Could/should HS2 Eastern leg be shelved?

[LNW-GW Joint]

One of the funding plots for HS2 Phase 1 was that it would follow on from Crossrail, so that the annual rate of capital spend on new railways would be similar.
The aim was also to deploy key skills and resources in a sustainable way.
(It's not quite worked out like that with Crossrail delays, but the principle still stands).
You could project that view forwards, and roll out HS2 Phase 2b and NPR within the same annual funding envelope, stretched out over time.
Then it becomes a question of how much the annual spend should be, and there will be pressures on that.
It's the same argument over electrification - do we have a steady rolling annual programme, or (as in CP5) an indigestible big bang.

 

[Tomos y Tanc]

One of the funding plots for HS2 Phase 1 was that it would follow on from Crossrail, so that the annual rate of capital spend on new railways would be similar.
The aim was also to deploy key skills and resources in a sustainable way.
(It's not quite worked out like that with Crossrail delays, but the principle still stands).
You could project that view forwards, and roll out HS2 Phase 2b and NPR within the same annual funding envelope, stretched out over time.
Then it becomes a question of how much the annual spend should be, and there will be pressures on that.
It's the same argument over electrification - do we have a steady rolling annual programme, or (as in CP5) an indigestible big bang.

Well, yes you could do that or you could take that money and spend it on sensible improvements and additions to the current rail network.

I'm always struck by the almost religious zeal that both sides of the HS2 debate bring to the argument and their insistance that their side is 100% right and their opponents are 100% wrong. The truth is that both sides have some good points to make.

On the pro side, the best argument by far is the need for increased capacity. The much trumpted economic benefits don't really hold water as essentially they involve investment being diverted from regions that don't benefit from HS2 such as East Anglia, the West of England and south Wales to areas along the new line. It's pretty much a zero sum game when it comes to the UK economy overall.

Opponents of the line are right to draw attention to the ballooning costs but over-egg the pudding when it comes to the long term enviromental damage.

I'm an agnostic but surely everyone can agree that the worst possible scenario would be a half finished project terminating in Crewe?

 

[mike57]

I also wonder how much difference HS2 would make to London - Yorkshire journeys. Fastest London York is currently around 1h 50m, Fastest London Leeds is around 2h 10m+ with a lot taking around 2h 20m, wouldnt there be scope to speed these up, I seem to remember faster times in the late 80s. There probably isnt much scope to speed up London York with current infrastructure. I wonder what HS2 times would be. Post covid capacity may be less of an issue. London - Sheffield would be a lot quicker, but looking at current plans not direct?

 

[squizzler]

Effort needs to be put into driving down the costs - I notice there was a thread on that subject lately. Other countries produce both urban and rural railways for a fraction of th costs of the UK. What exactly is the point of the the so-called National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure if not for training British engineers in best practice both domestic and overseas.

 

[Meerkat]

Hospitals do bring in a huge financial return, they reduce sick days, stop workforces from dying early etc.
Anyway, what would you suggest HS2 would be fairly compared against?

That’s things with financial values, but no cash.
HS2 will have a cash return (not profit) on the investment, so actually paying off some of the debt.

 

[Bayum]

Daily Fail have picked up on this story:

HS2's eastern link hits buffers as line to Leeds shelved amid costs

Ministers have ordered HS2 Limited to halt all planning work on the Eastern leg and focus solely on the Western route to Manchester.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[BrianW]

Effort needs to be put into driving down the costs - I notice there was a thread on that subject lately. Other countries produce both urban and rural railways for a fraction of th costs of the UK. What exactly is the point of the the so-called National College for Advanced Transport and Infrastructure if not for training British engineers in best practice both domestic and overseas.

Ah yes ...'costs'. There is huge temptation to reduce 'estimates', and timescales, in order to gain approval. Surprise, surprise, outturns are higher. Optimism bias. Mission creep. Insufficient preparation. Ground and weather conditions. Supply issues ... People WANT figures (and dossiers) that support what they want and have decided already. It's pathetic really, and costly, but 'realistic'; like no-one votes to pay more tax even if they say (virtuously) that they would; maybe for someone else to pay more tax. Like I want planning permission for my house extension, but not for next door. You heard it in the Chesham by-election- too much public spending 'up north'! and from Hastings (below)
This will be spun out until November and 'spun' not 'shelved'.
Note this proposal from Prime Minister's Questions, 21 July-

Sally-Ann Hart




I echo the Prime Minister’s thanks to all our staff for their hard work this last year.

