to increase the total number of London to Manchester services due to the Crewe to Manchester line being at capacity. In effect the current London to Manchester via Crewe service would switch to HS2, but the other current two Manchester services would have to remain on the WCML for the entire length.

You could squeeze a slow(er) service by extending the current Manchester-Crewe stoppers (via Styal and Stockport) to London or Birmingham in that situation.

They'd be slower than the ex Avanti services, but they would still be quicker than (or competitive with for Styal) today.

 

[MarkLong]

Seems PM face a lot of pressuare from people urge him not to cut phrase 2 of HS2.

On Sam Coates Sky: 'Earlier there were reports of a HS2 announcement this week. Now that’s a lot less clear and I’m told is just be in the context of the Autumn Statement in November And I’m told not to expect even guidance on IHT at Tory conference …'

 

[Class 170101]

From what I understand, you would not be able to increase the total number of London to Manchester services due to the Crewe to Manchester line being at capacity. In effect the current London to Manchester via Crewe service would switch to HS2, but the other current two Manchester services would have to remain on the WCML for the entire length.

Or get off HS2 at Handsacre and then head towards Stoke.

The problem is (although again few probably understand this) you can't swap between capital expenditure and operating expenditure.

Let's take for example the NHS and assume that we were at the point of spending £100bn on RP6 (railway project 6).

Some would argue that we should spend that £100bn in the NHS, even if you could, then it's going to have to be spread over a timeframe. As otherwise you'll end up spending more than the £100bn (for example, £100bn every year going forwards would be £1trilluon in 10 years time).

Therefore over what timeframe. Over a short time (say) 10 years, you've then got to cut services in year 11 by £10bn to revert to the current funding package (which isn't likely long enough to be sure that those voting for you will actually benefit from the extra funding).

Over a long time (say) 40 years then the extra £2.5bn is so small that it's not likely to make much of a difference (at least not on the NHS where there's already £181.7bn a year being spent).

Cancelling HS2 (any future phases) would be Capital expenditure rather than operational expenditure as you say Capital Expenditure comes by accruing debt (mostly it seems here) and paying back later, so cancelling getting a debt doesn't actually give you any money for tax cuts because it was all extra debt in the first place.

Also, given the recent fuss the government made about rebuilding 50 schools a year, when the reality is that at rate of rebuilding it would take 440 years to rebuild every school in the UK (to put that in perspective Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne 440 years ago) which is much longer than the design life of buildings (yes there's buildings that old, and older, but they are the exception rather than what is expected).

Whether its schools, hospitals or anything else I don't think this country is capable of many large infrastructure projects being built simultaneously. Where is the labour force coming from to do it? Before Brexit it seems to me it was mostly coming from the EU (and maybe elsewhere) but now we have become decidedly introverted as a country (said on Laura Kunnesberg programmme by former Greek Finance minister today) and it seems unwelcoming to foreigners regardless of their immigration status. Brexit it seems also hasn't helped with our both public and personal finances and I cannot beliefve that this, at least in part, is causing cost pressures on HS2 and other infrastructure projects

I, personally, would be very cautious about trusting the current government on anything they promised. I don't expect that I'm alone (although how many I don't know), so it may not be that clear cut.

You could argue that about any politician to be honest.

Of course if the expected announcement on the removal of inheritance tax comes about (only paid in about 5% of estates) then I really don't know how to justify that whilst cutting HS2 due to costs.

This is more about serving certain people and vested interests before the Tories are, most likely, kicked out probably for at least 10 years if not longer


This is what its all about for me and a lack of honesty and integrity to go with it sadly.

Yeah you can. If your goal is winning votes then as long as it makes a nice soundbite or headline, doesn't actually have to make sense.

 

[philosopher]

The 2 services via Macclesfield (one non stopping) and Stoke on Trent would join HS2 at the Handsacre link in that scenario?

This assumes the Handsacre link will get built if phase 2a goes ahead.

 

[Harvey B]

If The Manchester leg of HS2 is scrapped then is there still any point in building it at all.

Frankly, I think it should be either built in full as it was originally intended (which includes reinstating the now cancelled Leeds branch), Or it should be scrapped and cancelled altogether.