Restarting HS2a

[HSTEd]

It needs an HS2 connection to the south, certainly.

Northwards, Manchester is too close to usefully use HS2 (given that trains take 40km to get up to 360km/h, and 10km to stop). So the northern connection would really only be useful for Scotland services. And those can go via Warrington.

The 360km/h top speed is a bit of a read herring, 300km/h can be achieved rather quickly and still absolutely thrashes the classic line.

 

[daodao]

Phase 2a is not the whole of the gap. There is also the southern part of phase 2b, without which there is no means of trains getting from the WCML into the proposed tunnel under south Manchester.

Stripping out the Rostherne-Crewe section of HS2 means that constructing the remaining element of HS2b from Rostherne to Manchester Piccadilly, which would be extensively tunnelled, solely for NPR, would be extremely expensive and is likely to have a poor BCR. A roundabout route via Rostherne won't improve Manchester-Liverpool journey times and there would also need to be more expensive infrastructure to connect a redesigned Manchester Piccadilly station to a tunnel through the Pennines and to Leeds and beyond, as well as a new line from Liverpool to Rostherne. The rail proposal in the King's Speech to deliver NPR is hopefully merely a sop to Burnham et al, and won't actually happen as it is unnecessary and unaffordable. By contrast, resurrecting at least part of HS2 phase 2a (if required with another name) from Handsacre to a point between Stafford and Crewe is both necessary and relatively affordable compared with constructing NPR.

 

[Topological]

Stripping out the Rostherne-Crewe section of HS2 means that constructing the remaining element of HS2b from Rostherne to Manchester Piccadilly, which would be extensively tunnelled, solely for NPR, would be extremely expensive and is likely to have a poor BCR. A roundabout route via Rostherne won't improve Manchester-Liverpool journey times and there would also need to be more expensive infrastructure to connect a redesigned Manchester Piccadilly station to a tunnel through the Pennines and to Leeds and beyond, as well as a new line from Liverpool to Rostherne. The rail proposal in the King's Speech to deliver NPR is hopefully merely a sop to Burnham et al, and won't actually happen as it is unnecessary and unaffordable. By contrast, resurrecting at least part of HS2 phase 2a (if required with another name) from Handsacre to a point between Stafford and Crewe is both necessary and relatively affordable compared with constructing NPR.

I suspect this is now going to end up in the usual "but Liverpool Airport..." rubbish that appeared on the Manchester to Liverpool line thread.

Serving Manchester Airport (the only Northern airport with direct flights to America, Hong Kong, Beijing, Dubai, Singapore etc.) is essential if the North is to be globally connected. The only route to Liverpool is the one which HS2 directs via Manchester Airport.

Hopefully Labour are willing to make the investment needed and will not be distracted by the fact there are cheaper routes between the cities.

 

[Snow1964]

It is not yet clear what the phase 2b Bill in Parliament will actually specify. Clearly it is easiest to restart it as already drafted, rather than rewrite big chunks.

It is likely to contain an amendment to include a spur towards Liverpool.

Might include an alternative for linking NPR to Crewe area ( the reality is if build the section to lower linespeed, say 250km/h then probably only to add 2 minutes to journey, but save a fortune on build costs)

 

[snowball]

It is not yet clear what the phase 2b Bill in Parliament will actually specify. Clearly it is easiest to restart it as already drafted, rather than rewrite big chunks.

Surely it will simply be the existing bill with everything south and west of Rostherne deleted, leaving the line from Piccadilly ending in a field, and relatively minor consequential changes.

It is likely to contain an amendment to include a spur towards Liverpool.

(The rest of this post is heavily edited from what I originally wrote, as I've realised I might have misunderstood you about a "spur".)

By a spur, do you mean just a few hundred yards, with the bulk of the route to be announced later? The phase 2b bill already includes such a spur.

If you mean any more than that, then my remarks below apply.

Might include an alternative for linking NPR to Crewe area

I'd say that's inconceivable, unless the bill is to be held in suspension for years before it is further considered by parliament. To have a bill you need very detailed plans. There hasn't even been a preliminary route announcement or consultation yet - except via the HS2 phase 2b route, but the government has said it is dropping that.

Rostherne is about 9 miles in a straight line from the nearest point on the WCML.