I very much welcome the Government’s levelling-up agenda to ensure that opportunity and economic freedoms are enjoyed by every person across our four nations. Hastings and Rye is being held back, prevented from achieving its potential largely or partly due to a lack of transport infrastructure. Will my right hon. Friend promise to consider the business case for the HS1 extension from Ashford through to Hastings, Bexhill and Eastbourne, and commit to the funding necessary?



The Prime Minister




My hon. Friend is a fantastic advocate for the people of Hastings and Rye, and she has made the case to me before for the improvement to transport that she recommends. I know that this particular extension is being reviewed by the Department for Transport right now, and a decision will be made in due course. I am told that I simply cannot anticipate that, but what I can say is that this is the Government and the party that is absolutely determined to level up across our country with better infrastructure, superb innovation, and better skills across the whole of the UK.

 

[squizzler]

Ah yes ...'costs'. There is huge temptation to reduce 'estimates', and timescales, in order to gain approval.

I regret I am unable to follow the argument in your post beyond this first sentence but that is easy to rebut. It is quite possible to drive down the cost of projects, The author of a blog I namedropped already today, Transit Costs, demonstrates that HSR in the UK is multiple times the cost per mile of comparable projects in EU and east Asia.

It's not the estimates were too small, its that the projects come in too expensive.

 

[Gareth]

I'm agnostic but surely everyone can agree that the worst possible scenario would be a half finished project terminating in Crewe?

From a Liverpool perspective, that'd be ideal. We'd get the benefits we were always going to get without the potentially existential issue of our nearest fellow large city being gifted infrastructure that will make it significantly quicker to get to and from London and incomparably quicker from Birmingham.

HS2 has always been a political project first and foremost. Whatever benefits it offers are a consequence not the cause. Regardless of what the government or opposition politicians feel, Whitehall is utterly wedded to HS2 happening, ideally in full. However, if there's a chance of the scheme collapsing, then the eastern leg will be sacrificed to save the rest.

Crewe will almost certainly happen but don't underestimate the desire to get it to Manchester whatever the cost. Whitehall sees Manchester as its "second city". Yes, Birmingham is bigger but "second city" is a political designation, not one of size. The only other place in the kingdom they get close to being as teary-eyed over is Edinburgh. Getting it to Manchester is as fundamental to them as linking Madrid to Barcelona would have been to Spain.

As well as the obvious consequences for Liverpool, the other big loser (with arguably more to lose at this stage) is Leeds. The eastern leg has always been about Leeds: Whitehall's second favourite city in the North. Sheffield and the East Midlands don't matter. Over the years, Leeds has benefited from being Whitehall's capital city for its Yorkshire & the Humber region. Private investment has duly followed. More recently, the idea of different regions each having a "capital" has largely given way to there being London and then three other cities which have a supporting role - Manchester, Birmingham & Leeds, in that order. It had been during this period that HS2 was conceived.

There is, however, a rival ideology - making Manchester a sort of second London. Totally impractical, even if it were desirable but there are clever people down in SW1 who think this is the solution to the country's regional inequalities. This would be very bad for Leeds and cancelling the eastern leg would put steam in the sails of that vision. And so, over time, Leeds would face the daunting prospect of being in Liverpool's position but without the cultural attractions.

 

[swt_passenger]

Daily Fail have picked up on this story:

HS2's eastern link hits buffers as line to Leeds shelved amid costs

Ministers have ordered HS2 Limited to halt all planning work on the Eastern leg and focus solely on the Western route to Manchester.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Isn’t that exactly the same link as in the first post though?

 

[BrianW]

I regret I am unable to follow the argument in your post beyond this first sentence but that is easy to rebut. It is quite possible to drive down the cost of projects, The author of a blog I namedropped already today, Transit Costs, demonstrates that HSR in the UK is multiple times the cost per mile of comparable projects in EU and east Asia.

It's not the estimates were too small, its that the projects come in too expensive.

