Revisiting HS2 alternatives

[grove]

With the current political uncertainty, there are increasing voices from politicians to cancel HS2. Whether you are pro or anti HS2, alternatives might be back on the agenda. So what is the business case?

Is it speed or capacity increases that are required on the rail network?

Could anyone hazard a guess at the cost of the following package?

• Electrifying Marylebone to Birmingham (infrastructure and rolling stock)
• Reinstate St Pancras to Manchester and fully electrify MML to Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds
• Reinstate and fully electrify the Woodhead route
• Electrify Birmingham to Reading and Heathrow
• Southern access to Heathrow
• The complete reopening of the Waverley route to Carlisle

 

[JonathanH]

With the current political uncertainty, there are increasing voices from politicians to cancel HS2. Whether you are pro or anti HS2, alternatives might be back on the agenda. So what is the business case?

Is it speed or capacity increases that are required on the rail network?

Could anyone hazard a guess at the cost of the following package?

• Electrifying Marylebone to Birmingham (infrastructure and rolling stock)
• Reinstate St Pancras to Manchester and fully electrify MML to Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds
• Reinstate and fully electrify the Woodhead route
• Electrify Birmingham to Reading and Heathrow
• Southern access to Heathrow
• The complete reopening of the Waverley route to Carlisle

I think you will find that there isn't any money for any of these either if HS2 is cancelled. The reasons have been repeatedly explained. The cost is therefore irrelevant.

 

[Halifaxlad]

I think what's more likely to happen is that HS2 will go ahead but they might shelve the dedicated stations in Leeds & Manchester, run trains on to Liverpool & Hull then pass the cost for these improvements onto HS3/NPHR.

 

[6Gman]

Could anyone hazard a guess at the cost of the following package?

• Reinstate and fully electrify the Woodhead route

A lot more than the cost of achieving an equal benefit by improving the Hope Valley line.

 

[4F89]

It should always have gone east coast where there is more open land to not be NIMBYed

 

[swt_passenger]

It should always have gone east coast where there is more open land to not be NIMBYed

Are you referring to HS2 here? How would that have relieved the WCML to Birmingham?

 

[Tio Terry]

With the current political uncertainty, there are increasing voices from politicians to cancel HS2. Whether you are pro or anti HS2, alternatives might be back on the agenda. So what is the business case?

Is it speed or capacity increases that are required on the rail network?

Could anyone hazard a guess at the cost of the following package?

• Electrifying Marylebone to Birmingham (infrastructure and rolling stock)
• Reinstate St Pancras to Manchester and fully electrify MML to Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds
• Reinstate and fully electrify the Woodhead route
• Electrify Birmingham to Reading and Heathrow
• Southern access to Heathrow
• The complete reopening of the Waverley route to Carlisle

It's impossible to even hazard a guess at costs for this without further detail. New electrification of an existing route to current day standards requires quite a lot of infrastructure to be renewed or modified to provide adequate clearance for OHEL and without a detailed survey the cost of that is as long as a bit of string. What speeds and axle loading is required? What compulsory purchases for land and buildings are required for the rail corridor envisaged? There are dozens of questions to be asked before anyone could start to address your questions. You would need to put together a performance based specification for the engineers to work to.

 

[Chester1]

Out of the opening post options the only one that would provide any of the capacity of HS2 would be an upgrade of the Chiltern line. Manchester to London via the WCML was faster than its previous competitors and that would be the case in the future. There is no capacity at St Pancras or on the track to and from Bedford for more than 6tph of long distance services. All the extra capacity is needed to serve existing routes.

Marylebone to Moor Street could replace Euston to New Street to free up intercity paths for new services for the North. However, it would require electrification, resignalling, line speed improvements and sections of 4 tracking. It would be more complex than the great western upgrade and cost billions.

 

[4F89]

Are you referring to HS2 here? How would that have relieved the WCML to Birmingham?

It wouldn't directly, but scotland/London traffic would have freed up paths all along wcml

 

[squizzler]

Reports of the demise of HS2 are greatly exaggerated. Any likelihood any such thing might happen will only come about through the rest of us choosing of our own free will to give credence and therefore perpetuate such ideas. Forum readers can draw their own conclusions as to the motives of sections of the media and the political actors behind the exhumation of this 'debate'.

