Why wasn't HS2 phase 1 four-tracked to Birmingham?

[scrapy]

If you're referring to HS2 then all those stations will have faster London services and some will have faster Birmingham services too.

There will also be more paths available at those stations such as Macclesfield where non stopping services are diverted away onto HS2 meaning more scope for improving local services.

 

[Meerkat]

I would say the freight line from the tunnel would have been more beneficial than HS2.
Getting all those thousands of trucks off the road and enabling continental gauge freight all the way through to the north would have been hugely beneficial.
And surely much cheaper without miles of urban tunnelling, and with distribution parks out of town rather than grand city stations.

 

[Deerfold]

Think of the improvements to the Main Rail Network if, instead of this line that no one really seems to want! , that could be done !

What are you basing "no one really seems to want" on?

The financial case for HS2 involves it paying for itself eventually - there's no pot of money waiting to be spent. How many other improvements do that?

 

[Chris125]

I would say the freight line from the tunnel would have been more beneficial than HS2.

It might remove some lorries from some major roads but would make next to no difference to the rail network. It would produce a fraction of the direct and indirect benefits of HS2.

 

[Wtloild]

I have a dozen colleagues in my team who frequently travel from their homes in Lancs/Yorks towns such as Ashton, Bolton, Garforth, Pontefract & Ilkley to London.
Nearly all of them would happily travel by WCML or ECML, but don't because they'd first have to travel in a Northern/TPEx sardine-can that may or may not be running (wet leaves, strikes, lack of drivers) to connect to the mainline.
Instead they travel to London by car.
I'm viewed as some sort of masochist for persevering with the trains.
HS2 will have exactly the same problem.

 

[absolutelymilk]

I have a dozen colleagues in my team who frequently travel from their homes in Lancs/Yorks towns such as Ashton, Bolton, Garforth, Pontefract & Ilkley to London.
Nearly all of them would happily travel by WCML or ECML, but don't because they'd first have to travel in a Northern/TPEx sardine-can that may or may not be running (wet leaves, strikes, lack of drivers) to connect to the mainline.
Instead they travel to London by car.
I'm viewed as some sort of masochist for persevering with the trains.
HS2 will have exactly the same problem.

By the time HS2 reaches Manchester, it's likely that all of the sprinters will have been replaced, and 170s/185s or similar will be the oldest in the Northern fleet. Probably the 397s will have been extended to the maximum length possible and the Mark 5A stock will have been replaced as well.

 

[quantinghome]

I have a dozen colleagues in my team who frequently travel from their homes in Lancs/Yorks towns such as Ashton, Bolton, Garforth, Pontefract & Ilkley to London.
Nearly all of them would happily travel by WCML or ECML, but don't because they'd first have to travel in a Northern/TPEx sardine-can that may or may not be running (wet leaves, strikes, lack of drivers) to connect to the mainline.
Instead they travel to London by car.
I'm viewed as some sort of masochist for persevering with the trains.
HS2 will have exactly the same problem.

That's rather surprising. Driving to London by car is a nightmare. You may be in a minority in your team but the numbers of passengers alighting London trains in Leeds and Manchester and then catching local services indicates there are lots of other people doing what you do. Besides, it's not a binary choice between improving local train services and HS2. Both are necessary.

 

[AndrewE]

That's rather surprising. Driving to London by car is a nightmare. You may be in a minority in your team but the numbers of passengers alighting London trains in Leeds and Manchester and then catching local services indicates there are lots of other people doing what you do. Besides, it's not a binary choice between improving local train services and HS2. Both are necessary.

Correct, but only 1 is really happening: the one that has a station in London. And it is now being discussed openly that HS2 might not happen north of Brum. I just cannot understand why increasing train lengths across the North isn't being done as a matter of urgency. Additional stock of almost any age in any condition for the semi-fasts would allow units to be cascaded to strengthen local services. New stock will be welcome when it comes, but it's already too late. Please don't tell us that we've had the 319s, what more do we want? A few (dozen) loco-hauled sets, or even the redundant Eurostars could be pressed into service - if there were electrified routes to use them on!

 

[Ianno87]

Correct, but only 1 is really happening: the one that has a station in London. And it is now being discussed openly that HS2 might not happen north of Brum. I just cannot understand why increasing train lengths across the North isn't being done as a matter of urgency. Additional stock of almost any age in any condition for the semi-fasts would allow units to be cascaded to strengthen local services. New stock will be welcome when it comes, but it's already too late. Please don't tell us that we've had the 319s, what more do we want? A few (dozen) loco-hauled sets, or even the redundant Eurostars could be pressed into service - if there were electrified routes to use them on!

I must have been dreaming about electrification in the North West, and the 331s, 195s, Mk 5 sets, 802s, 777s, etc. etc. etc....

 

[AndrewE]

I must have been dreaming about electrification in the North West,

1 line (Blackpool to Stalybridge) and the almost-unusable Ordsall chord

and the 331s, 195s, Mk 5 sets, 802s, 777s, etc. etc. etc....

