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

[HSTEd]

Indeed - either this new project has got it sums wrong, or HS2 has some very difficult questions to answer.

The mayors have no doubt been shown a PowerPoint with the contrary view and have seized on it.

Remember they are fairly desperate to get something to happen

 

[Manutd1999]

I wonder what the cost difference is between Phase 2a and a grade-separated bypass (125mph) around Colwich?

 

[The Planner]

I wonder what the cost difference is between Phase 2a and a grade-separated bypass (125mph) around Colwich?

Probably not monumental, it depends on what you are building. Is it 2A to a point further south than Basford Hall, or is it a grade seperated by pass of Colwich and Stafford and you still use Handsacre (which would be bonkers in my opinion). Remember that a Stafford bypass is still going to use the 2A trace.

 

[MarkyT]

Would it therefore have to be only easy savings. I am assuming using ballast instead of slab track would not require any re-design ?.

Not necessarily a worthwhile cost saving but at least something that is easier than a re-alignment about ten years later and makes use of all the existing design work.

Realignment in areas where the route is on structures and bridges would be almost as costly as building yet another new line I suspect. A small descope to ballasted instead of slab might save some up-front capital but will cost more in maintenance and disruption over the life of the trackform.

 

[Manutd1999]

Is it 2A to a point further south than Basford Hall, or is it a grade seperated by pass of Colwich and Stafford and you still use Handsacre (which would be bonkers in my opinion).

The cheapest option (for comparison) would probably be a simple grade separated bypass of Colwich and Stafford, using parts of the Phase 2a alignment but reduced to 125mph.

Trains would then run Phase 1 - - > Handsacre - - > classic fast lines - - > new bypass - - > classic fast lines to Crewe

Capacity between Handsacre and the bypass would become the new bottleneck, but it should be possible to fit 15ph along this short section.

 

[MarkyT]

The cheapest option (for comparison) would probably be a simple grade separated bypass of Colwich and Stafford, using parts of the Phase 2a alignment but reduced to 125mph.

Trains would then run Phase 1 - - > Handsacre - - > classic fast lines - - > new bypass - - > classic fast lines to Crewe

Capacity between Handsacre and the bypass would become the new bottleneck, but it should be possible to fit 12ph along the fast lines if everything runs non-stop.

The signalling would be specified for the required capacity at the appropriate speed. 12tph is not particularly demanding where all are of the same performance. If you're using the alignment and structures designed for HS2, you might as well use the higher speed capability for as far as possible for maximum journey time reduction impact. William Barter on Twitter today said that if you assume 125mph max throughout between Handsacre and Crewe, that busts planned turnround layovers at Liverpool and Glasgow, meaning you need more trains, crew and possibly platform capacity to run the desired service frequency. He says Manchester would also be on a 'knife edge' turnround-wise which implies lower reliability or yet more rolling stock.

 

[Bantamzen]

The mayors have no doubt been shown a PowerPoint with the contrary view and have seized on it.

Remember they are fairly desperate to get something to happen

And herein lies the problem. Being "desperate to get something to happen" isn't necessarily a great place to be, they could just be grasping at any little bones thrown at them by businesses sensing a chance for easy money. Just as is happening to the east in Doncaster about their airport. Many, many pinches of salt are required when local politicians weigh in with things like this.

 

[Nottingham59]

As far as I recall, the saving through speed reduction is something around 10% only. There might not be any saving left due to extra work required for re-design, planning permission etc.

The saving through lower speed would have been far more than 10%, if that had been specified from the outset.

 

[JamesT]

The saving through lower speed would have been far more than 10%, if that had been specified from the outset.

The 10% saving quoted is from the HS2 options report, ie at the design stage.

 

[Manutd1999]

A similar scheme was actually investigated in 2016.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

Back then, construction cost was estimated at £1.35bn vs £3.16bn for Phase 2a, in 2011 prices. A 50% cost reduction is not negligible...