( the reality is if build the section to lower linespeed, say 250km/h then probably only to add 2 minutes to journey, but save a fortune on build costs)

There are numerous posts on this site, by people more expert than me, denying claims by other posters that reducing the speed saves a lot of money.

 

[HSTEd]

Journey time, also allows an extra Trent Valley stopper as well as crossing moves at Stafford. If it was such a bad idea, why was the Stafford bypass even conceived years before HS2?

On the other hand, the Stafford bypass was never progressed to construction despite being proposed for quite a while (as I recall anyway).

 

[350401]

I believe that the NPR plans also include passive provision for a chord between the new NPR line and the WCML at Warrington, enabling trains to go Crewe to Manchester via the WCML then use the chord to join the NPR line into Manchester Airport and the tunnel into Manchester. Thus if 2a is revived, and the connecting chord is built, the bottleneck becomes the WCML - and based on other threads, that could be solved by 4 tracking the lines in the Weaver valley.

 

[The Planner]

On the other hand, the Stafford bypass was never progressed to construction despite being proposed for quite a while (as I recall anyway).

Provision was left for it in the signalling under WCRM.

 

[Nottingham59]

Provision was left for it in the signalling under WCRM.

If they got to the level of providing for it in the signalling, there must have been specific plans about where any Stafford bypass was going to go. Is there a map anywhere that shows the planned route?

EDIT: Might it have been what Atkins refer to as the Low Cost Option in the 2016 paper
Rail Alternatives to HS2 Phase 2a

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The outgoing government was proposing to delete the southern part of phase 2b from the bill, but I can't remember whether they got as far as doing so before parliament was dissolved for the general election.

There was some tinkering on the last day of the last parliament on this, and I think the Crewe-Rostherne section was formally dropped from the HS2b bill.
Huw Merriman made some sort of statement to the house, but I haven't seen a proper write-up of all that.
I also haven't seen if the HS2b bill, in some form or other, is going to be picked up by Labour, but it would be surprising if not.

 

[snowball]

I also haven't seen if the HS2b bill, in some form or other, is going to be picked up by Labour, but it would be surprising if not.

They're going to do just what the previous government was going to do. See #160 above. (King's Speech briefing notes)

 

[SynthD]

There was some tinkering on the last day of the last parliament on this, and I think the Crewe-Rostherne section was formally dropped from the HS2b bill.
Huw Merriman made some sort of statement to the house, but I haven't seen a proper write-up of all that.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-05-21/debates/809121ED-6933-4185-B0C2-AABBE76D4E17/HighSpeedRail(Crewe-Manchester)Bill(Instruction)(No3)?highlight=rostherne#contribution-0B1B613D-E301-441B-A90A-0D5BE116031B

The Committee [should], before concluding its proceedings, amend the Bill by—
(a) leaving out provision relating to a railway between a junction with Phase 2a of High Speed 2 south of Crewe in Cheshire and a point in the vicinity of the parish of Millington and Rostherne in Cheshire,
(b) leaving out provision relating to a railway between Hoo Green in Cheshire and a junction with the West Coast Main Line at Bamfurlong, south of Wigan ...

 

[Greybeard33]

Any of the alternatives to Phase 2a would require several years of work before construction could start. Detailed route design, followed by an environmental assessment, then public consultation before granting of legal powers, either (depending on scope) by a new Hybrid Bill or by the TWAO process.

The cost comparisons of the alternatives to 2a quoted in the Greengauge report are from a 2015 assessment. Therefore they do not take account of the "sunk cost" of all the work that has been carried out on the 2a route in the last nine years to get it to its current "shovel ready" state. Nor do the BCR comparisons allow for the additional benefit that a restarted 2a, to the existing design, could now be completed several years earlier than any alternative, enabling additional services and improved journey times during those intervening years.

Surely it is a no-brainer, at this late stage, to proceed with the whole of 2a as per the existing Act?

 

[Peter Sarf]

There's absolutely no chance of HS2 reaching Crewe in the next 5 years. For the next year or two people are going to be more focused on sorting out the economy, dragging people out of destitution and actually running transport on the infrastructure we've got. There might be more thinking on HS2 when there are a few less things on fire.

