"HS2 Back on Track" - front page of Sunday Express - private sector plan to build Birmingham to Manchester

[HSTEd]

The Phase 2a alignment crosses the Stone to Colwich line pretty much at right angles. A junction between the two would therefore require a substantial section of new route, with the delays caused by design, public consultation, Hybrid Bill enactment and land acquisition. Is that really likely to cost less than just completing 2a under the existing powers?

It's unlikely you would use a hybrid bill process for a few hundred metres of curve.
It would likely be approved under a Transport and Works order process, as similarly sized projects on the conventional railway are.

And completing HS2A will cost many billions of pounds (the exact price for delivery is obviously uncertain), so yes, it would certainly be cheaper. Even HS2 puts the price at £5.2-7.2bn, and I'm not sure I'd bet on much less than ten at turnout.

 

[CdBrux]

What are the 'Stafford bypass' option(s) mentioned and how do they differ from 2a?

 

[robspaceman]

What are the 'Stafford bypass' option(s) mentioned and how do they differ from 2a?

I think it’s just a case of doing the very first part of phase 2a and then a spur from that line to the stoke on Trent line near Great Haywood.. then coming back to the WCML north of Stafford

 

[350401]

What are the 'Stafford bypass' option(s) mentioned and how do they differ from 2a?

This is a very useful document, that outlines all the alternatives to Phase 2a. https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

 

[Bald Rick]

Also if we just want to remove the battleneck we could probably just build the first ~20km of HS2 Phase2A until the line crosses the Stone-Colwich line.

You couldn‘t. The consent won’t permit it.

 

[Greybeard33]

It's unlikely you would use a hybrid bill process for a few hundred metres of curve.
It would likely be approved under a Transport and Works order process, as similarly sized projects on the conventional railway are.

And completing HS2A will cost many billions of pounds (the exact price for delivery is obviously uncertain), so yes, it would certainly be cheaper. Even HS2 puts the price at £5.2-7.2bn, and I'm not sure I'd bet on much less than ten at turnout.

I think a high speed curve, avoiding built up areas, would be longer than "a few hundred metres". And Fradley to Great Haywood would be about 20km, a third of the 60km total length of Phase 2a. But the benefits of this truncated line, in respect of capacity and journey time savings, would be much less than from completing 2a in full, and those reduced benefits would be delayed for several more years by the redesign, whereas the existing 2a design is "shovel ready".

 

[HSTEd]

I think a high speed curve, avoiding built up areas, would be longer than "a few hundred metres". And Fradley to Great Haywood would be about 20km, a third of the 60km total length of Phase 2a. But the benefits of this truncated line, in respect of capacity and journey time savings, would be much less than from completing 2a in full, and those reduced benefits would be delayed for several more years by the redesign, whereas the existing 2a design is "shovel ready".

Would it be a particularly high speed curve?

Th speed limit on the line in question is 85mph, and it is adjacent to the 60/85mph transition zone, so actual speed of real trains on that section will not be much higher than 60mph. Even with a 60mph curve the journey time would still remain significantly faster than proceeding from Handsacre on the classic line.

Even with redesign costs it would still end up billions of pounds cheaper than proceeding to Crewe.
As for being "shovel ready", as the Government has lost all confidence in HS2's ability to actually deliver anything, several years of delay will be required in any case as they build a new delivery body from scratch. Any hypothetical private funders are not going to want to give money to HS2 Ltd or any body resembling it.

 

[The Planner]

Would it be a particularly high speed curve?

Th speed limit on the line in question is 85mph, and it is adjacent to the 60/85mph transition zone, so actual speed of real trains on that section will not be much higher than 60mph. Even with a 60mph curve the journey time would still remain significantly faster than proceeding from Handsacre on the classic line.

Even with redesign costs it would still end up billions of pounds cheaper than proceeding to Crewe.
As for being "shovel ready", as the Government has lost all confidence in HS2's ability to actually deliver anything, several years of delay will be required in any case as they build a new delivery body from scratch. Any hypothetical private funders are not going to want to give money to HS2 Ltd or any body resembling it.

Still have to get them over Cheadle Hulme if you go via Stoke, no crossing move via Crewe, which was part of the decision making.

 

[HSTEd]

You couldn‘t. The consent won’t permit it.

