What if...HS2 is scrapped?

[The Ham]

Northern needs new vehicles now. West Yorks, lancashire and Gt manc need longer trains. too many short trains entering the hubs.

I agree, although I'd go further and say that probably every TOC could do with more trains.

However that's generally happening, as according to the latest long term rolling stock strategy (2018):

The number of new vehicles committed for delivery in the five-year period that commenced in April 2014 (CP5) and in the early years of CP6 is now 7,187 – more than 50% of the current in-service fleet of 14,025. These new vehicles have a capital cost of more than £13 billion, and around 50% will be built in Britain. The average age of the national fleet is estimated to fall from 21 years to 15 years by March 2021, while the numbers of vehicles in service will grow by 6% next year and by a further 5% to 13% by 2024.

However even then there comes a point where there's no more space for extra coaches (see the £800 million invested at Waterloo to allow 10 rather than 8 coach trains to run). Without HS2 you would have to invest a lot at Manchester, Leeds, etc. whilst with HS2 this money is being provided by HS2. Chances are without HS2 you'd need to invest (say) £5bn-£10bn in stations and extra track in the North to gain the same sort of extra paths and stations which HS2 would provide as well as the basis for building NPR.

If you add those sorts of costs to NPR and it would significantly reduce the value of that project, possibly to the extent that it's not viable. Load the risk to HS2 and NPR keeps its good business case.

Bin HS2 and you risk losing NPR as well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bin HS2 and you risk losing NPR as well.

In my view we can lose that; its benefits are far weaker than HS2's. Build Piccadilly platform 15/16, do the Oxford Road changes and close Deansgate, mothball the pointless Ordsall Chord and do the work to extend all Northern and TPE mainline (non-branch) trains to a minimum of 160m and I don't see that there will be any kind of constraint for years. A new line would be simply diverting the money away from those gains - gains which on the south WCML can't really go beyond a few 9->11 and 8->12 car extensions which would merely spit on the capacity needs.

 

[LOL The Irony]

mothball the pointless Ordsall Chord

It's only pointless because it was supposed to open in tandem with Platform 15/16.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's only pointless because it was supposed to open in tandem with Platform 15/16.

I find it questionable generally (it feeds the "we must have trains from everywhere to Manchester Airport" issue), however with P15/16 it might well not cause the damage it presently causes.

 

[PR1Berske]

Recent rumours and reported quotes have prompted me to respond to this thread.

First of all, the quotes for context:


Daily Mail. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ss-hints-controversial-HS2-link-scrapped.html

Ms Truss, who is tipped as a possible future Tory leader, is leading a major spending review this year.

She said she will be examining 'all major investment projects across Government and judging their contribution to future prosperity', after expensive programmes like the £56 billion HS2 rail line drew anger from Tory MPs.

Last year's annual report showed that the company established by the government to build the railway spent £500 million in the year to March 31 - up almost 30 per cent from £352.9 million the year before.

It takes the amount spent by HS2 so far to more than £1.9billion since 2009.

Accounts published by the Transport Department also showed it had spent another £366 million on HS2.

The bulk of this was on compensating those who own property and land near the planned line.

She said: 'In reviewing this evidence, we must be prepared to junk the white elephants, the programmes that haven't worked, and roll back mission creep, where Government involves itself in areas the private sector can deliver.

'Growth and bang-for-buck must take precedence.'

She also said politicians 'must heed the demand' of Leave voters to 'Take Back Control'.

And quote 2 from City Am

the chief secretary will be examining the rail line “very intently”, noting her preference for improving local infrastructure, which she explains “drives local economies” and “makes a difference to why a business decides to locate somewhere.”





Truss’ comments will be echoed widely, as many groups have been expressing major concerns about the project for nearly a decade.

Originally touted by a Labour government and brought to life under the coalition, HS2 has faced scepticism and criticism from day one, in terms of both cost and practicality.

While the government’s official figures estimate the costs to be roughly £56bn, the Institute of Economic Affairs’ own research puts them significantly higher. Rail experts have estimated the costs to be over £100bn.

