More Delay for HS2, and how should we proceed?

[Arkeeos]

They can only do things that aren’t going to bankrupt them in losing court cases.
How legally sustainable would it be for a local council to claim safeguarding for a national project the national government didn’t want?

They don’t have to claim safeguarding, but if labour were to give a wink wink nudge nudge to delay any work as much as reasonably possible, maybe those newts could be used to help some good infrastructure to be built.

 

[Trainbike46]

They can only do things that aren’t going to bankrupt them in losing court cases.
How legally sustainable would it be for a local council to claim safeguarding for a national project the national government didn’t want?

They'd only have to delay until after the election happens, which should be relatively easy given that until recently no-one was planning to build anything on the relevant site as it was reserved for HS2. It will be a few months at least for any planning applications to be sent in, at that point there'd only be a need to delay for about a year at most

 

[Energy]

They don’t have to claim safeguarding, but if labour were to give a wink wink nudge nudge to delay any work as much as reasonably possible, maybe those newts could be used to help some good infrastructure to be built.

The current administration barely have any control over their civil servants. While they won't say no I wouldn't be suprised if they decided to be as bureaucratic as possible to slow it down.

Any money recuperated the treasury will want to pay back HS2 loans and is very unlikely to let Sunak use it as a magic credit card.

 

[Arkeeos]

They'd only have to delay until after the election happens, which should be relatively easy given that until recently no-one was planning to build anything on the relevant site as it was reserved for HS2. It will be a few months at least for any planning applications to be sent in, at that point there'd only be a need to delay for about a year at most

The shard was in planning for 5? Years or so and that was with being accelerated by Johnson, honestly the normal planning process might end up killing their plan, it would be sweet irony, that the planning system that they cherish so much is what causes them to fail to salt the earth.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

You'd basically have to tunnel it all, and it'd cost a fortune, just like London is doing.

I'm not sure how much difference it would really make, anyway, as there's enough London-Manchester demand that running London-Birmingham-Manchester wouldn't be all that useful.

I suppose you can do high-frequency London-Birmingham-Manchester. A train every 10 mins for example. With a north-south station next to Moor Street and a new station on the WCML east of New Street, you can scoop up Bristol/Cardiff/Oxford to Manchester passengers onto a northbound London-Manchester train once it's deposited its Birmingham passengers.

 

[HSTEd]

I suppose you can do high-frequency London-Birmingham-Manchester. A train every 10 mins for example. With a north-south station next to Moor Street and a new station on the WCML east of New Street, you can scoop up Bristol/Cardiff/Oxford to Manchester passengers onto a northbound London-Manchester train once it's deposited its Birmingham passengers.

Ultimately you could push to 18tph on the London-Birmingham segment.

Tube line that happens to run at 200mph.

 

[domcoop7]

The shard was in planning for 5? Years or so and that was with being accelerated by Johnson, honestly the normal planning process might end up killing their plan, it would be sweet irony, that the planning system that they cherish so much is what causes them to fail to salt the earth.

The Town and Country Planning Act was first passed in 1947 by the Labour government (who also introduced the NHS). I don't know where you get the idea "they" (meaning Conservatives) cherish it so much - a lot of the right of the Tory party would scrap it tomorrow.

As for Camden Council, you seem to forget that the opposed HS2. The local MP for Camden, whose name is... let me just check... oh, that's right - Sir Keir Starmer KCB, KC, MP, was also elected in his constituency on a platform that included opposing HS2 and wanting it scrapped.

So the idea that Camden will now launch a rearguard action to save HS2 is somewhat unlikely.

 

[Oxfordblues]

My concern is the potential bottleneck between Handsacre Junction and Milford & Brocton, particularly the 2-track Shugborough Tunnel which already constricts traffic-flow. Some sort of Shugborough avoiding line must surely merit consideration.

 

[Snow1964]

My concern is the potential bottleneck between Handsacre Junction and Milford & Brocton, particularly the 2-track Shugborough Tunnel which already constricts traffic-flow. Some sort of Shugborough avoiding line must surely merit consideration.

That's a common view on here, ending at Handsacre is stupid, because need to also bypass the 2 track bottleneck.

Exactly how far much further should extend gets more varied answers, but the ideal seems to be joining the straighter section just north of Baldwins Gate.

