How *should* HS2 have been built?

[Sad Sprinter]

I really don't understand what's happened to HS2, but is there anything that could have been done earlier on in its history to have made it more deliverable? I've been looking at various transport forums for over ten years, and even back in 2012 when I first logged onto Skyscrapercity, criticising HS2 was akin to the worst kind of heresy, yet it appears that some of the naysayers' predictions in the early '10s are coming true. How comes HS2's future challenges were not foreseen all those years ago?

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

There appears to be a serious element of over engineering and a distinct lack of budget control.

The engineers certainly seem to have been in control rather than the bean counters.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

There appears to be a serious element of over engineering and a distinct lack of budget control.

The engineers certainly seem to have been in control rather than the bean counters.

That's a first in Britain, usually its the other way around. How is it over engineered?

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

That's a first in Britain, usually its the other way around. How is it over engineered?

Why is so much in tunnel ?

If the reason for building was capacity release why spec 400k, 250/ 275 would have been more than adequate.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Why is so much in tunnel ?

If the reason for building was capacity release why spec 400k, 250/ 275 would have been more than adequate.

The response that argument always gets is that there's no difference in cost between a 125 mph railway and a 225mph one

 

[The Planner]

Why is so much in tunnel ?

Unless you have been living under a rock, surely that has been obvious?

 

[yoyothehobo]

Unless you have been living under a rock, surely that has been obvious?

If you have been living under a rock, some would say you would definitely need a tunnel.

 

[stuu]

It should have been accompanied with a massive publicity campaign so that "20 minutes quicker to Birmingham for £100bn", wasn't the first thing that people think of about it.

Perhaps the prospect of a nationwide scheme to follow on would have helped - Birmingham-Bristol, Leeds-NE, further towards Scotland

 

[RobShipway]

It maybe me, but is there not enough threads about HS2 within the Speculation area where the Title in discussion could if it has not been already be discussed?

 

[squizzler]

As I say in one of these other threads, I think the problem was that HS2 was elevated into a sacred cow. We should have talked in terms of "(Great) British HSR". It should have been sold as a programme of a target number of miles per year with costs coming down as experience was developed. This target number could include upgrades of existing lines to EU standard as well as newbuild.

As I wrote, the electrification advocacy campaign since Grayling has a lot of lessons that could have been applied to HSR programme, had the electrification debacle happened before we emotionally invested in HS2:

The electrification enthusiasts have learnt over recent years to make the argument "X number of miles per year until it's done" rather than "save Cardiff to Swansea" or "Didcot to Oxford". I think HSR supporters should also shift their arguing style to "miles per year" over several decades needed to complete the projected programme making the case that cost comes down with experience. Rather than basing on named schemes where HS2 or Northern Powerhouse become these totems that people project their own prejudices on.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Unless you have been living under a rock, surely that has been obvious?

I get it for the urban areas, was an alternative option possible for the chilterns?

It should have been accompanied with a massive publicity campaign so that "20 minutes quicker to Birmingham for £100bn", wasn't the first thing that people think of about it.

Perhaps the prospect of a nationwide scheme to follow on would have helped - Birmingham-Bristol, Leeds-NE, further towards Scotland

Correct, the selling point should always have been the capacity benefits

The response that argument always gets is that there's no difference in cost between a 125 mph railway and a 225mph one

I thought it was accepted as lower cost but not significantly lower ?

 

[The Planner]

I get it for the urban areas, was an alternative option possible for the chilterns?

Plenty of well healed and connected people who complain.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Plenty of well healed and connected people who complain.

Lol

One thing I am not aware of is how the contracts are structured and where the risk sits within it and who holds the risk.

Whilst I work in construction I am not involved in HS2, however, what I do know is that uncertainty equals risk and risk equals £

Other contributory factors, no one envisaged Brexit when HS2 was commissioned , nor covid, nor the special military operation in Ukraine ( because he doesn't call it a war!!!) what, if any, impact have these had on the projects costs.

Ultimately though it appears a structural failure in the project management of the scheme coupled with a lack of understanding of what they are building and how much they have got to build it for.

 

[Manutd1999]

With the benefit of hindsight, a lot could have been done differently:

1) increased focus on decarbonisation. This was less of a concern back in the 2000s but would be a key part of any project nowadays. This would increase the justification for a direct connection to Heathrow to reduce domestic flights, perhaps resulting in a different route into London.

2) The project should have been separated into more manageable sections which could be delivered standalone. A central high-speed "spine" with branches onto the existing mainlines may have been a better approach as a first step. New stations and approaches into cities could have been delivered as additional steps.