When? Every week is a week too long to wait. There were supposed to be Mk3 sets on the trans-Pennine trains a couple of years ago...
So little and so late that lots of people have given up on rail, as pointed out upthread.

 

[Ianno87]

1 line (Blackpool to Stalybridge) and the almost-unusable Ordsall chordWhen?

You're forgetting Liverpool-Manchester/Wigan, by the way.

Every week is a week too long to wait. There were supposed to be Mk3 sets on the trans-Pennine trains a couple of years ago...
So little and so late that lots of people have given up on rail, as pointed out upthread.

The Mk3s were basically ready to introduce (in fact did run one trip Piccadilly to the Airport and back!) - it was simply disability legislation (or an interpretation thereof) that prevented it, wasn't it?

 

[AndrewE]

You're forgetting Liverpool-Manchester/Wigan, by the way.

OK, 2 lines.

The Mk3s were basically ready to introduce (in fact did run one trip Piccadilly to the Airport and back!) - it was simply disability legislation (or an interpretation thereof) that prevented it, wasn't it?

The consensus on here was that the token trip was run because it was a legal obligation and not running a train could have been challenged in the courts. TPE didn't bother to train staff or arrange locos and maintenance because they had no intention of running the trains. Disability issues were guessed at here as a reason but never claimed by the company.

 

[Clayton]

This thread is very interesting. I’m more knowledgeable about rail than the average person but really dont think i understand the argument for HS2, and people here seem equally divided and uncertain.

 

[absolutelymilk]

The argument basically is that we have got all the capacity we can out of the WCML and a new line is needed. There is no space next to the existing line, so we might as well build a new alignment.

If we make the line high-speed, it can also take trains off the ECML and MML, while following the same alignment south of Birmingham.

The benefit of removing the intercity trains (rather than local/freight services) from the existing main lines is that they eat up a huge amount of capacity - a 125mph nonstop service will very quickly catch up an 80mph freight train or a 100mph stopping service.

 

[Clayton]

The argument basically is that we have got all the capacity we can out of the WCML and a new line is needed. There is no space next to the existing line, so we might as well build a new alignment.

If we make the line high-speed, it can also take trains off the ECML and MML, while following the same alignment south of Birmingham.

The benefit of removing the intercity trains (rather than local/freight services) from the existing main lines is that they eat up a huge amount of capacity - a 125mph nonstop service will very quickly catch up an 80mph freight train or a 100mph stopping service.

Yes I get that, and it’s great to get investment in rail. Living in Oxford though I’m less bothered about London and keener on reopening to Cambridge and some local lines such as Witney, which could be mirrored across the country

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I’m more knowledgeable about rail than the average person but really dont think i understand the argument for HS2, and people here seem equally divided and uncertain.

There is no argument for HS2 which is going to be a total loss-maker and will never generate a proper return on the massive investment. Which is why all the numerous financial institutions throughout the world will not touch it with a bargepole, even though they all admit they are searching for good investment opportunities. Originally the claim on behalf of HS2 was that there was a "need for speed" and there was no mention of a capacity problem. When the "need for speed" canard was shot down in flames by Wi-Fi and the ability to work on trains, the HS2 protagonists bounced back, triumphantly claiming there was a capacity problem on the WCML which they had not recognised previously but which nevertheless is so critical and so urgent that vast amounts of tax-payers' money just has to spent on it.

 

[quantinghome]

There is no argument for HS2 which is going to be a total loss-maker and will never generate a proper return on the massive investment. Which is why all the numerous financial institutions throughout the world will not touch it with a bargepole, even though they all admit they are searching for good investment opportunities. Originally the claim on behalf of HS2 was that there was a "need for speed" and there was no mention of a capacity problem. When the "need for speed" canard was shot down in flames by Wi-Fi and the ability to work on trains, the HS2 protagonists bounced back, triumphantly claiming there was a capacity problem on the WCML which they had not recognised previously but which nevertheless is so critical and so urgent that vast amounts of tax-payers' money just has to spent on it.

This is simply not true. Here is the original 2010 command paper:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HMG_HighSpeedRail2010.pdf
I looked for how many times the word 'capacity' appears. I gave up counting after a few pages because it comes up so often. It's ALWAYS been about capacity.

As for return on investment, no passenger railway anywhere in the world makes a 'proper' commercial return sufficient for financial institutions to be interested in funding a new line. That's why most passenger railways around the world are state-funded.

 

[AM9]

This is simply not true. Here is the original 2010 command paper:
http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/documents/HMG_HighSpeedRail2010.pdf
I looked for how many times the word 'capacity' appears. I gave up counting after a few pages because it comes up so often. It's ALWAYS been about capacity. ...

In the body text* I counted 182 references to capacity.
* i.e. excluding contents lists, headings, tables and diagrams
It seems that those who were sucked in by the media's obsession with the speed aspect without reading any factual publications are still obsessed with this "£50bn (or any imaginary figure in the range £80bn - £200bn) of taxpayers money just to get wealthy businessmen to London 15 minutes quicker!" Never mind, they can wallow in their ignorance whilst it is being built.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Sorry gentlemen, but that 2010 paper came after the repositioning had taken place.