Longer term, pretty much everybody can see that the Rishi gap is absolutely stupid, and one has to hope that the economy and government finances can become less desperate. It's almost certain to get built.

This is my feeling. No good being sensible - we have to wait until HS2 Phase 2a is a very very obvious requirement and thus endure the delay in benefits until it becomes obvious enough. It can then be promoted as a way of easing pressure on the West Coast Main Line from Handsacre to Crewe so as to increase freight capacity and consequently ease congestion on the M6 which is a benefit for the North (um thereabouts). Just so happens it will be a high speed by-pass (if we are lucky).

I am more worried about HS2 being actively and permanently strangled at the Euston end.

 

[HSTEd]

This is my feeling. No good being sensible - we have to wait until HS2 Phase 2a is a very very obvious requirement and thus endure the delay in benefits until it becomes obvious enough. It can then be promoted as a way of easing pressure on the West Coast Main Line from Handsacre to Crewe so as to increase freight capacity and consequently ease congestion on the M6 which is a benefit for the North (um thereabouts). Just so happens it will be a high speed by-pass (if we are lucky).

I am more worried about HS2 being actively and permanently strangled at the Euston end.

HS2 Phase 2a is probably too expensive to be justifiable on this basis, especially in the current socio-economic environment. The cost is already admitted to be up to ~£7bn, after a few years delay we will probably be talking about £10bn, even before further cost growth as estimates refined.

The bulk of the benefits can be achieved with a far less expensive scheme (ie. build to Hixon and stop with a chord). That will even cheaper proportionally than what Greengauge suggested as a "medium cost" option, because it doesn't require the upgrades and Stone-Colwich line to Crewe connection they propose.
If we aren't going to go to Manchester, I'm not sure its worth spending the money for the extra distance beyond Hixon.

 

[takno]

HS2 Phase 2a is probably too expensive to be justifiable on this basis, especially in the current socio-economic environment. The cost is already admitted to be up to ~£7bn, after a few years delay we will probably be talking about £10bn, even before further cost growth as estimates refined.

The bulk of the benefits can be achieved with a far less expensive scheme (ie. build to Hixon and stop with a chord). That will even cheaper proportionally than what Greengauge suggested as a "medium cost" option, because it doesn't require the upgrades and Stone-Colwich line to Crewe connection they propose.
If we aren't going to go to Manchester, I'm not sure its worth spending the money for the extra distance beyond Hixon.

Fully planned and well-costed option which drives real benefits as far as Scotland, and could realise significant benefits on both the West and East Coast, against some out-of-date random scribblings from an organisation which was a bad joke even at the time. It's a really tough call.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Fully planned and well-costed option which drives real benefits as far as Scotland, and could realise significant benefits on both the West and East Coast, against some out-of-date random scribblings from an organisation which was a bad joke even at the time. It's a really tough call.

Lets hope so. What we can be sure off is that the need for it has to be painfully obvious before progress will be made. Then we need a solution or partial solution that does not ruin any future improvements (a staged approach to getting further North).

 

[HSTEd]

Fully planned and well-costed option which drives real benefits as far as Scotland, and could realise significant benefits on both the West and East Coast, against some out-of-date random scribblings from an organisation which was a bad joke even at the time. It's a really tough call.

I don't think saying that anything associated with HS2 is "well costed" is going to fly very well with the politicians actually making the decision.
Note I wasn't proposing the Greengauge proposal either.

The problem is that HS2's credibility is utterly shot, and the project has not gone well at all. Politicians just want it gone, which is why Phase 2A was cancelled and why Labour is not going to ressurect it.
This is not about continuing the project, this is about salvaging what can be salvaged from this debacle.

15=20km from the end of the Phase 1 construction to the Stone Colwich line, or 50+km to Crewe (including the same track), which do you think the politicians will be more likely to approve?

 

[Peter Sarf]

I don't think saying that anything associated with HS2 is "well costed" is going to fly very well with the politicians actually making the decision.
Note I wasn't proposing the Greengauge proposal either.

The problem is that HS2's credibility is utterly shot, and the project has not gone well at all. Politicians just want it gone, which is why Phase 2A was cancelled and why Labour is not going to ressurect it.
This is not about continuing the project, this is about salvaging what can be salvaged from this debacle.