Regardless of where the figure ends up, it will be egregious. The original estimate floated was £34bn, meaning that it has since risen by more than £20bn.

And what are commuters getting for this inflated price? The project deliverables have already been cut back – though costs remain sky-high – while it was reported early this year by the Guardian that services many need to “run fewer trains and at slower speeds” to stay at cost. Sounds like the definition of poor value for money.

We shouldn’t be surprised. The nature of public sector provisions broadly tends to mean that they require more resources than planned, and funnily enough can never find areas for efficiency gains or savings.

Source: http://www.cityam.com/276178/liz-truss-right-hit-brakes-hs2-would-put-us-all-train




Now I will concede that these are broadly comment pieces extrapolating from single quotations, though the main point is still valid.

Any government should look at spending levels and whether they are fair, affordable, reasonable, and sustainable. That includes governments of any colour, and budgets of any size.

HS2 has to be won or lost on its credibility, justification, and cost. It fails on all three, in my view.

Recently in another thread on this forum (source https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...er-hs2-discussion.177112/page-52#post-3963791 ) the justification argument has been stretched to its very edges, with claims that Southampton could benefit directly despite it not being on the route. A poster did point out that such claims are unhelpful.

The rumours about Truss' scepticism make me very confident that HS2 is on the way out. I would be very happy, very happy indeed, to see it scrapped. There are no negative consequences to HS2 being scrapped in my opinion, not one.

But this thread asks a specific question, and the recent reports from the Treasury prompt me to ask a supplementary question.

Would it be right and proper for a government to continue supporting HS2 were the budget to rise beyond all reasonable levels? Is there an upper limit, beyond which even supporters go, "Okay, this cost is too much"?

 

[MarkyT]

Recent rumours and reported quotes have prompted me to respond to this thread.

First of all, the quotes for context:


Daily Mail. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ss-hints-controversial-HS2-link-scrapped.html


And quote 2 from City Am



Source: http://www.cityam.com/276178/liz-truss-right-hit-brakes-hs2-would-put-us-all-train




Now I will concede that these are broadly comment pieces extrapolating from single quotations, though the main point is still valid.

Any government should look at spending levels and whether they are fair, affordable, reasonable, and sustainable. That includes governments of any colour, and budgets of any size.

HS2 has to be won or lost on its credibility, justification, and cost. It fails on all three, in my view.

Recently in another thread on this forum (source https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...er-hs2-discussion.177112/page-52#post-3963791 ) the justification argument has been stretched to its very edges, with claims that Southampton could benefit directly despite it not being on the route. A poster did point out that such claims are unhelpful.

The rumours about Truss' scepticism make me very confident that HS2 is on the way out. I would be very happy, very happy indeed, to see it scrapped. There are no negative consequences to HS2 being scrapped in my opinion, not one.

But this thread asks a specific question, and the recent reports from the Treasury prompt me to ask a supplementary question.

Would it be right and proper for a government to continue supporting HS2 were the budget to rise beyond all reasonable levels? Is there an upper limit, beyond which even supporters go, "Okay, this cost is too much"?

What is 'beyond all reasonable'? And compared to what? What would you do instead if it was cancelled? How are you going to reconcile the desire for improved journey times to help reduce domestic air traffic while at the same time releasing capacity for improved services at intermediate stations on three main lines heading north and freight? Building equivalent capacity by means of additional track pairs alongside the three existing main lines is certain to be more expensive in total, take much longer, and be far more disruptive, and wouldn't deliver any speed increase. It would also probably take another decade or so to plan before a spade was turned whereas HS2 is already in construction. Such alternative widening through existing towns along the corridors is likely to affect far more properties and thus opposition than the largely rural route surveyed for HS2. Cancelling now might in fact scupper the chance of UK ever getting any more high speed rail. Existing routes, even widened and equipped with cab signalling, cannot realistically deliver any significant speed increase. Some interests, such as oil, automotive and air interests, would be very pleased indeed with that outcome.