3) A reduced focus on journey-times and increased focus on capacity. Running on existing lines into cities may be ok, if capacity can be unlocked through more simple schemes (signalling, adding loops etc.)


Something like this, with some phase progressing in parallel:

Phase 1: New high-speed line from Heathrow to somewhere south of Rugby, connecting with the WCML.
Phase 2: New section (not necessarily high-speed...) from Heathrow to central London. In an ideal world, this could have been delivered in parallel with Crossrail, using the same route but with extra tunnels etc.
Phase 3: Upgrades to increase capacity along the Birmingham-Rugby corridor (4-track sections, ETCS, new capacity at Moor Street etc.).
Phase 4: Y-shaped high-speed section north of Rugby, with the western side extending to Crewe and the eastern side connecting with the XC line somewhere near Burton-on-Trent.
Phase 5: Electrification of the XC route from Burton to Leeds and capacity improvements at Sheffield.
Phase 6: Upgrades to increase capacity in central Manchester (Stockport re-signalling, Castlefield upgrades etc.).
Phase 7: New high-speed bypass sections on the WCML north of Crewe.
Phase 8: Upgrades to the ECML north of York.

 

[Technologist]

I wrote this on another thread:

This issue is that HS2 is set up and marketed as a project, if "Britain's New Trunk Railway" was set up with the goal of connection GB's top 20 conurbations to highspeed rail and then building each of those conurbations a mass transit/regional rail system, plus transit orientated development with a set budget of ~£10 billion a year (potentially much less if they are allowed to raise revenue from property value uplift) and finish point of ~2060 then you would be in a position where BNTR could invest in owning it's own capabilities to do things, have your own R&D department and learn by doing over extended time periods.

Connect these dots! (sorry Belfast)

While we are at it BNTR should have pretty broad powers to set it's own route on the basis of "net public/environmental good" with a broad requirement to open and honestly investigate alternative routes proposed by NIMBYs. We need to stop trying to engineer around public perception problems because that then causes the biggest public perception problem which is massive costs.

HS2 has a vague goal, build a fast railway to Birmingham and maybe Manchester, sometimes it's for capacity sometimes its for speed and a massive vague price tag for something which doesn't seem that big and which most people can't imagine using. If the goal is much more ambitious like build a high speed railway to every big city, plus mass transit more people are likely to be on board even if it won't get to them for decades and 0.5-1% of government annual spend to do it is again difficult to make the "HS2 will bankrupt the country" statements against.

Really we should have started "BNTR" off by doing something like a Leeds-Teesside-Newcastle High Speed Railway learning all the lessons on a relatively easy bit, under current governance you couldn't do that because it would be likely that such a project would have a negative cost benefit on its own and treasury wouldn't allow it. We need to get the treasury out and embrace ambiguity over the long term, sell the project as a fixed annual budget and variable end date with the proviso that as we get better at doing this over time we will get more done per year as the project continues.

Set the budget and the long term objective and then scrutinise on progress/outcomes not on value for money of each individual bit.

Also do the above and heavily invest in 20 seat eVTOL flying buses!

 

[Energy]

This would increase the justification for a direct connection to Heathrow to reduce domestic flights, perhaps resulting in a different route into London.

UK domestic into London is mostly people catching connecting flights.

3) A reduced focus on journey-times and increased focus on capacity. Running on existing lines into cities may be ok, if capacity can be unlocked through more simple schemes (signalling, adding loops etc.)

Thats sort of what HS2 is? Phase 1 and 2a need the new approaches, you won't get much more out of existing capacity.

Phase 2: New section (not necessarily high-speed...) from Heathrow to central London. In an ideal world, this could have been delivered in parallel with Crossrail, using the same route but with extra tunnels etc.

Crossrail doesn't have any good spots for a terminating station.

If the country was more forward-thinking we should have done a combined HS1+HS2 terminal.

Phase 3: Upgrades to increase capacity along the Birmingham-Rugby corridor (4-track sections, ETCS, new capacity at Moor Street etc.).

Moor Street is on the Snow Hill/Chiltern lines, it isn't possible to access from Rugby without a reverse. Building a new way in seems fairly pointless for a station with limited lengths

4 tracking is possible on some sections but not the entire way, have a look on Google Maps, and its fairly clear that Coventry couldn't be done without a lot of demolition.

 

[HSTEd]

Lack of budget control meant it was possible for massive overdesigning to occur.

Vast consultantancy bills were run up trying to squeeze tiny improvements out of the build cost - causing runaway cost escalation before anything actually gets built.

I get it for the urban areas, was an alternative option possible for the chilterns?

In a totalitarian dictatorship, sure.

But the only way to make the route cheaper would be a 100 mile viaduct in the style of the Danyang-Kushan Grand Bridge.