There does not appear to be anything in the bill that, on face value, forces development of all of the works authorised by the act should any of them be constructed. If you can point such a provision out I would be very grateful.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I should imagine if the front page revelation was on the Mail on Sunday instead of the Sunday Express, there would have been far more scathing postings made upon this thread.

 

[chris2]

Here's an image from the 2015 document linked to above that shows the different alternative routes that were looked at...

 

[The Planner]

There was also an option for a chord at Meaford to the Stoke line considered.

 

[Bald Rick]

There does not appear to be anything in the bill that, on face value, forces development of all of the works authorised by the act should any of them be constructed. If you can point such a provision out I would be very grateful.

I was referring to the need for additional consent for the connecting line.

However, typically an act of this type *does* require it to be built complete. Without reading it, and assuming it follows a similar format as similar previous acts, the opening section will say something like ”powers to build a railway between A and B” (and not “powers to build a railway in full or part thereof between A and B”). Then later on there will be a Schedule of Works, and it will say something like “The scheduled works must be constructed in accordance with the deposited plans”. It won’t say you can do some of them.

The Act can of course be amended.

 

[MarkyT]

I was referring to the need for additional consent for the connecting line.

However, typically an act of this type *does* require it to be built complete. Without reading it, and assuming it follows a similar format as similar previous acts, the opening section will say something like ”powers to build a railway between A and B” (and not “powers to build a railway in full or part thereof between A and B”). Then later on there will be a Schedule of Works, and it will say something like “The scheduled works must be constructed in accordance with the deposited plans”. It won’t say you can do some of them.

The Act can of course be amended.

I expect an Act cannot force completion of physical works commenced under that Act, say in the case engineers run into insurmountable problems or funders go bust (probably happened quite a lot in the 1840s!). But incomplete as it would be, the infrastructure wouldn't be the railway authorised, so perhaps it could not be used in any legal way until the loose ends were tied up by a new Act or amendment (possibly T&W order today).

T&W orders are set in motion and eventually signed by the SoS are they not? With no political will to support that process, I can't see how this could go ahead under the current administration. The same would probably apply to any amendments to the existing act. They simply wouldn't give the process any civil service or parliamentary time, even if someone was there with buckets of private sector cash willing to pay for it all. The cancellation was fundamentally ideological and political, not economic; those leading the Tories this week demonstrating their paid-for allegiance to 'other transport sectors', and thinking it might buy them some potential votes from those against the project for all kinds of reasons.

 

[Verulamius]

I was referring to the need for additional consent for the connecting line.

However, typically an act of this type *does* require it to be built complete. Without reading it, and assuming it follows a similar format as similar previous acts, the opening section will say something like ”powers to build a railway between A and B” (and not “powers to build a railway in full or part thereof between A and B”). Then later on there will be a Schedule of Works, and it will say something like “The scheduled works must be constructed in accordance with the deposited plans”. It won’t say you can do some of them.

The Act can of course be amended.

The High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Act 2021 is available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2021/2

Section 1 states

Power to construct and maintain works for Phase 2a of High Speed 2

(1)The nominated undertaker may construct and maintain the works specified in Schedule 1, being—

(a)works for the construction of a railway between—

(i)a junction with Phase One of High Speed 2 near Fradley Wood in Staffordshire, and

(ii)a junction with the West Coast Main Line near Crewe in Cheshire,

(b)other railway works which are required for the purposes of—

(i)the railway mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(ii)a high speed railway transport system of which that railway forms or is to form part, and

(c)works consequent on, or incidental to, works within paragraph (a) or (b).

(2)In this Act, the works specified in Schedule 1 are called the “scheduled works”.

(3)References in this Act to “Phase 2a of High Speed 2” are to the railway mentioned in subsection (1)(a).

(4)In subsection (1)(a), “Phase One of High Speed 2” has the same meaning as in the High Speed Rail (London - West Midlands) Act 2017 (see section 1(3) of that Act).

 

[Peter Sarf]

I expect an Act cannot force completion of physical works commenced under that Act, say in the case engineers run into insurmountable problems or funders go bust (probably happened quite a lot in the 1840s!). But incomplete as it would be, the infrastructure wouldn't be the railway authorised, so perhaps it could not be used in any legal way until the loose ends were tied up by a new Act or amendment (possibly T&W order today).