15=20km from the end of the Phase 1 construction to the Stone Colwich line, or 50+km to Crewe (including the same track), which do you think the politicians will be more likely to approve?

I agree. Those in the industry have to accept that the concept of high speed rail has been trashed.

How long before decision makers are prepared to give rail a second chance depends on :-
1) Time - lots of it I fear.
2) Any pressing needs to overcome remaining bottle necks becoming attractive solutions (that which was known as HS2p2a).
3) Size - the smaller the better.
4) Not inferring it is a high speed railway.
5) Certainty that the costs can be controlled.

Size ? - Efficient to do it in one large project (for example Handacre to Crewe or bigger) BUT hopelessly unrealistic (will that lesson be learnt).
Having to do upgrades in smaller pieces is tragically short sighted but it is the only way anything will be started anytime soon.

 

[chris2]

I think that is all fair and true in the scenario that it is not backed by the prime minister and cabinet. But if it were to be, it could be funded and gotten going in a heartbeat. 2a remains on the statute books and ready to proceed up to 2026. They won’t do it now because their agenda is to fix the fundamentals. But they absolutely can do it and I think they will come around to it. Main reason I think this is if you look at who is the power behind the throne… when you look at the people advising the govt now, as opposed to those advising the last one, there’s a very clear difference of agenda waiting to be argued, when the time is right. The other political aspect is that Labour have a *huge* majority and have made growing the economy and getting building again absolutely central to their approach

 

[Krokodil]

1) Time - lots of it I fear.

The opening of Phase 1 ought to be a turning point

 

[HSTEd]

The opening of Phase 1 ought to be a turning point

That is an awful long way away though, recent reports suggest an opening date approaching 2030.
Existing powers will have long since lapsed, the engineering team will have dispersed and who knows what state the country and the railway will be in by then.

Future high speed rail opening dates would be in the 2040s, at which point the railway will be competing with an overwhelmingly electric road vehicle fleet, and decarbonisation will either have failed or be almost complete.

 

[Snow1964]

The opening of Phase 1 ought to be a turning point

But that is a very expensive time to start, anyone trying to save money would time it so that teams finishing the trackbed, laying the track, installing the electrification, installing the signalling equipment are in a position to move straight onto the relatively short and not as complicated phase 2a

If come back later having disbursed experienced teams and their equipment for a smaller add on, will cost considerably more.

 

[JonathanH]

The opening of Phase 1 ought to be a turning point

It won't be though, as people will just claim their Euston trains have been slowed down, just as people in Kent make a similar point about their 'classic' route trains being made slower.

There will have to be very clear marketing of the virtue of Phase 1 to get any enthusiasm for any further railway building.

 

[Peter Sarf]

But that is a very expensive time to start, anyone trying to save money would time it so that teams finishing the trackbed, laying the track, installing the electrification, installing the signalling equipment are in a position to move straight onto the relatively short and not as complicated phase 2a

If come back later having disbursed experienced teams and their equipment for a smaller add on, will cost considerably more.

You are correct of course but logic/common-sense does not apply. Political opinion and public opinion will not accept that. What will happen is inefficient but the next section of new line will most likely only happen when it is very obviously needed - more obvious than the need for phase one I fear.

It won't be though, as people will just claim their Euston trains have been slowed down, just as people in Kent make a similar point about their 'classic' route trains being made slower.

There will have to be very clear marketing of the virtue of Phase 1 to get any enthusiasm for any further railway building.

Crickey - I had forgotten that. How did HS2 phase 1 ever get started !.

 

[Krokodil]

But that is a very expensive time to start, anyone trying to save money would time it so that teams finishing the trackbed, laying the track, installing the electrification, installing the signalling equipment are in a position to move straight onto the relatively short and not as complicated phase 2a

If come back later having disbursed experienced teams and their equipment for a smaller add on, will cost considerably more.

You're trying to apply logic and common sense to a political decision. Ideally Hendy & Co will be able to make the case for bypassing Stafford sooner, but otherwise that's the best hope yet.