Could luck selling that to the locals with no stations for them to use!

A Shinkansen style construction project probably would have been abel to defuse some local opposition with the promise of new stations, but you'd still need to put virtually everything on viaduct or in tunnels to keep costs under control.

 

[Trainbike46]

I wrote this on another thread:

This issue is that HS2 is set up and marketed as a project, if "Britain's New Trunk Railway" was set up with the goal of connection GB's top 20 conurbations to highspeed rail and then building each of those conurbations a mass transit/regional rail system, plus transit orientated development with a set budget of ~£10 billion a year (potentially much less if they are allowed to raise revenue from property value uplift) and finish point of ~2060 then you would be in a position where BNTR could invest in owning it's own capabilities to do things, have your own R&D department and learn by doing over extended time periods.

Connect these dots! (sorry Belfast)

While we are at it BNTR should have pretty broad powers to set it's own route on the basis of "net public/environmental good" with a broad requirement to open and honestly investigate alternative routes proposed by NIMBYs. We need to stop trying to engineer around public perception problems because that then causes the biggest public perception problem which is massive costs.

HS2 has a vague goal, build a fast railway to Birmingham and maybe Manchester, sometimes it's for capacity sometimes its for speed and a massive vague price tag for something which doesn't seem that big and which most people can't imagine using. If the goal is much more ambitious like build a high speed railway to every big city, plus mass transit more people are likely to be on board even if it won't get to them for decades and 0.5-1% of government annual spend to do it is again difficult to make the "HS2 will bankrupt the country" statements against.

Really we should have started "BNTR" off by doing something like a Leeds-Teesside-Newcastle High Speed Railway learning all the lessons on a relatively easy bit, under current governance you couldn't do that because it would be likely that such a project would have a negative cost benefit on its own and treasury wouldn't allow it. We need to get the treasury out and embrace ambiguity over the long term, sell the project as a fixed annual budget and variable end date with the proviso that as we get better at doing this over time we will get more done per year as the project continues.

Set the budget and the long term objective and then scrutinise on progress/outcomes not on value for money of each individual bit.

Also do the above and heavily invest in 20 seat eVTOL flying buses!

The original HS2 (including golborne link and eastern leg) would have connected 1-7, 10, 14, and 20, only missing out the ones that are not in a northern direction at all, so I don't see what problem you have with HS2?

 

[Sorcerer]

How should HS2 have been built? Ideally 20-30 years earlier and at a fraction of the cost. If we also needed any consultancy it should've been with a European operator like SNCF, Deutsche Bahn, or ideally Renfe who have unmatched efficiency in building and delivering high speed rail operations. I find it bizarre that the West Coast Partnership required bidders to take on board an existing high-speed train operator for consulting during train operations but when it comes to the infrastructure we didn't even think about partnering with them despite the fact that drawing on their experience would've been infinitely more valuable. But then I don't know much about infrastructure planning to be fair.

I have also began to think about whether or not the line should've ran through Birmingham rather than having an interchange so that as well as freeing up capacity on the southern WCML you could also improve Birmingham-Manchester connections in the process. It would've essentially been a new WCML connecting London, Birmingham and Manchester with Liverpool and Scotland connections on the classic network included. Ultimately though I don't think the question of how it should've been built is the project itself, but rather the management. As it stands the original idea would've done a great job freeing up the three intercity trunk routes out of London if it was delivered properly.

 

[PTR 444]

Connect these dots!

• London - Birmingham - Stoke - Manchester
• London - Leicester - Nottingham - Sheffield - Leeds
• Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds - Middlesbrough - Newcastle - Edinburgh - Glasgow
• London - Bristol - Cardiff - Swansea
• London - Brighton - Southampton - Bournemouth
• Southampton - Bristol - Birmingham - Nottingham

(sorry Belfast)

Why not extend a spur of HS2 across the Irish Sea, or build a Glasgow - Belfast line?

 

[swt_passenger]

With the benefit of hindsight, a lot could have been done differently:

1) increased focus on decarbonisation. This was less of a concern back in the 2000s but would be a key part of any project nowadays. This would increase the justification for a direct connection to Heathrow to reduce domestic flights, perhaps resulting in a different route into London.
[…]
Something like this, with some phase progressing in parallel:

Phase 1: New high-speed line from Heathrow to somewhere south of Rugby, connecting with the WCML.
[…]

I understand the early analysis showed having through trains going via Heathrow was not such a good idea. Delayed far too many passengers who didn’t want the airport, ie the vast majority.