Or to use the apposite web forum mantra, please don't feed the trolls.

 

[Ianno87]

It wouldn't directly, but scotland/London traffic would have freed up paths all along wcml

That is but a mere drop in the ocean of WCML demand overall.

 

[4F89]

That is but a mere drop in the ocean of WCML demand overall.

Considering the issues currently with the western path, I think the case for an Eastern would prove much easier to get through, providing similar levels of benefit. Don't forget HS2 doesn't serve anything till it gets to the Midlands anyway, so to serve Leicester/notts/york/Leeds etc would have a better case cost wise today, I think.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

I struggle to see how rebuilding the Woodhead and Waverley routes are alternative options to HS2 , I really do.

 

[6Gman]

I struggle to see how rebuilding the Woodhead and Waverley routes are alternative options to HS2 , I really do.

Quite, but mentioning them is virtually compulsory on here. (I'm always intrigued by how all these extra fast services via Woodhead are supposed to operate west of Guide Bridge).

 

[Ianno87]

. Don't forget HS2 doesn't serve anything till it gets to the Midlands anyway, so to serve Leicester/notts/york/Leeds etc would have a better case cost wise today, I think.

Incorrect. Indirectly, it provides release of commuter capacity for Milton Keynes etc. that an eastern route could not.

Besides, although sparser populated, I wouldn't expect local issues to be any significantly easier. It's a moot point anyway, given that Phase 1 is now enacted into law.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Quite, but mentioning them is virtually compulsory on here. (I'm always intrigued by how all these extra fast services via Woodhead are supposed to operate west of Guide Bridge).

Was it one of the characters in David Copperfield had an obsession with the late King Charles's head , there are some commentators on here who have similar obsessions with closed , defunct and economic basket cases , which even in their glory days had low passenger business utility - (Woodhead was all about coal in post war Britain , not sure that the Waverley Route n it's entirety ever had a raison d'etre bar mad 19thC competition between the Midland and the LNW / East Coast rivals)

Someone mentioned rebuilding and running Wolverhampton to Birkenhead.! - sometimes too much immersion in the past is a bad thing. Let us not mention the blessed Great Central.

 

[Chester1]

I struggle to see how rebuilding the Woodhead and Waverley routes are alternative options to HS2 , I really do.

Its about people wanting to restore the past and dislike of new things.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Its about people wanting to restore the past and dislike of new things.

Respect the past , and move forward. One of my simple philosophies.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If HS2 is cancelled it'll be to save money, so other options will likely not be pursued. The most we are likely to see if that does happen is more EMUs for LNR to allow for more 12-car (or 10x24m) running, and maybe something extra for the ICWC operation like some new trains to allow everything to be 240m+ long too.

 

[4F89]

Incorrect. Indirectly, it provides release of commuter capacity for Milton Keynes etc. that an eastern route could not.

Besides, although sparser populated, I wouldn't expect local issues to be any significantly easier. It's a moot point anyway, given that Phase 1 is now enacted into law.

Surely it's all a moot point?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Incorrect. Indirectly, it provides release of commuter capacity for Milton Keynes etc. that an eastern route could not.

Any HS2 route will provide that - the point is that you take (some of) the 9tph of InterCity trains off the WCML fast lines so they can be used for other things such as enhanced fast commuter services and more Trent Valley locals.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

Any HS2 route will provide that - the point is that you take (some of) the 9tph of InterCity trains off the WCML fast lines so they can be used for other things such as enhanced fast commuter services and more Trent Valley locals.

Not to mention more intermodal type freight services .....

 

[grumpyoldman01]

With the current political uncertainty, there are increasing voices from politicians to cancel HS2. Whether you are pro or anti HS2, alternatives might be back on the agenda. So what is the business case?

Is it speed or capacity increases that are required on the rail network?

Could anyone hazard a guess at the cost of the following package?