T&W orders are set in motion and eventually signed by the SoS are they not? With no political will to support that process, I can't see how this could go ahead under the current administration. The same would probably apply to any amendments to the existing act. They simply wouldn't give the process any civil service or parliamentary time, even if someone was there with buckets of private sector cash willing to pay for it all. The cancellation was fundamentally ideological and political, not economic; those leading the Tories this week demonstrating their paid-for allegiance to 'other transport sectors', and thinking it might buy them some potential votes from those against the project for all kinds of reasons.

I feel reminded of the need for a PR exercise. We need to up the railways profile generally but specifically HS2.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us not forget this is a General Election year when candidate supporters will be "knocking on doors" and if past involvements are anything to go by, prospective voters tend to view railway matters way down the list of their priorities.

 

[Benjwri]

Let us not forget this is a General Election year when candidate supporters will be "knocking on doors" and if past involvements are anything to go by, prospective voters tend to view railway matters way down the list of their priorities.

I don't think HS2 is a good example of an effective campaign strategy, but I would suggest that perhaps forms of railway involved in commuting may increasingly be higher up that list. Given the poor state of Britains Railways, its increasing message in newspapers and the effect someone's commute has on their lives. It can affect the time we have for hobbies, out sleep, and in some cases I've seen it be what caused people to lose their job.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I don't think HS2 is a good example of an effective campaign strategy, but I would suggest that perhaps forms of railway involved in commuting may increasingly be higher up that list. Given the poor state of Britains Railways,

But surely HS2 is not seen as a "commuting" railway by the electorate, but more of a "main Line" railway.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Let us not forget this is a General Election year when candidate supporters will be "knocking on doors" and if past involvements are anything to go by, prospective voters tend to view railway matters way down the list of their priorities.

Quite true. For many (majority) the railways are really irrelevant and I fear that for many who use rail to commute they will wish it was irrelevant. Home working is far more relevant !.

I don't think HS2 is a good example of an effective campaign strategy, but I would suggest that perhaps forms of railway involved in commuting may increasingly be higher up that list. Given the poor state of Britains Railways, its increasing message in newspapers and the effect someone's commute has on their lives. It can affect the time we have for hobbies, out sleep, and in some cases I've seen it be what caused people to lose their job.

Indeed. Different snow was a bad thing when I was in my probationary period. That is when I discovered my manager expected me to drive to work.

But surely HS2 is not seen as a "commuting" railway by the electorate, but more of a "main Line" railway.

There is a need to get the HS2 PR right here. It is more than just a fast new mainline. HS2 is really about the capacity it releases on the West Coast Main Line for commuter services and freight (so reducing road use - less congestion and also ticks the green agenda box). Of course a bonus is that HS2 will make longer distance travel easier and should reduce air pollution (that green agenda again).

 

[Benjwri]

But surely HS2 is not seen as a "commuting" railway by the electorate, but more of a "main Line" railway.

Which is precisely why i said HS2 is not a good example of this.

 

[Energy]

There is a need to get the HS2 PR right here. It is more than just a fast new mainline. HS2 is really about the capacity it releases on the West Coast Main Line for commuter services and freight (so reducing road use - less congestion and also ticks the green agenda box). Of course a bonus is that HS2 will make longer distance travel easier and should reduce air pollution (that green agenda again).

Trying to explain railways without being "boring" is quite difficult. Marketing HS2 as "the motorway for trains" or "making your local lines quieter" might be more effective.

The speed is easy to market but is easy to dismiss as unnecessary.

The railway as a whole is difficult to market, "arrived on time" is to be expected. They could do well with "parking costs more than the train" adverts placed in city centres for local trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Trying to explain railways without being "boring" is quite difficult. Marketing HS2 as "the motorway for trains" or "making your local lines quieter" might be more effective.

The speed is easy to market but is easy to dismiss as unnecessary.

The railway as a whole is difficult to market, "arrived on time" is to be expected. They could do well with "parking costs more than the train" adverts placed in city centres.

The Manchester to London fare for business travellers is far in excess of any parking charge issued.

 

[Energy]

The Manchester to London fare for business travellers is far in excess of any parking charge issued.

Not for that flow but for local trains.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Not for that flow but for local trains.

But how many rail commuters drive from home to the station and incur a parking charge as well as the train fare?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But how many rail commuters drive from home to the station and incur a parking charge as well as the train fare?