Sorry Squizzler- I'm not meaning to criticise your post at all, only to take up from it on the issue of 'costs'. I'm trying, not very well, to suggest that many projects get off to a difficult start because 'costs' have been underestimated, maybe in order to get approval which might not have been given if a 'truer' estimate had been given. I agree very much with your point that UK should find ways of doing things more efficiently and therefore more cheaply. There seems to be something in 'the way things are done' which makes for increased costs and inability to get on top of them. I'm calling to mind the number of times Crossrail times and costs have increased. To my mind reticence to be 'completely honest' (as it might be put) is destructive of trust. How can government trust the railway industry to deliver? Is it all about 'Gold-plating' and /or 'Health and safety gone mad'?
My understanding is that UK has a lot more constraints per km, eg bridges, habitation, contours, listed buildings, newts, scope for objections and delay, ...
If it's so easy to drive down costs why then is it not happening?

 

[Meerkat]

If it's so easy to drive down costs why then is it not happening?

The cynical answer would be that the people who know how make more money if they don’t.

 

[Purple Orange]

From a Liverpool perspective, that'd be ideal. We'd get the benefits we were always going to get without the potentially existential issue of our nearest fellow large city being gifted infrastructure that will make it significantly quicker to get to and from London and incomparably quicker from Birmingham.

HS2 has always been a political project first and foremost. Whatever benefits it offers are a consequence not the cause. Regardless of what the government or opposition politicians feel, Whitehall is utterly wedded to HS2 happening, ideally in full. However, if there's a chance of the scheme collapsing, then the eastern leg will be sacrificed to save the rest.

Crewe will almost certainly happen but don't underestimate the desire to get it to Manchester whatever the cost. Whitehall sees Manchester as its "second city". Yes, Birmingham is bigger but "second city" is a political designation, not one of size. The only other place in the kingdom they get close to being as teary-eyed over is Edinburgh. Getting it to Manchester is as fundamental to them as linking Madrid to Barcelona would have been to Spain.

As well as the obvious consequences for Liverpool, the other big loser (with arguably more to lose at this stage) is Leeds. The eastern leg has always been about Leeds: Whitehall's second favourite city in the North. Sheffield and the East Midlands don't matter. Over the years, Leeds has benefited from being Whitehall's capital city for its Yorkshire & the Humber region. Private investment has duly followed. More recently, the idea of different regions each having a "capital" has largely given way to there being London and then three other cities which have a supporting role - Manchester, Birmingham & Leeds, in that order. It had been during this period that HS2 was conceived.

There is, however, a rival ideology - making Manchester a sort of second London. Totally impractical, even if it were desirable but there are clever people down in SW1 who think this is the solution to the country's regional inequalities. This would be very bad for Leeds and cancelling the eastern leg would put steam in the sails of that vision. And so, over time, Leeds would face the daunting prospect of being in Liverpool's position but without the cultural attractions.

Sorry to say, but even without HS2, Liverpool is not even hanging on to Manchester’s coat tales - that ship sailed years ago. Liverpool won’t be catching up with Manchester in the current climate.

The government sees it this way: it’s building a new high speed rail line between the country’s three largest metropolises (One of 9 million, two of 3 million). There may be connections to the smaller city regions, but other than that what we’re getting is primarily a London - Birmingham - Manchester high speed railway.

 

[Gareth]

Sorry or not, the ship was never there in the first place.

This is a extremely centralised country and central government decides which way the ships sail.

 

[Envy123]

Sorry or not, the ship was never there in the first place.

This is a extremely centralised country and central government decides which way the ships sail.

Which is why any high speed rail projects would discretely have an aim at making some more places commutable to London, despite what the spin says.

 

[tbtc]

The much trumpted economic benefits don't really hold water as essentially they involve investment being diverted from regions that don't benefit from HS2 such as East Anglia, the West of England and south Wales to areas along the new line. It's pretty much a zero sum game when it comes to the UK economy overall

...but, by the same token, there's no point in investing in railways anywhere in the UK if it won't improve things in every corner of the country

don't underestimate the desire to get it to Manchester whatever the cost. Whitehall sees Manchester as its "second city". Yes, Birmingham is bigger but "second city" is a political designation, not one of size

I agree with the problems of "trying to solve the north-south divide by throwing lots of money at Manchester

However, I've seen the argument from a few Scousers in the past couple of years that "Manchester isn't the second city because it's not as big as Birmingham"... which would be fair enough if it wasn't for the "we were second city of the Empire" stuff that used to be the mantra from Merseyside

