Plan for cheaper HS2 Northern leg unveiled

[Trainman40083]

Perhaps they need to trundle through Crewe rather than doing 200+ mph on a through bypass track

If they go through Crewe any faster than current, the existing station will fall down

It appears they've just filed the serial numbers off of HS2 Phase 2, changed the scope to exclude the Manchester tunnels and then ascribed a magical reduction in cost.

I can't see this getting funded - it's just blindly hoping the Government will fall in line and turn the HS2 money back on.

Changing from slab to ballasted track is also..... I'm far from convinced that would be a good decision.

Yes, put the Manchester tunnels in the NPR budget, then it won't cost HS2 anything, and the cost just disappears. Of course if you don't tunnel under Manchester, I doubt Castlefield will ever be solved.

It appears they've just filed the serial numbers off of HS2 Phase 2, changed the scope to exclude the Manchester tunnels and then ascribed a magical reduction in cost.

I can't see this getting funded - it's just blindly hoping the Government will fall in line and turn the HS2 money back on.

Changing from slab to ballasted track is also..... I'm far from convinced that would be a good decision.

Yes, put the Manchester tunnels in the NPR budget, then it won't cost HS2 anything, and the cost just disappears. Of course if you don't tunnel under Manchester, I doubt Castlefield will ever be solved.

 

[snowball]

It appears they've just filed the serial numbers off of HS2 Phase 2, changed the scope to exclude the Manchester tunnels and then ascribed a magical reduction in cost.

They haven't dropped the Manchester tunnel as far as I can see. It's still needed, but as a result of decisions taken by the Tory government and confirmed by the Labour government, it's now part of (what remains of) NPR, not HS2.

They've tried to avoid including the Crewe tunnel but may not get away with it.

 

[Technologist]

Does that actually save significant money? To be fair, though, with the ability to run 400m trains there isn't much case for double deck (if it was necessary Eurostar would already be doing it), and aside from that as a passenger railway UK gauge is fine.

Also does double deck actually get you that many more seats?

Looking at the TGV we get more seats in a 9 car 800 series train.

Duplex 501 seats/200m = 2.505pax/m
Azuma 611 seats/233m = 2.62pax/m

However the French train has a dining car, if we compare a Ouigo with an all standard Azuma

Ouigo 644seats/200m = 3.22pax/m
Azuma 675seats/233= 2.89pax/m

It's an about 10% improvement in capacity, obviously we are comparing a loco hauled train to an EMU but a bit level high speed EMU isn't easy to get.

 

[The Ham]

As I see it part of the cost saving is by excluding the money spent on HS2 land costs.

I'm sure there's a consultancy who could sell the government a scheme which retains the HS2 specification but shaves £1.9 billion of the cost for £5 million.

 

[Trainman40083]

They haven't dropped the Manchester tunnel as far as I can see. It's still needed, but as a result of decisions taken by the Tory government and confirmed by the Labour government, it's now part of (what remains of) NPR, not HS2.

They've tried to avoid including the Crewe tunnel but may not get away with it.

Given all the "conflicting" movements and freight, around Crewe, I'd have thought the original plan was better in the longer term.

 

[may032]

As I see it part of the cost saving is by excluding the money spent on HS2 land costs.

I'm sure there's a consultancy who could sell the government a scheme which retains the HS2 specification but shaves £1.9 billion of the cost for £5 million.

Surely the saving is mostly from excluding the Crewe tunnel. Otherwise it’s almost identical to Phase 2A + the bit of 2B up until NPR.

Given all the "conflicting" movements and freight, around Crewe, I'd have thought the original plan was better in the longer term.

The original plan is 100% better in the long-term, but if that’s still considered too expensive by the Labour government then this isn’t a bad compromise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's an about 10% improvement in capacity, obviously we are comparing a loco hauled train to an EMU but a bit level high speed EMU isn't easy to get.

Not only that but you get worse luggage capacity as the overheads on double deck stock typically only take a coat or small handbag/laptop bag.

 

[stratford]

Seems like the report does a lot of changing the goal posts to justify it's cost savings. For example they admit that changing to ballasted track which affects the speed does not take into account the whole life costs which HS2 did.

So it could mean all these savings are not really that big but deliver a less capable railway for little real savings and in some ways larger cost in the long term.

Just build as originally designed.

 

[signed]

deleted

 

[Trainman40083]

Surely the saving is mostly from excluding the Crewe tunnel. Otherwise it’s almost identical to Phase 2A + the bit of 2B up until NPR.


The original plan is 100% better in the long-term, but if that’s still considered too expensive by the Labour government then this isn’t a bad compromise.