 

[JamesT]

A similar scheme was actually investigated in 2016.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

Back then, construction cost was estimated at £1.35bn vs £3.16bn for Phase 2a, in 2011 prices. A 50% cost reduction is not negligible...

Though it's important to note the differences in what you get for your money:

It can be seen from this that the high cost option is £1.1bn cheaper than Phase 2a, the medium cost option is
£1.4bn cheaper and the low cost option is £1.8bn cheaper. All of the options avoid building the highest cost
section of Phase 2a which north of Baldwin’s Gate involves some relatively expensive sections involving
tunnelling and a complex junction with the WCML at Crewe

and

the costs of building new 140mph alignment has been assumed to be 10% cheaper than building
new HS2 alignment.

 

[Nottingham59]

The 10% saving quoted is from the HS2 options report, ie at the design stage.

By that stage, they had already baked in decisions that meant they didn't consider very much cheaper options that would have given the same capacity uplift as HS2.

 

[Manutd1999]

By that stage, they had already baked in decisions that meant they didn't consider very much cheaper options that would have given the same capacity uplift as HS2.

That's a key point I think.

If the starting question is "how can we build a new high-speed railway which also adds capacity", you end with something like HS2 and all of the arguments around speed etc. can be justified.

If the starting question is "how can we add capacity along the WCML", you may end up with something very different.....

 

[Nottingham59]

That's a key point I think.

If the starting question is "how can we build a new high-speed railway which also adds capacity", you end with something like HS2 and all of the arguments around speed etc. can be justified.

If the starting question is "how can we add capacity along the WCML", you may end up with something very different.....

Precisely. It's all about capacity. HS2 was always a vanity project so that politicians like Andrew Adonis could show off high speed wizzy new trains.

By all means build all new alignments and stations to be compatible eventually with 400kph running, and UIC-GC loading gauge. And have a long term plan to introduce these capabilities.

But accept that for the first 30 years we're only going to have classic compatible trainsets which could use existing alignments at conventional speeds (such as Brinklow-Rugeley; Water Orton-Curzon St; Wigston-EMD; and NNML Ruislip-Old Oak Common). And concentrate in the first phases adding capacity where it is actually needed (tunnels from Euston and Central Manchester to the edge of the conurbation; 550m platforms at Leeds, EMD, Central Manchester, Euston, Curzon St, OOC surface station, Crewe). Then build a Stafford bypass and a new line from the edge of London to the West Midlands)

 

[eldomtom2]

A small descope to ballasted instead of slab might save some up-front capital but will cost more in maintenance and disruption over the life of the trackform.

I think if one thing has been shown by the HS2 omnishambles, it's that politicians are much more sensitive to upfront than recurring costs...

 

[Peter Sarf]

I think if one thing has been shown by the HS2 omnishambles, it's that politicians are much more sensitive to upfront than recurring costs...

I agree and it is not just politicians that ignore recurring costs. It is the same reason people are happy to borrow money for an improvement rather than save up first. The recurring costs might go on repeating forever more (or a long time) but being a smaller number after the pound sign catches their eye.

So for HS2 long term recurring costs are less of a distraction than up front construction costs I'm afraid. It is also why PFI or PPI to finish/extend HS2 is attractive - nobody cares about that smaller cost even if it repeated monthly/yearly for ever more !.

 

[The Planner]

The cheapest option (for comparison) would probably be a simple grade separated bypass of Colwich and Stafford, using parts of the Phase 2a alignment but reduced to 125mph.

Trains would then run Phase 1 - - > Handsacre - - > classic fast lines - - > new bypass - - > classic fast lines to Crewe

Capacity between Handsacre and the bypass would become the new bottleneck, but it should be possible to fit 15ph along this short section.

How would that be cheaper? carry 2A on to a point north of Stafford, or somewhere around Hixon and you have saved grade separating anything.

A similar scheme was actually investigated in 2016.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

Back then, construction cost was estimated at £1.35bn vs £3.16bn for Phase 2a, in 2011 prices. A 50% cost reduction is not negligible...

I really can't see there being a flat junction on the WCML north of Stafford.