 

[HSTEd]

But that is a very expensive time to start, anyone trying to save money would time it so that teams finishing the trackbed, laying the track, installing the electrification, installing the signalling equipment are in a position to move straight onto the relatively short and not as complicated phase 2a

If come back later having disbursed experienced teams and their equipment for a smaller add on, will cost considerably more.

In order to do that they'd have to give the project to the same management apparatus that brought us here, there is no time for anything else.
That management apparatus has completely lost its credibility and has, in any case, squandered a 15 year long political consensus around high speed rail.

Politicians are not going to do that.
Rolling programmes sound great, but one of the problems with them is it essentially requires an open ended commitment to keep the programme going regardless of delivery performance.

 

[takno]

In order to do that they'd have to give the project to the same management apparatus that brought us here, there is no time for anything else.
That management apparatus has completely lost its credibility and has, in any case, squandered a 15 year long political consensus around high speed rail.

Politicians are not going to do that.
Rolling programmes sound great, but one of the problems with them is it essentially requires an open ended commitment to keep the programme going regardless of delivery performance.

I would say that HS2 management has broadly managed within the directions provided. That has generally involved being willing to add billions to the design cost rather than offend the Woodland Trust or residents of the Chilterns, attempting to deliver to a timetable which wasn't manageable from the start, and not sufficiently altering this to address the realities of the post-Brexit construction industry.

There was very little opportunity for HS2 management to do anything about any of the things which increased costs - they basically all came from politicians as the cost of the barely-maintained consensus.

 

[Grimsby town]

I would say that HS2 management has broadly managed within the directions provided. That has generally involved being willing to add billions to the design cost rather than offend the Woodland Trust or residents of the Chilterns, attempting to deliver to a timetable which wasn't manageable from the start, and not sufficiently altering this to address the realities of the post-Brexit construction industry.

There was very little opportunity for HS2 management to do anything about any of the things which increased costs - they basically all came from politicians as the cost of the barely-maintained consensus.

That and a lot of the original issues are no longer relevant. Time scales and costs were too specific originally but are now expressed in ranges. Property and land values were vastly underestimated but I believe a lot of the land has been purchased for 2a. The engineering doesn't appear to be going too badly. Yes costs have risen but that's against a backdrop of very high inflation and the project being started during Covid-19.

Rolling programmes are clearly more likely to succeed than a stop start approach. Sure it doesn't guarantee success and it might have drawbacks, but the countries that build HSR in an affordable manner have rolling programmes. Its really not difficult to see that teams to who have built relationships and have experience are going to better than a new team.

 

[HSTEd]

I would say that HS2 management has broadly managed within the directions provided. That has generally involved being willing to add billions to the design cost rather than offend the Woodland Trust or residents of the Chilterns, attempting to deliver to a timetable which wasn't manageable from the start, and not sufficiently altering this to address the realities of the post-Brexit construction industry.

Whilst the additional tunneling in the chilterns increased the cost of the scheme, some of the additional tunneling imposed on HS2 is projected to have reduced scheme costs.
See the original plan to demolish and rebuild Hangar Lane Gyratory to avoid a tunnel out of London - which better cost estimates demonstrated dwarfed the supposed savings from avoiding tunnels.

In any case, extra tunnels are unlikely to represent a dominant portion of the cost growth that HS2 has seen.

There was very little opportunity for HS2 management to do anything about any of the things which increased costs - they basically all came from politicians as the cost of the barely-maintained consensus.

To cite just two, HS2 management decided to launch an unwinnable attempt to force the rewriting of the Technical Standards of Interoperability to meet HS2's desires.
We also have a lot of disturbing stories coming out of the company that have been extensively reported in the press, which may or may not be substantiated.

Nevertheless, neither of these things is a good sign in the slightest.

Personally, I think this scheme was probably doomed from the start, but the management have hardly covered themselves in glory on the road to here.
It certainly does not convince me, or apparently the new government, that giving HS2 more money to try and get more built is a particularly good idea.

The way things are going we will probably get a rebuild of Euston that include high speed platforms, but even that seems far from certain.
Asking for anything more than the bare minimum at the north end is almost certainly an exercise in futility.
The fifteen kilometres to Hixon would give us a high speed rail line that can at least approach its capacity capability, assuming some kind of station is built at Euston.
I think that that is ultimately the best the railway can hope for.