I am trying to recall what the actual cost of phase 2A and 2B was, without the Manchester tunnel. I seem to recall it was very small compared with the cost of the Southern section, which maybe be more built up. On the news the mayors talk of billions of £ growth per year. Makes the actual cost look small. I guess the return on that growth, has to find it's way to pay for the line in the first place.. The moment people think it is not their tax or pothole repairs paying for it, you make progress.. The reason for the line really should have been clearly explained at the start. Instead we got "saves Boris and his mates 20 minutes to Birmingham". Did he ever go by train to Birmingham?

 

[may032]

I am trying to recall what the actual cost of phase 2A and 2B was, without the Manchester tunnel. I seem to recall it was very small compared with the cost of the Southern section, which maybe be more built up. On the news the mayors talk of billions of £ growth per year. Makes the actual cost look small. I guess the return on that growth, has to find it's way to pay for the line in the first place.. The moment people think it is not their tax or pothole repairs paying for it, you make progress.. The reason for the line really should have been clearly explained at the start. Instead we got "saves Boris and his mates 20 minutes to Birmingham". Did he ever go by train to Birmingham?

It wouldn’t surprise me if the per km route cost was less than phase 1 even with the Manchester tunnel, given the 2 city approaches and 4 large stations included in phase 1. Without the Manchester tunnel, it would be much less.

 

[The Planner]

Would it even be any faster, the distance between Crewe & Manchester Airport I dobut they would get up to 400kph for more that a minute, even better Birmingham & Crewe it's only going to save a couple of minutes, it's entirely on maintenance cost

I don't believe 400kmh was ever on the table, but even if it was 360, 340 or 320, you cannot discount the time spent above the lower proposal getting to the higher one and back down. So it isn't x minutes at y speed, its x minutes above z speed.

 

[Trainman40083]

It wouldn’t surprise me if the per km route cost was less than phase 1 even with the Manchester tunnel, given the 2 city approaches and 4 large stations included in phase 1. Without the Manchester tunnel, it would be much less.

And without the Manchester tunnel, I doubt you ever solve Manchester. People ask where there are not more fast trains from Sheffield to Manchester. Hard enough to slot them in now. Add in the current ones can't be much longer, because of platform lengths at some stations. You take the bit from Stockport to Manchester, some freights go through to Trafford Park, one of the largest industrial estates in Europe, some cross to Denton , then Slade Lane from the Airport, then Ardwick. Then some fight for space through Oxford Road, again limited by length. Then delayed fast trains get held up stoppers with no passing loops. Then people want more reliable TPE services every 10 minutes, to reduce traffic on the M62 etc. They need a choice. More, better trains, ideally cheaper. To achieve that need capacity which only HS2 and NPR can hope to provide. What is then, the value in terms of growth?

 

[DiscoSteve]

I know I'm opening an old conversation, and maybe no longer relevant, but... the Costly Manchester Tunnel which delivers just two additional lines into the Piccadilly throat - given that Piccadilly down to Stockport is 4 tracked (and effectively 6 if you include the styal line) would it not have been cheaper to join up any new line south connecting somewhere near where that 4 tracking starts (i.e . Adswood)?

 

[Halish Railway]

I do hope that any High Speed schemes north of Birmingham also make an assessment of the route up to Preston, rather than being a scheme baked by the metro mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands to serve the needs of their respective constituents.

I know I'm opening an old conversation, and maybe no longer relevant, but... the Costly Manchester Tunnel which delivers just two additional lines into the Piccadilly throat - given that Piccadilly down to Stockport is 4 tracked (and effectively 6 if you include the styal line) would it not have been cheaper to join up any new line south connecting somewhere near where that 4 tracking starts (i.e . Adswood)?

The limit on capacity and growth isn't the number of tracks but the flat junctions. Joining at Adswood would mean that High Speed services would have to squeeze into a timetable that would have to accommodate conflicting movements at the Edgeley junctions and Slade Lane Junction. Really you'd have to grade separate these junctions to accommodate future growth and I don't see how this would be any less disruptive and expensive than building an entirely new line into Manchester.

 

[Sonik]

As I see it part of the cost saving is by excluding the money spent on HS2 land costs.

This

The new 'proposal' is essentially a re-branding and pot-shuffling exercise for political headline purposes. (The underlying project is clearly HS2, plus 'NPR' per IRP, with a little de-scoping here and there)

Personally, I wouldn't get too hung up on the details, because the goal of the document, IMO, is simply to re-baseline the debate, under the headings 'affordable' and 'essential capacity' (instead of 'too expensive' and 'high speed')

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Call me cynical but I suspect that, like most new rail proposals, it'll take ten times as long to build, cost ten times more than forecast and will be scrapped at the last minute because the NIMBYs and eco loons object.

 

[HSTEd]

Also does double deck actually get you that many more seats?

Looking at the TGV we get more seats in a 9 car 800 series train.