 

[The Planner]

My concern is the potential bottleneck between Handsacre Junction and Milford & Brocton, particularly the 2-track Shugborough Tunnel which already constricts traffic-flow. Some sort of Shugborough avoiding line must surely merit consideration.

No one can afford that. It will be some tinkering at the edges.

 

[Greybeard33]

My concern is the potential bottleneck between Handsacre Junction and Milford & Brocton, particularly the 2-track Shugborough Tunnel which already constricts traffic-flow. Some sort of Shugborough avoiding line must surely merit consideration.

A Shugborough avoiding line is already fully designed, with land purchased along the alignment and preliminary civils works started. It's called HS2 Phase 2a....

 

[The Planner]

That's a common view on here, ending at Handsacre is stupid, because need to also bypass the 2 track bottleneck.

Exactly how far much further should extend gets more varied answers, but the ideal seems to be joining the straighter section just north of Baldwins Gate.

Orignal Stafford bypass was further back at Mill Meece

 

[Arkeeos]

The Town and Country Planning Act was first passed in 1947 by the Labour government (who also introduced the NHS). I don't know where you get the idea "they" (meaning Conservatives) cherish it so much - a lot of the right of the Tory party would scrap it tomorrow.

The conservatives have been in power for 14years and the act is still there, their core voter base is almost entirely concerned with blocking housing or blocking any kinds of development, it was only a year ago that housing targets were removed, which gives more power to that act, specifically for that core conservative demographic.

As for Camden Council, you seem to forget that the opposed HS2. The local MP for Camden, whose name is... let me just check... oh, that's right - Sir Keir Starmer KCB, KC, MP, was also elected in his constituency on a platform that included opposing HS2 and wanting it scrapped.

So the idea that Camden will now launch a rearguard action to save HS2 is somewhat unlikely.

What a politician says at the local level is always very different to what they say at the national level, and I was just saying that the planning system takes so long that nothing will happen before the next election, not necessarily that Camden would launch action to save it.

 

[Bald Rick]

So the idea that Camden will now launch a rearguard action to save HS2 is somewhat unlikely.

Their principal onjection was the land take and disrupton that would be caused. That has already happened (and continues). If I were Camden, I’d be absolutley campaigning for Eustonto be ‘saved’, and built auickly, so that they can gain from the benefit rather than just live with the disruption.

My concern is the potential bottleneck between Handsacre Junction and Milford & Brocton, particularly the 2-track Shugborough Tunnel which already constricts traffic-flow.

It’s the concern of most peple involved…

 

[The Ham]

Their principal onjection was the land take and disrupton that would be caused. That has already happened (and continues). If I were Camden, I’d be absolutley campaigning for Eustonto be ‘saved’, and built auickly, so that they can gain from the benefit rather than just live with the disruption.

Indeed, it should also be noted that it would have likely been those (and those who knew them) who had to move because of it would have been very vocal. Given they've now moved they are going to be a lot less vocal (or probably not even be bothered enough to say anything).

If anything it's more likely that they'll be vocal that something good happen, as they've gone through the upset of moving and now nothing is happening. They may even think that if something does happen is possible that it's going to be for the benefit of rich property developers and so may make them just as upset as they were about moving out.

 

[Fazaar1889]

What a politician says at the local level is always very different to what they say at the national level, and I was just saying that the planning system takes so long that nothing will happen before the next election, not necessarily that Camden would launch action to save it.

so do you expect the labour government to reinstate the northern legs?

 

[Snow1964]

Their principal onjection was the land take and disrupton that would be caused. That has already happened (and continues). If I were Camden, I’d be absolutley campaigning for Eustonto be ‘saved’, and built auickly, so that they can gain from the benefit rather than just live with the disruption.

That's the problem they closed and demolished buildings, and now want to leave it with blocked streets behind hoardings.

Its been stopped at the messy stage, where it looks like Luftwaffe created bombsite, no restoration or building for a while, just an unloved mess.

 

[Starmill]

so do you expect the labour government to reinstate the northern legs?