 

[Manutd1999]

How would that be cheaper?

The report I linked suggests it would be cheaper, by around 50%. Less track, lower speeds etc. Some of that saving would be wiped out by re-design costs, but it is worth investigating further IMO.

 

[GJMarshy]

Like you @Manutd1999 I can't possibly see a "lower-spec" version of 2a being cheaper. They've said it'd the the same alignment, but that alignment was given the go-ahead after extensive consultation on which bits are in cutting, embankments, viaduct/bridge designs etc.

To go back and tighten the curves, change the vertical alignment to reduce cuttings/embankments (where significant savings are found) and generally re-spec and re-design the whole thing with only the general route corridor remaining, the total cost would likely be higher after design and consultation. Not just that, but pay cheap, pay twice.

2a is not an expensive or extensive bit of railway in HSR terms, it's a simple job, oven ready. Get it done!

Maybe fixating on getting HS2 all the way to Manchester Airport at this stage rather than Crewe is hurting more pragmatic efforts of building what is designed, then working up the case for a redesigned 2b in future (since NPR is still very much non-existent in design, both need to be better integrated to get a better BCR)

 

[The Ham]

The signalling would be specified for the required capacity at the appropriate speed. 12tph is not particularly demanding where all are of the same performance. If you're using the alignment and structures designed for HS2, you might as well use the higher speed capability for as far as possible for maximum journey time reduction impact. William Barter on Twitter today said that if you assume 125mph max throughout between Handsacre and Crewe, that busts planned turnround layovers at Liverpool and Glasgow, meaning you need more trains, crew and possibly platform capacity to run the desired service frequency. He says Manchester would also be on a 'knife edge' turnround-wise which implies lower reliability or yet more rolling stock.

It used to be £100,000 per year per coach in lease costs, let's say that's now £200,000 and an extra unit for 60 years for an 8 coach train, that's an extra £100 million in today's prices.

If you need an extra three trains of 16 coaches and your looking at £0.6bn over that timeframe.

That's before you consider staff costs, maintenance, larger depot, etc.

 

[BrianW]

The report I linked suggests it would be cheaper, by around 50%. Less track, lower speeds etc. Some of that saving would be wiped out by re-design costs, but it is worth investigating further IMO.

It will be some time (when?) before HS2 is planned to reach Handsacre. There is time (not unlimited though!) to (re)consider how best to link from there to Manchester (and Liverpool, Leeds, Warringon, Wigan, N.Wales, Scotland, etc).

Some questions to (re)address? How many (if any?) passengers using HS2 for the southerly direction might be expected to want Manchester Airport? The much larger Heathrow requires a change of trains at Old Oak. There are IIUC 6-8 tph Piccadilly-Airport 13 mins direct- 21 minutes 'all stns'. Heathrow- Paddington 20-35 mins.

Might a routing for a two-track 'slower' classic lines HS2 be found on existing (or pre-Beeching) formations, maybe with limited 'interventions'?

Could construction start from Piccadilly, or some other easily accessible location, suitable for onward travel into 'Manchester' or beyond? I'm conscious of the relative 'inaccessibility' of East Lancs to London (if indeed there is a 'market/ need' for that, and the perceived (political?) need for HS2 to reach Leeds.

I very much appreciate that redesign costs time and money- it needs to be considered as part of the mix. To my mind 'something' is better than the current offer of 'nothing'; the great is the enemy of the good.

'Along the way' I have long been 'intrigued' by the alternative routes available through Staffs where capacity is both provided and limited by tunnels, two- track portions and flat junctions. Might that be another (subsequent?) 'project'?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would it therefore have to be only easy savings. I am assuming using ballast instead of slab track would not require any re-design ?.

Incorrect assumption.

Swapping from a system design of slab track to a system design with ballasted track changes all manner of things. Naturally the track itself needs a new design, but it will affect (for example) drainage (and therefore formation construction), bonding, location of maintenance access - eg there will be a need to stable tampers between duties. And so on.