Duplex 501 seats/200m = 2.505pax/m
Azuma 611 seats/233m = 2.62pax/m

However the French train has a dining car, if we compare a Ouigo with an all standard Azuma

Ouigo 644seats/200m = 3.22pax/m
Azuma 675seats/233= 2.89pax/m

It's an about 10% improvement in capacity, obviously we are comparing a loco hauled train to an EMU but a bit level high speed EMU isn't easy to get.

The current TGV Duplex is fundamentally 90s technology - it has a lot more space for service equipment than is strictly necessary today.
The maximum capacity of a 200m TGV-M will be 740, rather than the ~644 of Ouigo.

That restores the capacity advantage to ~28%.
Also worth noting that the TGV Duplex does not take full advantage of the GC loading gauge (it's substantially shorter), so we could almost certainly have a double deck EMU if we wanted one.
EDIT: A TGV-M that is increased in height to the GC maximum has approximately ~150m3 of additional volume for traction equipment in the passenger vehicles

They haven't dropped the Manchester tunnel as far as I can see. It's still needed, but as a result of decisions taken by the Tory government and confirmed by the Labour government, it's now part of (what remains of) NPR, not HS2.

They've tried to avoid including the Crewe tunnel but may not get away with it.

The tunnel will still be needed, they've just magically excluded it from the budget of this project so that the project appears cheaper.
It's likely a scope change accounting trick, to get the Government to commit to this project so that they can use the sunk cost fallacy to get the tunnels later.

EDIT: edited for clarity/

 

[The Planner]

I know I'm opening an old conversation, and maybe no longer relevant, but... the Costly Manchester Tunnel which delivers just two additional lines into the Piccadilly throat - given that Piccadilly down to Stockport is 4 tracked (and effectively 6 if you include the styal line) would it not have been cheaper to join up any new line south connecting somewhere near where that 4 tracking starts (i.e . Adswood)?

It doesn't deliver them into the throat, they will be separate.

 

[snowball]

The tunnel will still be needed, they've just magically excluded it from the budget of this project so that the project appears cheaper.
It's likely a scope change accounting trick, to get the Government to commit to this project so that they can use the sunk cost fallacy to get the tunnels later.

If by "the tunnel" you mean the Crewe tunnel, I agree. If you mean the Manchester tunnel, then no. Its removal from the scope of HS2 is not something the mayors have done in today's announcement. Both the old and new governments had already announced their intention of going ahead with a Liverpool-Manchester line that coincided with the one proposed for NPR, and included the route of HS2 from Rostherne to Piccadilly

 

[fishwomp]

And without the Manchester tunnel, I doubt you ever solve Manchester. People ask where there are not more fast trains from Sheffield to Manchester. Hard enough to slot them in now. Add in the current ones can't be much longer, because of platform lengths at some stations.

What, with the 4-track trackbed from Guide Bridge to Ardwick, possibly enabling pairing by route at Ashbury's East Jct by using the space for a platform 0 and even a platform -1 where Network Rail have portakabins on at Man Pic? Nope I just can't see a solution either for the approaches to Manchester from Sheffield side!

Stockport is a relatively recent route for the expresses from Sheffield but even there the Hazel Grove chord might benefit from a second track..

Or perhaps look at current and old maps and see that the industrial units under the Lonsight-Pic viaduct used to have track passing under that viaduct, and could do that again - grade separation without new flyvers..

TBH, removing the two or three London expresses from the old lines won't fix much in Manchester.

To achieve that need capacity which only HS2 and NPR can hope to provide. What is then, the value in terms of growth?

It'll be over a decade away, if not two - 5+ years to plan it, to take the objections etc, 5+ years to build it.. and the money has to be found in one go because both NPR and HS2 part deux benefit no-one until the whole thing is completed.

 

[Trainman40083]

What, with the 4-track trackbed from Guide Bridge to Ardwick, possibly enabling pairing by route at Ashbury's East Jct by using the space for a platform 0 and even a platform -1 where Network Rail have portakabins on at Man Pic? Nope I just can't see a solution either for the approaches to Manchester from Sheffield side!

Stockport is a relatively recent route for the expresses from Sheffield but even there the Hazel Grove chord might benefit from a second track..

Or perhaps look at current and old maps and see that the industrial units under the Lonsight-Pic viaduct used to have track passing under that viaduct, and could do that again - grade separation without new flyvers..

TBH, removing the two or three London expresses from the old lines won't fix much in Manchester.


It'll be over a decade away, if not two - 5+ years to plan it, to take the objections etc, 5+ years to build it.. and the money has to be found in one go because both NPR and HS2 part deux benefit no-one until the whole thing is completed.

Your specific comment about removing two or three London expresses from the old lines. Okay add in 2 , maybe three fast trains from Birmingham. Then consider them out of the main station at Piccadilly, then think of more frequent more local trains that could occupy those platforms. Now NPR could run via the new route (existing trackbed under Warrington BQ and beyond Manchester to say the current Diggle route. Just need somewhere for HS2 trains to go beyond Manchester.