Sorry Squizzler- I'm not meaning to criticise your post at all, only to take up from it on the issue of 'costs'. I'm trying, not very well, to suggest that many projects get off to a difficult start because 'costs' have been underestimated, maybe in order to get approval which might not have been given if a 'truer' estimate had been given. I agree very much with your point that UK should find ways of doing things more efficiently and therefore more cheaply. There seems to be something in 'the way things are done' which makes for increased costs and inability to get on top of them. I'm calling to mind the number of times Crossrail times and costs have increased. To my mind reticence to be 'completely honest' (as it might be put) is destructive of trust. How can government trust the railway industry to deliver? Is it all about 'Gold-plating' and /or 'Health and safety gone mad'?
My understanding is that UK has a lot more constraints per km, eg bridges, habitation, contours, listed buildings, newts, scope for objections and delay, ...
If it's so easy to drive down costs why then is it not happening?

I agree with the points that you are making, but it's important to remember that the problems that people complain about with HS2 (cost over-runs etc) seem to apply to a lot of other rail projects these days too - yet only HS2 seems to get hit with this stick - a lot of people damn HS2 because of the delays/ increasing costs yet are strangely quiet about similar problems on other infrastructure projects

 

[Bald Rick]

i wonder what (if any changes) will be made on the ECML to keep it going. Sorting out digswell is a big must. Start doing this and you soon start thinking is HS2 east the better option.

For possibly the umpteenth time, sorting out Digswell does precisely nothing for ECML capacity until other issues are dealt with first. Power supply, Huntingdon to Peterborough, Doncaster, Etc. Etc.

 

[Meerkat]

For possibly the umpteenth time, sorting out Digswell does precisely nothing for ECML capacity until other issues are dealt with first. Power supply, Huntingdon to Peterborough, Doncaster, Etc. Etc.

Apart from possibly Power supply why do the others need doing first? Surely they are also pointless without Digswell?

 

[Bald Rick]

Apart from possibly Power supply why do the others need doing first? Surely they are also pointless without Digswell?

No, Huntingdon to Peterborough and Doncaster each release capacity that can be used before Welwyn is needed. And are much, much cheaper.

 

[Gareth]

However, I've seen the argument from a few Scousers in the past couple of years that "Manchester isn't the second city because it's not as big as Birmingham"... which would be fair enough if it wasn't for the "we were second city of the Empire" stuff that used to be the mantra from Merseyside.

Don't know how far back you're going back. Not much of a mantra in my time, although I've heard it said in a historical context, much like Glasgow and occasionally near enough every large UK city. But yeah, ****ing scousers, I suppose.

Btw, Birmingham is bigger than Manchester but Manchester is the "second city". Whitehall likes Manchester more than Birmingham and that's what matters.

 

[Purple Orange]

Don't know how far back you're going back. Not much of a mantra in my time, although I've heard it said in a historical context, much like Glasgow and occasionally near enough every large UK city. But yeah, ****ing scousers, I suppose.

Btw, Birmingham is bigger than Manchester but Manchester is the "second city". Whitehall likes Manchester more than Birmingham and that's what matters.

Greater Manchester and the West Midlands city regions have a difference of less than 100,000 residents. Both are nearly 3 million. That is how Manchester & Birmingham are viewed.

 

[BrianW]

Greater Manchester and the West Midlands city regions have a difference of less than 100,000 residents. Both are nearly 3 million. That is how Manchester & Birmingham are viewed.

.... and London's bigger than both put together plus several others! Or add to London the South-east and a big chunk of the East of England ...
AND that northern mayors and 'leaders' and 'commerce' argue with each other like rats in a sack ... and whether to serve Leicester and/or Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield, Stoke, ... No chance.
What is 'the north' or any particular place in it actually for? Just askin!! Therein lies the underlying question. No coal, steel, shipbuilding, soon be 50 years since Thatcher.

 

[Roast Veg]

The main current threat seems to be that they may drop everything north of East Midlands Parkway.

They can't do that without proposing (as a minimum) MML electrification from Toton northward, Clay Cross works, Sheffield station works, Electrification of Sheffield to Moorthorpe, and Leeds East capacity improvements. Are any of these projects even properly planned?

 

[snowball]

They can't do that without proposing (as a minimum) MML electrification from Toton northward, Clay Cross works, Sheffield station works, Electrification of Sheffield to Moorthorpe, and Leeds East capacity improvements. Are any of these projects even properly planned?