 

[PR1Berske]

deleted.

 

[jagardner1984]

It’s interesting that some of the arguments against HS2 are really just more comments on the failure to provide widespread High Speed Rail in the UK.

It will doubtless be used by Tory politicians keen to find new things to cut as part of their leadership campaigns, and it will doubtless play very well in much of middle England for them.

The fact remains that at key pinch points, the network is largely full, and without spectacular, concurrent disruption on multiple main lines at most of the large conurbations, there is no way which is currently planned, Costed and, lets not forget, being built, to achieve such widespread capacity increase.

Ignore speed for a moment, the real question for Ms Truss and others must be simply this. You don’t like HS2, where do you propose putting the predicted passenger numbers on our overcrowded Victorian network ? You don’t like the CO2 emissions from domestic air travel, and have agreed to internationally binding targets to reduce those emissions, how will you provide additional capacity for the millions of passengers who currently fly around the UK considerably faster and cheaper than our Victorian rail network can sustain ?

(Tempting as it is, this isn’t Tory bashing, this is the collective failure of at least 70 years of government inaction, and in some ways active sabotage of railway growth).

 

[Ken H]

It’s interesting that some of the arguments against HS2 are really just more comments on the failure to provide widespread High Speed Rail in the UK.

It will doubtless be used by Tory politicians keen to find new things to cut as part of their leadership campaigns, and it will doubtless play very well in much of middle England for them.

The fact remains that at key pinch points, the network is largely full, and without spectacular, concurrent disruption on multiple main lines at most of the large conurbations, there is no way which is currently planned, Costed and, lets not forget, being built, to achieve such widespread capacity increase.

Ignore speed for a moment, the real question for Ms Truss and others must be simply this. You don’t like HS2, where do you propose putting the predicted passenger numbers on our overcrowded Victorian network ? You don’t like the CO2 emissions from domestic air travel, and have agreed to internationally binding targets to reduce those emissions, how will you provide additional capacity for the millions of passengers who currently fly around the UK considerably faster and cheaper than our Victorian rail network can sustain ?

(Tempting as it is, this isn’t Tory bashing, this is the collective failure of at least 70 years of government inaction, and in some ways active sabotage of railway growth).

we could have higher speeds tomorrow if we al1owed trains to run at over 125 to run on existing signalling. Why the 125mph cap? would 130 or 135 be so much more risky?

but there is capacity to be won with more grade separated junctions. We have seen that at Hatfield, Reading, Norton Bridge and will soon at Werrington. Doing Hanslope, Slade Lane, Newark, Doncaster and Colwich would give capacity quickly and far far cheaper than HS2. And grade separated junctions cut out the transmission of delays onto the traffic going the other way, and can cut out recovery time.
But then, a grade separated junction in the middle of nowhere doesnt allow politicians to grandstand, does it?

 

[The Ham]

Recent rumours and reported quotes have prompted me to respond to this thread.

First of all, the quotes for context:


Daily Mail. Source: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ss-hints-controversial-HS2-link-scrapped.html


And quote 2 from City Am



Source: http://www.cityam.com/276178/liz-truss-right-hit-brakes-hs2-would-put-us-all-train




Now I will concede that these are broadly comment pieces extrapolating from single quotations, though the main point is still valid.

Any government should look at spending levels and whether they are fair, affordable, reasonable, and sustainable. That includes governments of any colour, and budgets of any size.

HS2 has to be won or lost on its credibility, justification, and cost. It fails on all three, in my view.

Recently in another thread on this forum (source https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...er-hs2-discussion.177112/page-52#post-3963791 ) the justification argument has been stretched to its very edges, with claims that Southampton could benefit directly despite it not being on the route. A poster did point out that such claims are unhelpful.

The rumours about Truss' scepticism make me very confident that HS2 is on the way out. I would be very happy, very happy indeed, to see it scrapped. There are no negative consequences to HS2 being scrapped in my opinion, not one.

