HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[TonyK]

Ha ha, charade you are...

Oh dear. Hanging on in quiet desperation is the English way, but oh, how I wish you were here! I feel comfortably numb, and my eldest daughter is called Emily.  This whole thread has Echoes, and is costing me Time.

Now, when I see Emily play with her 14-month old son and month-old daughter (yes, I know it's quick, but one of us was in a hurry) I have to ask: "By the way, which one's pink?".

FTR^▸ (Fitness To Run), I spent my 21st birthday at Bingley Hall, Staffordshire, watching Pink Floyd for the second time, doing the "Animals" tour. The first time was Knobworth, where "Wish you were Here" was brand new.

Set the controls for the heart of the sun, somebody, whilst I apologise for a momentary lapse of reason.

I had liberal Pink Floyd music on the car stereo when I was Learning to Fly, but that is enough for now. I have hit The Wall. If I open up much more, I may reveal a Saucerful of Secrets, and would have to make sure they were Obscured by Clouds, lest anyone feel tempted to Meddle. Up and Atom, heart Mother!

[Red Squirrel]

In amongst all the uncritical reporting of Dr Richard Beechings' IEA report on HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)), it is good to see at least one voice questioning his figures:

...even if you think HS2 is a costly white elephant, don't be taken in by these figures. Edge beyond the executive summary of the report and you'll find they rely on wild speculation and fag-packet estimates.

So how does the report's author manage to double the existing ^43bn budget? By adding in anything that has been proposed along the route and claiming it's an integral part of the system.

Source: City AM

[Electric train]

Its really unfortunate that the proposal is called High Speed 2, a more imaginative name might have got the public and business more engaged, the High Speed 250 mph tag is not all of what this railway is about

[paul7575]

Its really unfortunate that the proposal is called High Speed 2, a more imaginative name might have got the public and business more engaged, the High Speed 250 mph tag is not all of what this railway is about

Tend to agree.  In hindsight renaming CTRL^▸ (Channel Tunnel Rail Link) as HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) did sort of paint them into a corner a bit...

Paul

[Lee]

From The Guardian:

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)): fears over rising cost dismissed by government

DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) hits out at 'misleading' claims days after thinktank warns high-speed rail project could nearly double in cost to ^80bn

The government has dismissed reports that the cost of HS2, the high-speed rail project, will escalate to a politically unacceptable ^73bn, saying the figures were "completely misleading".

The figure is being discussed privately by Treasury insiders, according to the Financial Times. It comes days after the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), a free-market thinktank, warned the project could nearly double in cost to ^80bn and should be scrapped.

Officially the scheme, which will build a high-speed network linking London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds by 2033, will cost ^42.6bn ^ already a rise of almost ^10bn from the original figure when HS2 was approved in early 2012. Trains will cost another ^7bn, and these figures are all at 2011 prices.

A well-placed government source said: "There may be some officials who don't like it but the fact is the Treasury are funding it and David Cameron and George Osborne fully support it. We have funding of ^15bn for the next five years and this is going ahead."

The Department for Transport (DfT) said the higher figures were only arrived at by factoring in VAT^▸ (Value Added Tax) and inflation, against standard Treasury guidance.

A DfT spokesman said: "It is completely misleading to provide the figures in this way. It is impossible to tell what the level of inflation will be in 10 or 20 years' time. And it is possible that VAT will be reclaimable on the project. VAT was reclaimable for HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel) and is reclaimable for Crossrail.

"The cost of HS2 is ^42.6bn, ^14.4bn of which is contingency. We are determined to bear down on these costs and manage them to secure maximum value for money for the taxpayer."

While HS2 has cross-party support, Labour has warned it would not write a "blank cheque" and recently senior figures such as Lord Mandelson have come out in opposition.

One HS2 official quoted by the FT said: "There is definitely a feeling of paranoia in the air at the moment."

"Nobody knows what Labour would do if it got in. And there's a sense that if the costs go up again then it's game over, definitely."

The spending will represent Britain's biggest infrastructure project, and the coalition has been looking for major schemes to promote jobs and growth as the economy stalls.

However, costs such as extra tunnelling to placate opponents in London and the Chilterns have already meant extra money has been factored in.

Cost-benefit analysis of the scheme published by the DfT has been modified several times in the past two years, and opposition groups believe the economic case has been demolished.

But supporters argue that the scheme will provide extra capacity on an increasingly congested rail network, and that this ^ rather than time savings ^ is the crucial reason for going ahead.

The government source added: "HS2 funding is part of a much bigger national increase in transport investment including roads and cycling ^ it doesn't come at the expense of other projects."

A Treasury spokesman said: "The High Speed 2 programme is the most important investment in public infrastructure in a generation. HS2 has the full support of the whole government, including the Treasury."

[TonyK]

Its really unfortunate that the proposal is called High Speed 2, a more imaginative name might have got the public and business more engaged, the High Speed 250 mph tag is not all of what this railway is about

A view held also by the Transport Minister.