There's a decent chance of it being within the capacity of the incoming government to reinstate the 2a scheme as that already has consent, yes. While this can be undone it would require Parliament to repeal the act, or pass big amendments, which at present it seems these aren't things that the current government is pursuing. Even if the incoming government only takes power a full year from now this could still be practical. Euston will take more work I imagine, but within the bounds of possibility for something affordable to be found that can offer reasonable passenger and train set capacity.

Beyond that, who knows what state anything will be in.

That's the problem they closed and demolished buildings, and now want to leave it with blocked streets behind hoardings.

Its been stopped at the messy stage, where it looks like Luftwaffe created bombsite, no restoration or building for a while, just an unloved mess.

Yes. Extremely valuable land on which no economic activity is taking place, and which is causing severance issues as the years tick by, but which is still blocked from any kind of development. The worst of all worlds.

 

[eldomtom2]

Their principal onjection was the land take and disrupton that would be caused. That has already happened (and continues). If I were Camden, I’d be absolutley campaigning for Eustonto be ‘saved’, and built auickly, so that they can gain from the benefit rather than just live with the disruption.

But you're not Camden. Don't expect people to always be rational, especially when people may be holding out hope for some return of land.

 

[Bald Rick]

But you're not Camden. Don't expect people to always be rational, especially when people may be holding out hope for some return of land.

I didn‘t say I was Camden. But that‘s my advice to them.

 

[Starmill]

But you're not Camden. Don't expect people to always be rational, especially when people may be holding out hope for some return of land.

Sure, but that's for Camden residents to hold their councillors to account on.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Sure, but that's for Camden residents to hold their councillors to account on.

Holding Camden councillors to account is not the easiest thing, I can assure you...

 

[Arkeeos]

so do you expect the labour government to reinstate the northern legs?

I think it is highly likely that in 50 years time the full HS2 network is constructed, or something extremely similar to it.

 

[The Ham]

I think it is highly likely that in 50 years time the full HS2 network is constructed, or something extremely similar to it.

Indeed (although probably shorter than that).

Even if we don't hit pre COVID numbers of passengers for a decade it may well be that we exceed the HS2 model of 2.5% per year growth fairly quickly after the end of the strikes are sorted, as we were significantly ahead of that model in 2019 (should have been +28% was +70%, even in 2025 it only needs to reach +45% so would allow passenger numbers to be 85% of pre COVID numbers).

Whilst there's other factors when it comes to railway finances, it also needs to be remembered that the cost per seat of running HS2 services is likely to be lower (certainly lower staff costs and lower rolling stock lease costs, as they would be lower on a per train service basis between London and Manchester). As such, and even more so once it's known what extra services can run in the released capacity, it's probable that HS2 could reduce the cost to the country of the railways.

 

[fishwomp]

Even if we don't hit pre COVID numbers of passengers for a decade it may well be that we exceed the HS2 model of 2.5% per year growth fairly quickly after the end of the strikes are sorted, as we were significantly ahead of that model in 2019 (should have been +28% was +70%, even in 2025 it only needs to reach +45% so would allow passenger numbers to be 85% of pre COVID numbers).

COVID has reduced the peaks due to more remote working and remote meetings. The peaks were by definition when the most services were needed - that will surely be buying more time before capacity is reached for commuter-London service on WCML.

Whilst there's other factors when it comes to railway finances, it also needs to be remembered that the cost per seat of running HS2 services is likely to be lower (certainly lower staff costs and lower rolling stock lease costs, as they would be lower on a per train service basis between London and Manchester). As such, and even more so once it's known what extra services can run in the released capacity, it's probable that HS2 could reduce the cost to the country of the railways.

"Certainly lower staff costs". As we'll have 200m units coupled requiring extra staff on board vs a single 9 or 11 car WCML service today - on-board will be same; more trips per day are possible but netted against a fixed turn-around time, it might not make so much difference.

"Certainly lower rolling stock lease costs" - please explain. 54 sets, £2bn cost inc 12 yrs maintenance (HS2) (£4.5M per vehicle) - whereas the Avanti WCML Hitachi deal is £350m for 23 5-7 car sets (2.6M per vehicle)

"it's probable that HS2 could reduce the cost to the country of the railways." - because £50bn - £100bn extra debt, being serviced at 4% pa (£2-4bn pa) isn't real money, or something? That's between 10 and 20% of the _cost_ side of the _whole_ railway today - and for just 100 route miles.