• Electrifying Marylebone to Birmingham (infrastructure and rolling stock)
• Reinstate St Pancras to Manchester and fully electrify MML to Sheffield, Manchester and Leeds
• Reinstate and fully electrify the Woodhead route
• Electrify Birmingham to Reading and Heathrow
• Southern access to Heathrow
• The complete reopening of the Waverley route to Carlisle

You'll find answers to some of these questions in the work done by Atkins back in 2010; see:

https://webarchive.nationalarchives...ail/alternativestudy/pdf/strategicoutline.pdf

Regarding the former GW&GC Joint through the Chilterns, much of this was built in the early twentieth century with four-tracking in mind, and Atkins identified a possible route which would bypass the "bendy bit" through High Wycombe and Princes Risborough; some of this would be in tunnel. Consequently, as much of the land needed for four-tracking is already in Network Rail ownership, much of the route between Old Oak Common and Ashendon Junction could probably have been upgraded using powers comprised in the original Act of Parliament for construction of this line.

Obviously, this wouldn't give the speed benefits HS2 will bring (although Atkins determined that, based upon alignment, very high speeds were theoretically possible upon much of the GW&GC Joint), it could have been a less contentious route through the Chilterns, and therefore should have generated less hostility from those who live in the area.

At the time Atkins did their work for the 2010 published report, it would also have been possible to use the trackbed of the GC from Ashendon Junction northwards to near Brackley, and then to follow the route proposed for HS2 northwards towards Birmingham and the Trent Valley. Alternatively, it could have followed the GC to a junction with the WCML in the Rugby area; BR considered this section of the GC main line as part of a "new" route to the north west when it looked into creating high speed relief for the WCML round about 1990.

Somewhere in the Atkins report it states that the remit it received from the DfT prevented it from looking into the possibility of re-opening closed lines such as the GC; whether or not this restriction prevented it from considering restoring short missing sections, such as Woodhead and Peak Forest, I don't know, but you won't find any reference to them in Atkins work (if I remember correctly)

 

[Ianno87]

Any HS2 route will provide that - the point is that you take (some of) the 9tph of InterCity trains off the WCML fast lines so they can be used for other things such as enhanced fast commuter services and more Trent Valley locals.

True, but less and less the more it deviates from shadowing the WCML (i.e. if it didn't serve Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool)

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, but less and less the more it deviates from shadowing the WCML (i.e. if it didn't serve Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool)

Yes, the main benefit from HS2 is a line that allows services from London to Birmingham, Manchester, North Wales[1] and Scotland, as that allows the whole 9tph of fast services to come off the south WCML and a clean slate to design the best service possible aimed purely at serving major places not served by HS2 itself - such as having absolutely everything stop at Watford Jn, MKC, Rugby etc and at least 2tph stopping services on the Trent Valley.

[1] I do wonder where this one will end up. Clearly there will be no DMUs or bi-modes on HS2, so not there. But should it stay on the classic line, or could it perhaps go somewhere like Chiltern, with the slower service being compensated for by using very high quality rolling stock (say tarted up Mk4s with 64 seats per coach in Standard and lots of leather etc, or even brand new 68+Mk5 sets) and offering an hourly service to Holyhead all day every day? Or would a purely connectional service do if it was to be reinstated through to Crewe and again run hourly with quality stock?

 

[tbtc]

Tweedbank to Waverley is around an hour to do around thirty miles (inc sections of single track) - with all respect to the OP, you'd have to massively upgrade that route to accommodate any long distance services if you extended it to Carlisle.

Similarly, Hadfield to Manchester is around forty minutes for around fifteen miles (!) so good luck running any Woodhead services.

Electrify Marylebone - Snow Hill by all means but don't expect any huge time savings there (esp given the number of slow services at both the London and Birmingham ends). It's never going to beat the WCML for city-to-city timings (unless you remove all of the local trains at each end), so works best as it currently is.

It's almost like existing lines are choked up and the only way to free up capacity and speed services up is to build brand new lines on brand new alignments.

Was it one of the characters in David Copperfield had an obsession with the late King Charles's head , there are some commentators on here who have similar obsessions with closed , defunct and economic basket cases , which even in their glory days had low passenger business utility - (Woodhead was all about coal in post war Britain , not sure that the Waverley Route n it's entirety ever had a raison d'etre bar mad 19thC competition between the Midland and the LNW / East Coast rivals)

Someone mentioned rebuilding and running Wolverhampton to Birkenhead.! - sometimes too much immersion in the past is a bad thing. Let us not mention the blessed Great Central.

Yes, yes, a thousand times yes!

Some people are obsessed with the past and can only countenance improvements that follow faithfully in the path of something that failed fifty years ago.

Its about people wanting to restore the past and dislike of new things.