[Electric train]

Its really unfortunate that the proposal is called High Speed 2, a more imaginative name might have got the public and business more engaged, the High Speed 250 mph tag is not all of what this railway is about

A view held also by the Transport Minister.

Maybe we should suggest a new name ............. errrrrrrrrrr  let me think ...................

 

mmmmmmm how about .......


The Great Central 

[stuving]

Be careful what you wish for. If the government or the promoters really believed a new name would be better, they would hire consultants and then we would end up with one of those silly invented names.

[paul7575]

The New North West & East Main Line...

Another thing that niggles with me is the smaller scale 'own goal' of describing and continually referring to the Birmingham terminus as being at 'Curzon St'.  That just allows opponents to exaggerate the distance to New St, whereas the actual entrance will be next door to Moor St.

You might as well describe Paddington's position as being on Bishops Bridge Rd, or Waterloo as on Leake St...

Paul

[Rhydgaled]

The New North West & East Main Line...

Another thing that niggles with me is the smaller scale 'own goal' of describing and continually referring to the Birmingham terminus as being at 'Curzon St'.  That just allows opponents to exaggerate the distance to New St, whereas the actual entrance will be next door to Moor St.

You might as well describe Paddington's position as being on Bishops Bridge Rd, or Waterloo as on Leake St...

Paul

Forget the naming, the basic fact the central Birmingham station (and the London and, to a lessor extent, Manchester ones) are planned to be termini sounds almost madness to me. For example, I think Virgin currently run Wolverhampton - London services, they couldn't use HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) if the station is a dead-end, and there is talk about wires to Holyhead to enable running north Wales trains onto HS2. A HS2 train would probably be alot longer than the Voyagers currently used to noth Wales, you'd get much better loadings in north Wales if you could call at Central Birmingham HS2 station en-route to London. Similarly, you could run London - Birmingham services through to Manchester and Liverpool if the HS2 station wasn't a terminous.

I'm also in favor of the 'Euston Cross' proposal outlined in Modern Railways a while back, linking HSR from Birmingham/Manchester through to Ashford and the Channel Tunnel. In fact, I think Stratford - Old Oak Common should be 4-track. That way, if it is decided Heathrow should be connected to the HSR network it could be done by extending two of those four tracks to the airport (the other two would, obviously, already be heading for the north-west). That could free up some paths on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) by taking some Heathrow Express trains. Later still, you could extend that line from Heathrow as a HS3, either down to Southampton/Portsmouth to releive capacity on the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) network or west to Reading and Bath (maybe even from there south towards Devon and Cornwall) to releive the GWML.

Through stations would of course add to the cost of the scheme, but by small amounts compared to the huge total cost. If we're spending so much to build a new line we may as well spend a little more to do it properly.

[ellendune]

Forget the naming, the basic fact the central Birmingham station (and the London and, to a lessor extent, Manchester ones) are planned to be termini sounds almost madness to me. For example, I think Virgin currently run Wolverhampton - London services, they couldn't use HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) if the station is a dead-end, and there is talk about wires to Holyhead to enable running north Wales trains onto HS2. A HS2 train would probably be alot longer than the Voyagers currently used to noth Wales, you'd get much better loadings in north Wales if you could call at Central Birmingham HS2 station en-route to London. Similarly, you could run London - Birmingham services through to Manchester and Liverpool if the HS2 station wasn't a terminous.

You have not grasped the role of HS2.  It is only meant to serve a basic network of hubs. Trains from Wolverhampton and I suspect North Wales to Euston would continue to use the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and would be semi-fast services. If you wanted to get there faster you would change at Birmingham. 

If the HS2 trains were all extended onto the classic lines then, as you point out there would need to be major works to lengthen platforms.

I'm also in favor of the 'Euston Cross' proposal outlined in Modern Railways a while back, linking HSR from Birmingham/Manchester through to Ashford and the Channel Tunnel. In fact, I think Stratford - Old Oak Common should be 4-track. That way, if it is decided Heathrow should be connected to the HSR network it could be done by extending two of those four tracks to the airport (the other two would, obviously, already be heading for the north-west). That could free up some paths on the GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) by taking some Heathrow Express trains. Later still, you could extend that line from Heathrow as a HS3, either down to Southampton/Portsmouth to releive capacity on the SWT^▸ (South West Trains) network or west to Reading and Bath (maybe even from there south towards Devon and Cornwall) to releive the GWML.

Through stations would of course add to the cost of the scheme, but by small amounts compared to the huge total cost. If we're spending so much to build a new line we may as well spend a little more to do it properly.

Doubling the most expensive part of the route (the tunnels under London) would not add a small amount to the scheme.  Suggesting this sort of think is playing into the hands of the detractors who cannot bear that money should be spent on any public transport scheme outside London.