But this thread asks a specific question, and the recent reports from the Treasury prompt me to ask a supplementary question.

Would it be right and proper for a government to continue supporting HS2 were the budget to rise beyond all reasonable levels? Is there an upper limit, beyond which even supporters go, "Okay, this cost is too much"?

We should cancel HS2 because it is spending more per year than it did in previous years even though it's ramping up the work is doing (buying more properties, starting ground clearance, etc.).

If we use that logic there'll be a lot of part built projects all over the place.

 

[The Ham]

Recently in another thread on this forum (source https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...er-hs2-discussion.177112/page-52#post-3963791 ) the justification argument has been stretched to its very edges, with claims that Southampton could benefit directly despite it not being on the route. A poster did point out that such claims are unhelpful.

Yet you haven't said how by changing trains to a HS2 service which shaves 40 minutes of the Southampton to Manchester or 60 minutes of a Southampton to Leeds/Newcastle journey isn't going to benefit Southampton.

Even if people don't change trains there'll be less people using the XC services making the journey more pleasant.

Yes it's not a lot of people, but given there's existing direct services there's likely to be a reasonable number.

You are yet to demonstrate that the above is incorrect and that there will be ZERO benefit to Southampton from HS2.

 

[MarkyT]

we could have higher speeds tomorrow if we al1owed trains to run at over 125 to run on existing signalling. Why the 125mph cap? would 130 or 135 be so much more risky?

It was a safety issue agreed originally by BR and regulators. Viewing and interpreting the full aspect information of lineside signals becomes increasingly more difficult with rising speed so cab signalling is a requirement above this admittedly rather arbritrary cutoff. Another problem is that selectively raising the speed of just the fastest trains on a mixed railway actually costs capacity as the difference in sectional running times between the fastest and slowest trains widens. And the slightly higher limits (that is all you'd get, no step change) in a few places would not gain very much in journey time, especially on the tortuous WCML where maintenance costs would also rise further with the extra wear and tear.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Now I will concede that these are broadly comment pieces extrapolating from single quotations, though the main point is still valid.
Any government should look at spending levels and whether they are fair, affordable, reasonable, and sustainable. That includes governments of any colour, and budgets of any size.
HS2 has to be won or lost on its credibility, justification, and cost. It fails on all three, in my view.

It's Liz Truss's job to inspect all government spending plans for the next 5 years.
She has to ask the hard questions across all departments, no problem with that.
But the Mail and City AM are hardly HS2 or "big government" supporters, or even neutral observers.
By the time spending decisions are made, we will know more about the likely impact of Brexit, and HS2 Phase 1 construction will be further advanced.
There is also the continuing economy to consider, and I doubt the Tories are going to axe a project which is fully approved, has a good head of steam and is part of wider employment policy, as Crossrail was over the last decade.
Half-built infrastructure would be seen as a huge waste, along the lines of no-deal ferry contracts.
They might well delay Phase 2 (or divide it into more chunks), to reduce annual spend.
The line spec might be reduced, and rolling stock procurement delayed (also delaying the benefits, of course).
They could usefully spend more time working out how to connect HS2 better with the classic network (eg around Birmingham), and maybe save money in the process.
But complete cancellation? I don't think so.
If the Tories are booted out before the review decisions are made, I doubt Labour will axe HS2 either, it's too central to their regional development plans.
It was originally a Labour project.

 

[tbtc]

Any government should look at spending levels and whether they are fair, affordable, reasonable, and sustainable. That includes governments of any colour, and budgets of any size

Funny how a lot of enthusiasts fail to take the same rigorous approach to other transport plans - e.g. you get some wanting to bring back some lost link like, say, Southport - Preston, without worrying about how sustainable/ affordable it is.

Then again, you get people wanting to bring back some lost link like, say, Southport - Preston, without addressing how it benefits people in Southampton/ Norwich/ Swanesa/ Inverness too, so what can you do?

But this thread asks a specific question, and the recent reports from the Treasury prompt me to ask a supplementary question.