True - as I've said before, if HS2 was to be built on the path of the old Euston, Toton & Leeds Railway (ETLR) then enthusiasts would love it - sadly there was no ETLR, otherwise I think HS2 would be much more popular.

 

[Chester1]

Similarly, Hadfield to Manchester is around forty minutes for around fifteen miles (!) so good luck running any Woodhead services.

Electrify Marylebone - Snow Hill by all means but don't expect any huge time savings there (esp given the number of slow services at both the London and Birmingham ends). It's never going to beat the WCML for city-to-city timings (unless you remove all of the local trains at each end), so works best as it currently is.

It's almost like existing lines are choked up and the only way to free up capacity and speed services up is to build brand new lines on brand new alignments.

Playing devil's advocate:

Manchester to Hadfield was mostly 4 track and the trackbed is owned by Network Rail. The real killer for reopening Woodhead has always been cost vs upgrading Hope Valley line.

I think its possible to have a Marylebone to Moor Street 3tph with 75 minute journey. The biggest constraints now are the number of stops and congestion, both of which can be resolved. Wembley Stadium Station could be reduced to event only services and Sudbury & Harrow Road, Sudbury Hill Harrow and Northolt Park closed. All have a limited service and better alternatives close by. Stretches of 4 track / passing loops could be added. The line into Birmingham could be restored to 4 track. Obviously this gets to the point that it would be easier to build a new line.... But it is possible to significantly increase the capacity of the Chiltern route and get journey times to a level sufficient to remove 2tph of WCML express London-Birmingham services (adding Watford Junction and Rugby to London-Birmingham-Scotland service). That would free up 2tph for services to the North and Scotland. With a major timetable recast and no open access service it would be possible to fit in 9tph to north / Scotland express + 1tph London-Birmingham-Scotland.

 

[JonathanH]

Reports of the demise of HS2 are greatly exaggerated.

Unfortunately, axing HS2 appears to be the number 2 policy of both the Brexit Party and 'Conservative grass roots', ie a massive vote winner in the Home Counties and amongst people who will choose the next leader of the Conservative Party after MPs have had their say.

But it is possible to significantly increase the capacity of the Chiltern route and get journey times to a level sufficient to remove 2tph of WCML express London-Birmingham services (adding Watford Junction and Rugby to London-Birmingham-Scotland service). That would free up 2tph for services to the North and Scotland. With a major timetable recast and no open access service it would be possible to fit in 9tph to north / Scotland express + 1tph London-Birmingham-Scotland.

No, if you stop a train at Watford Junction *and* Milton Keynes, you lose one of those paths. You also continue to restrict the possible service to Milton Keynes and other destinations on the South WCML and don't release capacity for freight.

Are the people who use the Chiltern line (which is mainly two-track railway) ready for the disruption the work needed for this massive upgrade would entail?

Also, is it really desirable to have 2tph of your fast service from London to Birmingham leaving from Marylebone and 1tph from Euston?

 

[Chester1]

Unfortunately, axing HS2 appears to be the number 2 policy of both the Brexit Party and 'Conservative grass roots', ie a massive vote winner in the Home Counties and amongst people who will choose the next leader of the Conservative Party after MPs have had their say.



No, if you stop a train at Watford Junction *and* Milton Keynes, you lose one of those paths. You also continue to restrict the possible service to Milton Keynes and other destinations on the South WCML and don't release capacity for freight.

Are the people who use the Chiltern line (which is mainly two-track railway) ready for the disruption the work needed for this massive upgrade would entail?

Also, is it really desirable to have 2tph of your fast service from London to Birmingham leaving from Marylebone and 1tph from Euston?

I agree its a poor option, I am just saying its possible to rebuild Chiltern Mainline to have significant sections of 4 tracking.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

With the current political uncertainty, there are increasing voices from politicians to cancel HS2. Whether you are pro or anti HS2, alternatives might be back on the agenda.

In the extremely unlikely event of HS2 being cancelled, we would still be faced with the issue of the southern portion of WCML operating less than optimally because tracks are shared by trains of different speeds. The most effective way of dealing with that problem would be to remove all freight from the route south of Rugby, restrict Northampton services to the slow lines, and fettle up alternative routes for freight trains. Such a policy would still be expensive but far less so than HS2 and would enable the railway to achieve some improvements it wants to bring about anyway.