Originally the idea was that HS1 would be extended north to enable people in the Midlands and the North also to travel to Paris quickly. Nothing to do with capacity. In about 2001/2002 Virgin and First Group floated their ideas of building at their own expense new high speed lines. Their motives were to secure a bigger share of the market and had nothing to do with easing capacity problems. They seemed to lose interest in doing it themselves when the Strategic Rail Authority commissioned its own study into the viability of high speed rail.

In 2006 Sir Rod Eddington's report specifically declared that a high speed line was not the best way to tackle capacity problems, and for the next two or three years the debate concentrated on the need for speed. This speed issue was rebutted and high speed protagonists began claiming that HS2 was essential to deal with capacity problems.

 

[quantinghome]

Sorry gentlemen, but that 2010 paper came after the repositioning had taken place.

Originally the idea was that HS1 would be extended north to enable people in the Midlands and the North also to travel to Paris quickly. Nothing to do with capacity. In about 2001/2002 Virgin and First Group floated their ideas of building at their own expense new high speed lines. Their motives were to secure a bigger share of the market and had nothing to do with easing capacity problems. They seemed to lose interest in doing it themselves when the Strategic Rail Authority commissioned its own study into the viability of high speed rail.

In 2006 Sir Rod Eddington's report specifically declared that a high speed line was not the best way to tackle capacity problems, and for the next two or three years the debate concentrated on the need for speed. This speed issue was rebutted and high speed protagonists began claiming that HS2 was essential to deal with capacity problems.

We're moving off-topic here. But I should point out you're moving the goalposts. Your original post was specific to HS2:

Originally the claim on behalf of HS2 was that there was a "need for speed" and there was no mention of a capacity problem.

(emphasis added)

Prior to the specific HS2 scheme being developed there were a number of high speed concepts thrown around by different organisations and it's no surprise these were put forward to fulfil various objectives. However, once a concrete plan was put forward in the form of HS2, that scheme has always been stated to be about capacity and connectivity, as well as speed.

 

[quantinghome]

In 2006 Sir Rod Eddington's report specifically declared that a high speed line was not the best way to tackle capacity problems, and for the next two or three years the debate concentrated on the need for speed. This speed issue was rebutted and high speed protagonists began claiming that HS2 was essential to deal with capacity problems.

Here's what the Eddington report has to say about alternative solutions to new high speed lines (emphasis added):

The range of policy measures would include fares pricing policy, signal-based methods of achieving more capacity on the existing network, and conventional solutions to capacity problems e.g. longer trains. Indeed, in keeping with a non-modal approach, the measures assessed should include improvements to other modes that support these journeys (e.g. motorway, bus, and urban access improvements).
New lines – including new very high-speed lines – should take their place within this range of policy measures, and each should be assessed on their merits before selecting the option that offers the greatest returns on investment.

The problem is that the solutions he puts forward have limited scalability, or just aren't very good ideas. Yes, you can put longer trains in some places, but eventually you'll reach a limit beyond which it becomes impractical. Yes, you can try and eke out a bit more capacity through new signalling. Yes, you can price people off the railways at peak times (but it's been tried before). However, ultimately they are constrained by the current infrastructure. That's why considering only return on investment doesn't work, because it doesn't account for the scale required.

If you think we can fulfil our future transport needs within the envelope of our existing rail infrastructure, some of which is pushing 200 years old then you're welcome but we're going to have to agree to differ.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If you think we can fulfil our future transport needs within the envelope of our existing rail infrastructure, some of which is pushing 200 years old then you're welcome but we're going to have to agree to differ.

I haven't said no modernisation of our network is worthwhile. I just don't believe HS2 is worthwhile.

 

[tasky]

The argument basically is that we have got all the capacity we can out of the WCML and a new line is needed. There is no space next to the existing line, so we might as well build a new alignment.

If we make the line high-speed, it can also take trains off the ECML and MML, while following the same alignment south of Birmingham.

The benefit of removing the intercity trains (rather than local/freight services) from the existing main lines is that they eat up a huge amount of capacity - a 125mph nonstop service will very quickly catch up an 80mph freight train or a 100mph stopping service.

And, the final missing line from this good post - that this freed up capacity can be used to provide better local and stopping services on those lines, which is what people always ask for

And that building a high-speed line isn't much more expensive than building a non-high speed line and that a new alignment through a less densely populated area is cheaper, less disruptive, and more effective than 4 or 6- tracking an existing alignment in a developed area

 

[Meerkat]

new alignment through a less densely populated area is cheaper, less disruptive, and more effective than 4 or 6- tracking an existing alignment in a developed area

Does that definitely still hold considering the issues HS2 is having?

 

[MarkyT]

And that building a high-speed line isn't much more expensive than building a non-high speed line and that a new alignment through a less densely populated area is cheaper, less disruptive, and more effective than 4 or 6- tracking an existing alignment in a developed area

Closely following the existing WCML alignment would also not allow any increase in speed and would lock in the continued use of tilting trains even to maintain existing speed.