Would it be right and proper for a government to continue supporting HS2 were the budget to rise beyond all reasonable levels? Is there an upper limit, beyond which even supporters go, "Okay, this cost is too much"?

Yes, of course.

If you can show me how we can get the same level of improvements* with something cheaper/ faster/ less disruption on the existing network then I'm happy to be converted.

When the facts change, I change my mind.

I was against HS2 once upon a time, then I learned about it, then I learned about how complicated/ expensive/ disruptive/ slow the alternative plans are (and how, often, they only push a problem slightly further along the line - i.e. Welwyn would make sense to tackle but it's not as if the line all the way to Peterborough is four tracked anyway, so you are only just squeezing the adjacent bottleneck).

Was there a point in the WCML upgrade twenty years ago when you thought that the budget had risen too high?

Was there a point in the delayed/costly Manchester - Blackpool electrification where you decided that this was the upper limit and no more work should take place?

Was replacement of Pacers in places like Preston acceptable (despite there being no business case)?

Are new trains like the 195, 331s, or 397s too expensive to be purchased, or did they fall within your acceptable levels of subsidy?

(* - by which I mean genuine specified improvements, not some "woo" about mystic signalling and timetables designed by NASA and what not)

 

[Bald Rick]

we could have higher speeds tomorrow if we al1owed trains to run at over 125 to run on existing signalling. Why the 125mph cap? would 130 or 135 be so much more risky?

but there is capacity to be won with more grade separated junctions. We have seen that at Hatfield, Reading, Norton Bridge and will soon at Werrington. Doing Hanslope, Slade Lane, Newark, Doncaster and Colwich would give capacity quickly and far far cheaper than HS2. And grade separated junctions cut out the transmission of delays onto the traffic going the other way, and can cut out recovery time.
But then, a grade separated junction in the middle of nowhere doesnt allow politicians to grandstand, does it?

Hanslope, Colwich and Newark grade separation would release precisely zero long distance paths. Unless you count Nottingham to Lincoln as long distance. I can’t speak for Slade Lane and Donny as I don’t know the detail; but I’d be surprised if they did too.

 

[LOL The Irony]

I can’t speak for Slade Lane

Slade Lane is strangling capacity at Stockport because it's just a crap junction. The amont of times I've been on on trains waiting for Virgin expresses to pass...

 

[mmh]

Yet you haven't said how by changing trains to a HS2 service which shaves 40 minutes of the Southampton to Manchester or 60 minutes of a Southampton to Leeds/Newcastle journey isn't going to benefit Southampton.

Even if people don't change trains there'll be less people using the XC services making the journey more pleasant.

Yes it's not a lot of people, but given there's existing direct services there's likely to be a reasonable number.

You are yet to demonstrate that the above is incorrect and that there will be ZERO benefit to Southampton from HS2.

How are these journey time reductions made? Are they by changing to the mythical Paddington to Southampton service at the mythical Old Oak Common interchange?

 

[6Gman]

Slade Lane is strangling capacity at Stockport because it's just a crap junction. The amont of times I've been on on trains waiting for Virgin expresses to pass...

In a heavily built-up area grade separation at Slade Lane would be ... challenging.

This is not rural Norton Bridge !

 

[6Gman]

Was replacement of Pacers in places like Preston acceptable (despite there being no business case)?

Are new trains like the 195, 331s, or 397s too expensive to be purchased, or did they fall within your acceptable levels of subsidy?

@PR1Berske seems curiously reluctant to comment on questions of this nature ...

 

[The Ham]

How are these journey time reductions made? Are they by changing to the mythical Paddington to Southampton service at the mythical Old Oak Common interchange?

No, by using existing XC services to Reading and changing to a GWR service. If you look at the journey time to Paddington from Southampton (1:30) doing that and add it to the journey time from Euston to Birmingham by HS2 (0:49) is about the same time (actually 10 minutes shorter which with the extra time into/out of Central London gives an allowance for changing) as the current XC services between Southampton and Birmingham (2:30).