How much extra revenue the thing brings is unknown but there seems to be a lot of double think on that. "it's costing nothing to own/run", "there'll be loads more revenue", and "fares will be cheap".

 

[mwmbwls]

Meanwhile in Manchester there is ordure poised to strike the rotating ventilator. HMG made geat play of a dual purpose facility terminal at Manchester Piccadilly - a terminus for HS2 and and turn back for NPR. This was a cunning plan ................the cunnigest plan since etc. The approach comstraint problems to Manchester were recognised when the WCML was first electrified - Slade Lane , the junctions north and south of Stockport Edgeley. Add to this the mayhem that a simple extra chord at Ordsall caused, flat junctions at ends of Salford Crescent and no extra platforms for Manchester Piccadilly's Oxford Road Corridor. Not so much levelling up as grinding down.

Now it would be simple just to blame the Government mainly because they deserve it. However the last Labour Government electrified only the link between Crewe and Stoke now used by LNWR. They announced a flurry of other scheme prior to their defeat. The execution of these schemes was mixed because of the decay of supply industry expertise - the GWR was a particularly egregious example of lack of continuity in design and execution. Since then we have struggled to get coherence - in part because the seventeen Tory Rail Ministers tend to have tenure equivalent to the lifespan of a classroom hamster.

On reflection - the Economist puts the case more cogently

Why rail electrification is so slow in Britain

Scotland is an honourable exception

www.economist.com

 

[The Planner]

Now it would be simple just to blame the Government mainly because they deserve it. However the last Labour Government electrified only the link between Crewe and Stoke now used by LNWR. They announced a flurry of other scheme prior to their defeat.

And that was only done to facilitate West Coast Route Mod works.

 

[The Ham]

COVID has reduced the peaks due to more remote working and remote meetings. The peaks were by definition when the most services were needed - that will surely be buying more time before capacity is reached for commuter-London service on WCML.

The post I was replying to we taking about HS2 in full within 50 years, I was suggesting it might be a bit quicker than that, and highlighting that we could fairly quickly be beyond the HS2 growth model. However I also did say that we may be up to 10 years out from surpassing pre COVID numbers.

"Certainly lower staff costs". As we'll have 200m units coupled requiring extra staff on board vs a single 9 or 11 car WCML service today - on-board will be same; more trips per day are possible but netted against a fixed turn-around time, it might not make so much difference.

A 9 coach 390 have 469 seats and make up about 2/5 of the fleet with the 11 coach units having 589 seats. Each need a driver and guard. For an average of 541 seats per service.

An 8 coach (200m) HS2 set is expected to have 550 seats and whilst running between "London" and Birmingham (or wherever they split) will likely run in pairs. Whilst this will mean that they'll need two guards, just one driver would be able to run the service.

On top of that there would be about 1 hour of time savings for the round trip to Manchester (London Euston, Manchester, London and ready to head back to Manchester) so instead of 5 hours of staff time per return trip it'll be 4 hours of staff time. (Running only to OOC isn't likely to change the numbers by very much).

If they don't split/join (which would give the biggest savings) there would still be a noticeable saving from the reduced journey times.

"Certainly lower rolling stock lease costs" - please explain. 54 sets, £2bn cost inc 12 yrs maintenance (HS2) (£4.5M per vehicle) - whereas the Avanti WCML Hitachi deal is £350m for 23 5-7 car sets (2.6M per vehicle)

You state that the HS2 stock includes maintenance for 12 years (which puts it at £385,000 per year per coach - just the maintenance of the 390's is currently costing £200,000 a year & whilst that includes an allowance for upgrades the lease will be on top of that) whilst the £350M is cited as including maintenance in some of the reports I've seen it doesn't say for how long. There are comments in the reports to the 390 maintenance which says the 390's and new trains until 2026, if that's the case how long is that £350M for? If only until 2026 and we assume 4 years then that's £460,000 (clearly that's unlikely), however at 8 years it's £380,000 so almost the same as the HS2 coaches. Without knowing how long those values are for you can't compare the two.

Anyway, again the time savings come into play, so even if the HS2 units did happen to be slightly more then the reduced journey time would reduce the cost per seat per trip value down to be close to the cheaper units (which depending on the values could even be slightly less).