 

[PTR 444]

How should HS2 have been built? Ideally 20-30 years earlier and at a fraction of the cost. If we also needed any consultancy it should've been with a European operator like SNCF, Deutsche Bahn, or ideally Renfe who have unmatched efficiency in building and delivering high speed rail operations. I find it bizarre that the West Coast Partnership required bidders to take on board an existing high-speed train operator for consulting during train operations but when it comes to the infrastructure we didn't even think about partnering with them despite the fact that drawing on their experience would've been infinitely more valuable. But then I don't know much about infrastructure planning to be fair.

I have also began to think about whether or not the line should've ran through Birmingham rather than having an interchange so that as well as freeing up capacity on the southern WCML you could also improve Birmingham-Manchester connections in the process. It would've essentially been a new WCML connecting London, Birmingham and Manchester with Liverpool and Scotland connections on the classic network included. Ultimately though I don't think the question of how it should've been built is the project itself, but rather the management. As it stands the original idea would've done a great job freeing up the three intercity trunk routes out of London if it was delivered properly.

I suppose there could have been merit in making Birmingham an underground through station, avoiding the need to build a dedicated spur for the city. The only issue is would London - Manchester trains easily reach capacity to the point that intermediate Birmingham passengers cannot board?

 

[Sorcerer]

I suppose there could have been merit in making Birmingham an underground through station, avoiding the need to build a dedicated spur for the city. The only issue is would London - Manchester trains easily reach capacity to the point that intermediate Birmingham passengers cannot board?

Good question, and in that situation you might just end up needing to build a Birmingham bypass route for Manchester passengers anyway. Passing them through Birmingham non-stop might in itself eat up well needed capacity for the Birmingham-Manchester and Birmingham-London terminating services, but given said route would be dedicated exclusively to high-speed passenger trains with more advanced signalling it may not be as much of an issue. Indeed I now do wonder if such connections were considered in the pre-building process.

 

[Energy]

Good question, and in that situation you might just end up needing to build a Birmingham bypass route for Manchester passengers anyway. Passing them through Birmingham non-stop might in itself eat up well needed capacity for the Birmingham-Manchester and Birmingham-London terminating services,

You'd just have through tracks in the centre of the station, not uncommon for TGV stops.

 

[Sorcerer]

You'd just have through tracks in the centre of the station, not uncommon for TGV stops.

Indeed not, Lille Europe being a prime example from my experience. But an alternative would be trains just passing through the station platforms as can be seen in Italy, albeit at lower speeds (though I base this off a YouTube video, I never actually saw it when taking the train in Italy myself).

 

[PTR 444]

You'd just have through tracks in the centre of the station, not uncommon for TGV stops.

Any through station in Birmingham City Centre would need to be big enough to accommodate at least 3 terminating trains an hour, unless you want to do a Lille and build a spur to the classic lines within Birmingham so those terminating London services can use New Street.

 

[HSTEd]

Any through station in Birmingham City Centre would need to be big enough to accommodate at least 3 terminating trains an hour, unless you want to do a Lille and build a spur to the classic lines within Birmingham so those terminating London services can use New Street.

If Birmingham is a through station, would it have any terminating services in it at all?

Surely you would just run all trains London-Birmingham-Manchester(other destinations are available).

 

[PTR 444]

If Birmingham is a through station, would it have any terminating services in it at all?

Surely you would just run all trains London-Birmingham-Manchester(other destinations are available).

But as I mentioned in post #22, that poses potential issues with trains already full to capacity upon reaching Birmingham.

 

[Manutd1999]

UK domestic into London is mostly people catching connecting flights.

which is exactly why we would need a station at Heathrow, so airlines can offer combined rail+fly tickets like they do in some European cities.

Crossrail doesn't have any good spots for a terminating station.

It doesn't now, but if a combined HS2 + Crossrail between Heathrow and Paddington had been planned from the start there may have been opportunities.

Moor Street is on the Snow Hill/Chiltern lines, it isn't possible to access from Rugby without a reverse.

My reference to Moor Street was in the context of increasing general capacity in Birmingham, which would in turn free up space for HS2 at New Street.

 

[Energy]

which is exactly why we would need a station at Heathrow, so airlines can offer combined rail+fly tickets like they do in some European cities.

I agree that we should have rail+fly tickets. The choice is between a station nearby to Heathrow (like OOC) or at Heathrow, difficulty with Heathrow is the land surrounding is housing estates, and would be very difficult to redevelop while OOC has a large amount of area to redevelop around it.

It doesn't now, but if a combined HS2 + Crossrail between Heathrow and Paddington had been planned from the start there may have been opportunities.

There is one between Heathrow and Paddington... its Old Oak Common.

My reference to Moor Street was in the context of increasing general capacity in Birmingham, which would in turn free up space for HS2 at New Street.

How would you increase capacity?