A very large proportion of them, as it's typically too early to get there by public transport. Much more a South East thing though, not many people drive to Merseyrail stations.

 

[The Ham]

If the mayors pull it off, then expect a lot more support for a smaller central government and larger regional/county control.

From a voter's point of view:
- central government couldn't control costs so scrap it
- regional mayors come up with a plan invoicing business
- if they deliver it then people will question the wisdom of central government delivering schemes

One is the outcomes could be that places which felt like they were missing out on government spending would likely either see more money for any similar future scheme, or would have a justification given as to why they aren't getting money this time around (for example Wales having a plan of electrification along the North coast for, say 2030-2040).

Whilst this could be a stick to beat the government with (why are we spending £200bn on railways - ignoring that it's over the next 50 years) it could be useful in setting longer term goals (obviously there would be a need for some level of flexibility to allow for future growth too be different from the projections). You could fairly easily set it that it's transport related (so includes roads) but that there's also a carbon budget (so building a rail scheme which reduces carbon then allows a road scheme which increases it).

By including a carbon budget if it was set up well, you could say "we've got to pay £x to cover those extra carbon emissions (say through carbon capture) or we could pay £x on rail, buses and/or walking/cycling which gets us the same carbon reduction but also reduces road congestion and gives us more growth.

For those opposed to the green agenda it takes a lot of the wind from their sails as road schemes will still happen and there isn't a war on motoring.

Ultimately, if it delivers 85% of HS2's benefits but also gives the rail industry a route forwards for more government support (rather than managed decline or whatever the current situation is) then whatever your thoughts on HS2 it's got to be a fairly good outcome (unless you want only road building - but that's never going to fix the problem; see the US who've tried it and have just as much congestion).

 

[eldomtom2]

Ultimately, if it delivers 85% of HS2's benefits but also gives the rail industry a route forwards for more government support (rather than managed decline or whatever the current situation is) then whatever your thoughts on HS2 it's got to be a fairly good outcome (unless you want only road building - but that's never going to fix the problem; see the US who've tried it and have just as much congestion).

Fairly big if there.
The US also provides an instructive example as to the flaws of local rail funding...

 

[Peter Sarf]

If the mayors pull it off, then expect a lot more support for a smaller central government and larger regional/county control.

From a voter's point of view:
- central government couldn't control costs so scrap it
- regional mayors come up with a plan invoicing business
- if they deliver it then people will question the wisdom of central government delivering schemes

One is the outcomes could be that places which felt like they were missing out on government spending would likely either see more money for any similar future scheme, or would have a justification given as to why they aren't getting money this time around (for example Wales having a plan of electrification along the North coast for, say 2030-2040).

Whilst this could be a stick to beat the government with (why are we spending £200bn on railways - ignoring that it's over the next 50 years) it could be useful in setting longer term goals (obviously there would be a need for some level of flexibility to allow for future growth too be different from the projections). You could fairly easily set it that it's transport related (so includes roads) but that there's also a carbon budget (so building a rail scheme which reduces carbon then allows a road scheme which increases it).

By including a carbon budget if it was set up well, you could say "we've got to pay £x to cover those extra carbon emissions (say through carbon capture) or we could pay £x on rail, buses and/or walking/cycling which gets us the same carbon reduction but also reduces road congestion and gives us more growth.

For those opposed to the green agenda it takes a lot of the wind from their sails as road schemes will still happen and there isn't a war on motoring.

Ultimately, if it delivers 85% of HS2's benefits but also gives the rail industry a route forwards for more government support (rather than managed decline or whatever the current situation is) then whatever your thoughts on HS2 it's got to be a fairly good outcome (unless you want only road building - but that's never going to fix the problem; see the US who've tried it and have just as much congestion).

Your reminding my of the "integrated transport policy" I eagerly await......

Fairly big if there.
The US also provides an instructive example as to the flaws of local rail funding...

In the UKs case the danger would be local (to conurbations) roads and trains/busses only of interest. HS2 would just be ignored as not really part of the more local plan *. Unfortunately still left with a central government who, worse still, might ignore the cries from overstretched commuter routes as they are not part of the national remit.

* = HS2 not local but the mayors of Birmingham and Manchester are piping up. Incidentally what is Sadiq Khan's stance on HS2 ?.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

So many learned postings on railway matters caused by a front page article on a newspaper that hardly anyone has a good word to say about it normally.