Feel free to check the times using your preferred rail planner.

 

[LOL The Irony]

In a heavily built-up area grade separation at Slade Lane would be ... challenging.

Just needs a better flat crossing in conjunction with in cab signalling. Points onto the down slow, then onto the down fast and points from the up slow, up fast then Slade lane.

 

[ABB125]

How are these journey time reductions made? Are they by changing to the mythical Paddington to Southampton service at the mythical Old Oak Common interchange?

Old Oak Common is not mythical.

 

[6Gman]

No, by using existing XC services to Reading and changing to a GWR service. If you look at the journey time to Paddington from Southampton (1:30) doing that and add it to the journey time from Euston to Birmingham by HS2 (0:49) is about the same time (actually 10 minutes shorter which with the extra time into/out of Central London gives an allowance for changing) as the current XC services between Southampton and Birmingham (2:30).

Feel free to check the times using your preferred rail planner.

I'm not sure that "the Southampton debate" is terribly useful or important, though for passengers from the South of England heading for Yorkshire and the North East HS2 2b would be helpful.

 

[Bald Rick]

Slade Lane is strangling capacity at Stockport because it's just a crap junction. The amont of times I've been on on trains waiting for Virgin expresses to pass...

It may be causign extra delays when there is late running, but that is different to strangling capacity.

Others will be better qualified than I to comment, but if there was a flyover at Slade Lane, how many extra trains could be run into Piccadilly in the peak?

 

[mmh]

Was replacement of Pacers in places like Preston acceptable (despite there being no business case)?

Are new trains like the 195, 331s, or 397s too expensive to be purchased, or did they fall within your acceptable levels of subsidy?

@PR1Berske seems curiously reluctant to comment on questions of this nature ...

To be fair I think you need to give him time to reply, and that's if he wants to!

I will though. What subsidies were given for purchasing those trains? Are they not leased by ROSCOs who purchased them without subsidies?

Surely, whether you agree with the rail franchise system or not, that's how it works?

HS2 is directly funded by tax. All subsidy.

 

[Ianno87]

HS2 is directly funded by tax. All subsidy.

Very few railways are subsidy free.

In any case, virtually no railway capital investment (which is not the same thing as a subsidy, to be clear) is ever commercially funded, and HS2 is no exception. It's a public investment to support the wider economy of the UK.

But there is a very good chance that HS2 services will stand on their own two legs commercially, and not require an operating subsidy.

 

[Bald Rick]

I will though. What subsidies were given for purchasing those trains?

£250m. See link.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/407753/dft-permanent-secretary-to-sos.pdf

 

[mmh]

Old Oak Common is not mythical.

As an interchange to the rest of the country, it definitely is. Why is there nothing happening or even planned for any other route?

As it stands what's to stop it becoming west London's equivalent of Stratford International?

 

[Ianno87]

As an interchange to the rest of the country, it definitely is. Why is there nothing happening or even planned for any other route?

As it stands what's to stop it becoming west London's equivalent of Stratford International?

Because it is essential to disperse about a third of HS2's load onto Crossrail. And with 18tph to stop one train, you need to stop everything so it *will* be used.

As a side benefit you also get a single station change to Heathrow and GWML destinations.

Won't suit getting to every GWML destination better than existing routes, but journeys like Taunton to Leeds (for example) become very attractive in journey time terms via Old Oak Common.

 

[mmh]

£250m. See link.

https://assets.publishing.service.g...ile/407753/dft-permanent-secretary-to-sos.pdf

No subsidy to the ROSCOs, TOCs or purchasing trains there. It's an estimate that given a requirement for different trains the ROSCO's leasing charges will be 250million over the length of an existing franchise.

Some franchises would absorb that, most - the ones which are subsidised - won't.

Again, whether you agree with this system or not - I don't - it's what we have and why we have so many new trains with no huge immediate bill.

Building HS2 is, again, different. It's immediate direct expenditure.