Having said that, I’m not sure if Phase 2 was designed with slab track on the open sections. The tonnage was, obviously, going to be much less than Phase 1.

A similar scheme was actually investigated in 2016.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...33f99d2/rail-alternatives-to-hs2-phase-2a.pdf

Back then, construction cost was estimated at £1.35bn vs £3.16bn for Phase 2a, in 2011 prices. A 50% cost reduction is not negligible...

But there is then the cost of getting to the point of being ready for construction. For 2a thst is essentially nothing. For sny other option, it’s scores of millions even if it exactly follows much of 2a. If it significantly devistes from it, its hundreds of millions and another 4-5 years on the programme.

There is time (not unlimited though!) to (re)consider how best to link from there to Manchester (and Liverpool, Leeds, Warringon, Wigan, N.Wales, Scotland, etc).

There isn’t.
But fortunately, that has all been done.

Might a routing for a two-track 'slower' classic lines HS2 be found on existing (or pre-Beeching) formations, maybe with limited 'interventions'?

Nope.

 

[eldomtom2]

Well, the fact of the matter is that the mayors have said they have prepared multiple options, at least some of which diverge from the Phase 2 plan...

 

[Bald Rick]

Well, the fact of the matter is that the mayors have said they have prepared multiple options, at least some of which diverge from the Phase 2 plan...

They’ll learn.

It sleays amazes me how often seemingly rational people think that a quick exercise (dare I say with some crayons) can out do hundreds / thousands of person - years of detailed study, analysis and assessment.

 

[eldomtom2]

They’ll learn.

Maybe. Personally I wouldn't get attached to the idea of "they'll have to do Phase 2a, it's the only sensible option"...

 

[HSTEd]

2a is not an expensive or extensive bit of railway in HSR terms, it's a simple job, oven ready. Get it done!

Phase 2A is only cheap by comparison with Phase 1.
Before it was cancelled, HS2 admitted to a cost of £4-7bn approximately.
Given the cancellation and the need to stand up a brand new delivery body, I doubt outturn cost would be much less than ten.

 

[Bald Rick]

Maybe. Personally I wouldn't get attached to the idea of "they'll have to do Phase 2a, it's the only sensible option"...

I‘m not. Although I think it is still the most likely outcome.

 

[Krokodil]

Maybe. Personally I wouldn't get attached to the idea of "they'll have to do Phase 2a, it's the only sensible option"...

I think that we've seen enough of this government to know that they don't do "sensible".

 

[eldomtom2]

Phase 2A is only cheap by comparison with Phase 1.
Before it was cancelled, HS2 admitted to a cost of £4-7bn approximately.
Given the cancellation and the need to stand up a brand new delivery body, I doubt outturn cost would be much less than ten.

And so the topic returns to "why is building railways in the UK so expensive", as it always does.

 

[daodao]

I do not understand the obsession with building a branch of HS2 as far as Greater Manchester. It is only 1 of a number of places in North-West England served by the WCML and in population terms only accounts (excluding Wigan Borough which is served directly by the WCML) for about 35% (2.5m/7.1m) of the population of North-West England, which is broken down as follows:

• Cheshire (including Warrington): 0.9m
• Greater Manchester, excluding Wigan Borough: 2.5m
• Wigan Borough 0.3m
• Merseyside 1.4m
• Lancashire 1.5m
• Cumberland, Westmorland and Furness 0.5m

North of Crewe, rail traffic disperses in several different directions, so the cost/benefit of building any HS2 (or HS2 replacement) branches north of there is poor. However, there is a need to bypass the WCML bottleneck through Colwich/Shugborough/Stafford at least as far as a point just south of Crewe, and this might as well be HS2 phase 2a as far as this point, as it has already been planned and designed in detail.

The need (or otherwise) for NPR is a separate matter and the case for it should be handled separately. IMO, the only enhancement required is between Stalybridge and Huddersfield and existing lines from Liverpool via Chat Moss and Manchester Victoria to Stalybridge are adequate for the likely traffic demand for the foreseeable future. There is no need for any expensive tunnelling within Manchester.