"it's probable that HS2 could reduce the cost to the country of the railways." - because £50bn - £100bn extra debt, being serviced at 4% pa (£2-4bn pa) isn't real money, or something? That's between 10 and 20% of the _cost_ side of the _whole_ railway today - and for just 100 route miles.

The idea behind investment in infrastructure (roads included) is that extra economic growth reduces the costs of those loans by giving the government extra taxes to pay those loans.

For example that £50/hour in business travel savings which is often critsied it is generally not how much the individual is payed but rather how much their charged to a client. To put this in perspective engineering graduates may be charged out at slightly less than this, whist most engineers would be charged out at more than this.

Whilst the government doesn't always directly benefit for those efficiencies (for example it may do if it is the client on a project and a member of staff is having to travel), it would likely benefit from a larger tax take somewhere along the line from larger profits.

Also, whilst £4bn is a lot of money, if HS2 saw the predicted 100 million passengers a year that's £40 per passenger (again not all of that would have to be funded by ticket costs, in the same way that users of new roads don't have to pay a toll on every new road or improved road).

Of course the other factor to bear in mind is that there's the potential of other capacity enhancements for the existing network from the building of HS2, which could allow other services to be run where there would be little (or even maybe no) infrastructure costs to allow them to be operated.

Of course it's possible that some of the loan costs could be reduced by leasing HS2 (see HS1 as an example where a 30 year lease was sold for £2.1bn on a line which cost £5.8bn to build) to a third party. That could have allowed the government to repay about 1/3 of the cost, and therefore reduce the loan payments (even if there reality was that the government just didn't borrow as much in that year at our would have otherwise done so).

How much extra revenue the thing brings is unknown but there seems to be a lot of double think on that. "it's costing nothing to own/run", "there'll be loads more revenue", and "fares will be cheap".

I didn't say it would cost nothing, nor did I say that the revenue was going to be higher and whist a lower cost per seat could allow ticket prices to be reduced a little without impacting the profits, it should also be noted that there's also quite a few people who have said that ticket prices "have" to be higher as it's a High Speed service without justifying why the costs have to be higher.

 

[fishwomp]

[..]
On top of that there would be about 1 hour of time savings for the round trip to Manchester (London Euston, Manchester, London and ready to head back to Manchester) so instead of 5 hours of staff time per return trip it'll be 4 hours of staff time. (Running only to OOC isn't likely to change the numbers by very much).

If they don't split/join (which would give the biggest savings) there would still be a noticeable saving from the reduced journey times.

So, on a Manchester run, they'll use +1 extra staff for 2.5 hours out of each return trip [Lon-Brum bit] including overlap/leeway for reliability. Whereas they'll save 1 hour of driver+guard due to the shorter return. Umm, that's pretty much a wash. [NB we forgot to include catering..] Doesn't smell noticeable to me in terms of time. In terms of money.. staff cost is going to be sub 10% of the cost of the railway: each coach (per below) is £385k pa, so assuming a 16 hour working day, that on-board staff bill (2 shifts of 2-3 people) is in same ball park as cost of one coach. The saving, perhaps +10% or perhaps -10%.. smells like a +/-1% difference to running costs to me. Waste of time even thinking this is significant either way.

The idea behind investment in infrastructure (roads included) is that extra economic growth reduces the costs of those loans by giving the government extra taxes to pay those loans.
[...]

TL;DR.

Whilst the government doesn't always directly benefit for those efficiencies (for example it may do if it is the client on a project and a member of staff is having to travel), it would likely benefit from a larger tax take somewhere along the line from larger profits.

The cost-benefit of HS2 phase 1 is officially now 1.1, with plenty of optimism bias in the benefits which will include all that extra tax.. other estimates say it's below 1. Would digging a hole with a negative return be a good idea? If it is, should we all be digging holes now?

 

[Arkeeos]

The cost-benefit of HS2 phase 1 is officially now 1.1, with plenty of optimism bias in the benefits which will include all that extra tax.. other estimates say it's below 1. Would digging a hole with a negative return be a good idea? If it is, should we all be digging holes now?

HS2 was never intended to be just phase 1 though.