Just a thought....If you reduce the cost of HS2, by taking out slab track having ballasted track etc. So trains are ONLY 15 minutes slower. Over the longer term is that saving negated by increased track maintenance costs, more trainsets required, more station or depot space, more drivers, train managers , buffet staff, cleaners, engineers over the medium term? Do you still get the same level of modal shift from road, coach, air etc?

 

[camflyer]

Simon Calder on "Quite High Speed 2"

‘Quite High Speed Two’ rail from Birmingham to Manchester: Just the ticket after the Sunak shambles​

Now the mayors of Greater Manchester and the West Midlands are seeking to rescue this vital piece of infrastructure from the last prime minister’s bonfire of transport modernity. Andy Burnham and Richard Parker are backing a cheaper, slower version of the originally planned line. It would take the pressure from the West Coast main line north of Birmingham: offering a path for Quite High Speed trains through Staffordshire and Cheshire, connecting with Northern Powerhouse Rail.

‘Quite High Speed 2’ Birmingham-Manchester rail: Just the ticket after Sunak shambles

The Man Who Pays His Way: High Speed rail project was doomed to derision as soon as the name was chosen

www.independent.co.uk

 

[DiscoSteve]

I see Lord F'Nar F'Nar Esquire of Cheshire was squealing on BBC this evening about how tiresome the continued uncertainty on his pile in Cheshire was negatively affecting him and his family tonight - f**king nobhead!

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Simon Calder on "Quite High Speed 2"
‘Quite High Speed Two’ rail from Birmingham to Manchester: Just the ticket after the Sunak shambles

Supportive article from Simon Calder there, but we still have to see the detail, notably how to untangle Crewe.
It might also change the approach to NPR design, which HS2 Ltd has had in hand for several years without confirming a route or spec.
There's still the ultra-expensive High Legh-Manchester tunnelled route in the mix.

One of Simon's is that heavy lorries were moved off the M2/M20 to rail.
For various reasons, mainly to do with the channel crossing, I don't think freight has been a success on HS1/Eurotunnel routes.
Domestic freight, like commuter/regional services, will however benefit from the capacity increase of new rail links to the north.

 

[D Mylchreest]

This can only be a good thing and it's also good that there is a move back to the realistically specced HS1 rather than the ludicrously over specced HS2

 

[Energy]

This can only be a good thing and it's also good that there is a move back to the realistically specced HS1 rather than the ludicrously over specced HS2

I’m not so sure. This makes use of the route and land already bought by HS2 so the lowering in speed hasn’t benefited the route. The lowering in spec from European to GB gauge substantially lowers flexibility, especially if NPR happens. The change from concrete slab to ballast doesn’t consider whole life costs, just upfront. HS2 has been transparent that slab track has higher upfront costs but lower whole life costs.

To me the project is HS2 rebadged, with some slight short-sighted spec changes, conveniently ignoring the Manchester tunnel, and indecisive around Crewe.

The claimed cost reductions are misleading when they are compared to full HS2 to Manchester since the tunnel is lumped into NPR. I’m supportive of building HS2 to Crewe or High Leigh, then doing a through tunnel under Manchester and an underground station under NPR but phrasing it as saving money is disingenuous.

Arup did an excellent job with HS1, but they are too late for HS2.

 

[camflyer]

Just a thought....If you reduce the cost of HS2, by taking out slab track having ballasted track etc. So trains are ONLY 15 minutes slower. Over the longer term is that saving negated by increased track maintenance costs, more trainsets required, more station or depot space, more drivers, train managers , buffet staff, cleaners, engineers over the medium term? Do you still get the same level of modal shift from road, coach, air etc?

Maybe that will be true in the long run but that will be the difference between capital and operational budgets. Often it's easier to get political approval for something if the upfront capital cost is lower even if the ongoing maintenance costs are higher as it shifts the money into a future budget cycle and becomes "someone else's problem".

 

[jfowkes]

This can only be a good thing and it's also good that there is a move back to the realistically specced HS1 rather than the ludicrously over specced HS2

Maybe if HS1 had been slightly more overspecced (for example by using slab track instead of ballast) the track access charges would be a bit lower...

 

[HSTEd]

I very much doubt that slab track is going to meaningfully change the cost of a project like this.

I think they have just sliced literally everything they can off the budget to get the headline figure as low as possible, knowing they can always upsell later.

EDIT:
Additionally, reducing the loading gauge to ensure that double deck trains can never be used would be akin to surrendering ~30% of capacity potential, forever.
I am also very skeptical that doing this would save any money - unless they are planning to simply not change any of the structures and use the extra height for the ballast.