They don't have to be built yet or properly planned yet. They only have to be built on a timescale not vastly longer than it would have taken to design, authorise and build the full eastern arm of HS2, together with some of the works you list, which would have been needed even if the full eastern arm were built.

 

[Purple Orange]

.... and London's bigger than both put together plus several others! Or add to London the South-east and a big chunk of the East of England ...
AND that northern mayors and 'leaders' and 'commerce' argue with each other like rats in a sack ... and whether to serve Leicester and/or Nottingham, Derby, Sheffield, Stoke, ... No chance.
What is 'the north' or any particular place in it actually for? Just askin!! Therein lies the underlying question. No coal, steel, shipbuilding, soon be 50 years since Thatcher.

Yes London is larger than both put together, but that’s fine. It is what it is. I’m not sure I see the northern leaders arguing with each other at all. Of the prominent city region mayors, when did you last see Burnham, Brabin, Khan, Street or Rotherham have an argument with each other? I’ve not seen it. Instead I’ve seen more cooperation between the city regions and them having arguments with Westminster.

 

[fishwomp]

Cancelling HS2 East releases no funds for any other schemes. Nothing will be built in its place. Not now, not ever - it was self funding like the rest of HS2.

Self Funding? I don't think anyone believes this, not even comically let alone seriously. Where have you read this? Certainly not in here: https://assets.publishing.service.g...e/939905/full-business-case-hs2-phase-one.pdf

Are you confusing "self funding" with "funded by Govt independently of the rest of Govt rail spending"?
Or confusing cost-benefit ratios with how things are funded in the first place?

 

[Shrop]

.... and London's bigger than both put together plus several others! Or add to London the South-east and a big chunk of the East of England ...

But it's not just about serving what's already the biggest, it's about generating links and prosperity elsewhere too ...

 

[Aictos]

For possibly the umpteenth time, sorting out Digswell does precisely nothing for ECML capacity until other issues are dealt with first. Power supply, Huntingdon to Peterborough, Doncaster, Etc. Etc.

Huntingdon to Peterborough should be done as that would free up capacity as Up Thameslink, Great Northern and freight could be signalled onto the Up Slow immediately after Stilton Fen all the way to Huntingdon and further south meaning a extra path on the Up Fast for a long distance service*

* I'm not sure on how much capacity will be freed up but it would be better then the existing layout as it would be more track milage benefiting then at Digswell.

 

[The Ham]

The Guardian had a comment on the death of the rest of the project - it's not pretty: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jul/30/hs2-johnson-vanity-cost-taxpayer

Key points in there..

1. While the already-started London-to-Birmingham stretch is still marked at “amber/red” for “successful delivery in doubt”, anything north of Crewe has been designated “unachievable”. [a Government review says this]
2. "[Trains] are not planned to tilt, which means that any time saved on a new track to Birmingham will be lost on winding track further north. A re-signalled King’s Cross line could even get to Scotland faster."
3. "Andy Burnham, was an uncritical backer of HS2 when he thought it would get him fast to London. He will now find Birmingham blessed with cash that might have renovated his dire northern powerhouse rail network three times over – money he may now never see." [expect same from other Northern mayors..]

The rating of projects often go through the red/amber status, all it generally means is that the scheme isn't fully developed.

The amount of time lost by the current non tilting trains vs the tilting trains isn't all that much compared to the hour saved between London and Crewe (check out the Avanti train times and compare them to the TPE between Preston and Glasgow and it's 16 minutes slower on the non tilting trains, so the 40 minutes London to Glasgow reduction claimed by HS2 is probably about right).

Although there's been talk of upgrading the northern part of the WCML so that all services (including TPE) see faster journey times.

Manchester will still see faster journey times even after phase 1 is open, then again slightly faster again when to Crewe is opened.

 

[Tobbes]

From a Liverpool perspective, that'd be ideal. We'd get the benefits we were always going to get without the potentially existential issue of our nearest fellow large city being gifted infrastructure that will make it significantly quicker to get to and from London and incomparably quicker from Birmingham.

Which could be rephrased as:

"I don't want my rival 35 miles away - at the other end of arguably the world's first main line, no less - to have something we haven't got even if it means we both end up worse off."

Well, what a sour beggar thy neighbour position that is!

If Manchester booms as a result of HS2, then the spillover will certainly help Liverpool, albeit less than a direct HS2 - London HSR link. And this is before we talk about NPR/HS3 and regional connectivity, which is presumably at least as important.