(^14bn for Crossrail and ^6bn for Thameslink - no problem - London deserves it, ^40 bn for Boris Island - no problem its a national hub that we are moving so that the rest of the nation can't use it - ^50bn for HS2 to benefit most of the rest of the country - far too expensive - just a sop to buy votes in 'the North')

[ellendune]

I have some new alternative money saving scheme to avoid building HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). They all stem from the problem that we are using two pairs of tracks to run four railways (fast, semi-fast, local passengers and freight).

a) Option 1 - Keep the fast lines for Intercity express services - cease all semi-fast services. Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Wolverhampton Stafford etc. would only be served by local services which, together with freight would use the slow lines. Capacity would be optimised by running all trains at the same speed.

b) Option 2 - Abolish the express services.  semi fast services (or fast services as they would become) would stop at all medium sized stations and would use the fast lines along with express freight.  Local services would use the slow lines along with slower freight services.

c) Option 3 - Close all the small stations and run no local services - after all this is a main line not a commuter railway. The only stations on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) would be Euston, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Stoke, Stockport, Manchester, Warrington, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow.  Any other stations on the WCML north of Watford (which would continue to be served by the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines) would be closed to allow capacity for Fast, semi fast and freight services. 

Which one would you choose?

[onthecushions]

I have some new alternative money saving scheme to avoid building HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). They all stem from the problem that we are using two pairs of tracks to run four railways (fast, semi-fast, local passengers and freight).

a) Option 1 - Keep the fast lines for Intercity express services - cease all semi-fast services. Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Wolverhampton Stafford etc. would only be served by local services which, together with freight would use the slow lines. Capacity would be optimised by running all trains at the same speed.

b) Option 2 - Abolish the express services.  semi fast services (or fast services as they would become) would stop at all medium sized stations and would use the fast lines along with express freight.  Local services would use the slow lines along with slower freight services.

c) Option 3 - Close all the small stations and run no local services - after all this is a main line not a commuter railway. The only stations on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) would be Euston, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Stoke, Stockport, Manchester, Warrington, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow.  Any other stations on the WCML north of Watford (which would continue to be served by the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines) would be closed to allow capacity for Fast, semi fast and freight services. 

Which one would you choose?

Why no option 4 for diverting freight?


OTC

[Electric train]

I have some new alternative money saving scheme to avoid building HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)). They all stem from the problem that we are using two pairs of tracks to run four railways (fast, semi-fast, local passengers and freight).

a) Option 1 - Keep the fast lines for Intercity express services - cease all semi-fast services. Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Wolverhampton Stafford etc. would only be served by local services which, together with freight would use the slow lines. Capacity would be optimised by running all trains at the same speed.

b) Option 2 - Abolish the express services.  semi fast services (or fast services as they would become) would stop at all medium sized stations and would use the fast lines along with express freight.  Local services would use the slow lines along with slower freight services.

c) Option 3 - Close all the small stations and run no local services - after all this is a main line not a commuter railway. The only stations on the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) would be Euston, Milton Keynes, Rugby, Coventry, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Stafford, Crewe, Stoke, Stockport, Manchester, Warrington, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle, Glasgow.  Any other stations on the WCML north of Watford (which would continue to be served by the DC^▸ (Direct Current) lines) would be closed to allow capacity for Fast, semi fast and freight services. 

Which one would you choose?

Why no option 4 for diverting freight?


OTC

Why not stay with option 0 .............. build HS2

The UK^▸ (United Kingdom)'s Victorian railway infrastructure is getting to capacity, yes we can tinker with things like ETCS^▸ (European Train Control System) to reduce headways, add the odd fly over/under to eliminate flat junctions.

Remember the WCML upgrade last decade came in a ^9B and there was still working being done through CP4^▸ (Control Period 4 - the five year period between 2009 and 2014) and more planned in CP5^▸ (Control Period 5 - the five year period between 2014 and 2019) both control period spends were several B^ each, and the WCML will still not have ETCS.

Even with HS2 the WCML MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) and ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) will need large investments the forcast traffic growths are predicting that UK PLC needs to invest in its transport infrastructure the other alternative is a Toll Motorway!

[ellendune]

Why no option 4 for diverting freight?

Good point, but I am not sure where that leaves you since you would still be left with three incompatible traffic types on two railways.  Also there is nowhere to divert it to. the ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) are both full - space is being made on the line up through Spalding. So the option would be to kick the freight off onto the roads.  I suppose my option 3 involved kicking the local services onto the roads.  However there is little road capacity so at least with option 4 we are saying build another Motorway to the North. Now I wonder how much that would cost?

So

Option 4) Divert all freight off the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) onto the roads, cancel the electric spine and invest in a massive programme of road improvements.

So as a first stage how do we improve capacity from London & Southampton to the Midlands.  Ah yes widening the M3 from Southampton to Winchester (shouldn't be any opposition to widening that cutting through Twyford Down - no one objected the first time), a new M34 from Winchester to Oxford and a widening programme on the M40 to 5 lanes (through the Chilterns of course should be no problem).  Since it is for freight perhaps we should ban cars.