HS2 Manchester leg scrapped: what should happen now?

[Krokodil]

I was referring to HS2 phase 2b, i.e. the section north of Crewe, not phase 2a south of Crewe, which I agree is needed.

With the section south of Crewe complete, and the section between the airport and Manchester done, there's not exactly a big gap to fill

 

[Greybeard33]

Currently safeguarded land will be sold off to chums from school, who will then make a handsome return when it is inevitably sold back to the state once the ludicrous decision to cancel the scheme is reversed by a more grown up government. Trebles all round!

In his recent Green Signals interview, Rail Minister Huw Merriman made clear that there will be no land sales before the election. He said that the lifting of Phase 2a safeguarding will have little practical effect, since the land needed has already been acquired (except possibly around Handsacre, where safeguarding is being retained).

 

[Energy]

In his recent Green Signals interview, Rail Minister Huw Merriman made clear that there will be no land sales before the election. He said that the lifting of Phase 2a safeguarding will have little practical effect, since the land needed has already been acquired (except possibly around Handsacre, where safeguarding is being retained).

An interesting part is 18:40 in, Euston will have both a new station and a new HS2 station with grade separated approaches. I'm not surprised, as the land was compulsary purchased for a station then it would be difficult to use parts of the land for non-station purposes. Redeveloping all of Euston would allow all of it to be used for oversite development to pay for the station.

 

[JonathanH]

Redeveloping all of Euston would allow all of it to be used for oversite development to pay for the station.

Previous postings have indicated that oversite development at Euston is limited by protected sightlines.

 

[HSTEd]

Given the protected sightlines, if you were trying to squeeze juice from the lemon of EUston you'd probably want to pack as much station as you can onto the site and then use it to take over traffic from one of the other termini, allowing that terminii to be partially or totally redeveloped.

Marylebone for example. I am not sure that would be worth it though.

 

[Tezza1978]

An interesting part is 18:40 in, Euston will have both a new station and a new HS2 station with grade separated approaches. I'm not surprised, as the land was compulsary purchased for a station then it would be difficult to use parts of the land for non-station purposes. Redeveloping all of Euston would allow all of it to be used for oversite development to pay for the station.

Surprisingly enlightening video - thank you for sharing this - I wouldn't vote for his party in a million years, but Huw Merriman really knows his subject and was surprisingly passionate about the future of the railways. Interesting in that he was very committed to the HS2 station at Euston. The bit on cancelling HS2 North of Brum - it very much felt that he was having to follow the Govt line and the party view, but (privately) would prefer the whole 2a and 2b route to be finished. Reassuring to hear that as you say essentially none of the land for 2a/2b will be sold off any time soon - as there is simply no time and they have financial/best value and legal hurdles. The industrial relations bit was again reposting the govt view - ASLEF and the current govt/next Labour govt ultimately both need to compromise (not opening that can of worms in this thread). Some positive noises around rail freight too - am hugely in favour of growing this.

 

[Snow1964]

Seems the High Speed Rail Group has produced a 5 point plan

(9 page pdf with pictures, maps, graphics so not practical to quote text extracts, as it is in multi-column format)

https://www.rail-leaders.com/wp-content/uploads/High-Speed-Rail-Exploiting-the-Potential.pdf

 

[The Planner]

Seems the High Speed Rail Group has produced a 5 point plan

(9 page pdf with pictures, maps, graphics so not practical to quote text extracts, as it is in multi-column format)

https://www.rail-leaders.com/wp-content/uploads/High-Speed-Rail-Exploiting-the-Potential.pdf

Not sure it isn't just regurgitating what is already known.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not sure it isn't just regurgitating what is already known.

Indeed. I read through it thinking, "I could have written this if someone paid me for an afternoon's work"

 

[Meerkat]

Seems the High Speed Rail Group has produced a 5 point plan

(9 page pdf with pictures, maps, graphics so not practical to quote text extracts, as it is in multi-column format)

https://www.rail-leaders.com/wp-content/uploads/High-Speed-Rail-Exploiting-the-Potential.pdf

I really do literally shake my head when reading another pro HS piece that basically leads with "everybody else has got one!"

 

[HSTEd]

I really do literally shake my head when reading another pro HS piece that basically leads with "everybody else has got one!"

Well the rail industry has struggled to make a case to people outside the railway industry about HS2 from the beginning.

It talks of more commuter trains or more freight trains in vague terms, which hardly makes it sound like some kind of epochal transformation.

Another example is the likely focus grouped obsession with the HS2 'Network' when it's just one line.

 

[The Ham]

Well the rail industry has struggled to make a case to people outside the railway industry about HS2 from the beginning.

It talks of more commuter trains or more freight trains in vague terms, which hardly makes it sound like some of epochal transformation.

Another example is the likely focus grouped obsession with the HS2 'Network' when it's just one line.

Part of the problem, and why there's so much talk of vague terms, is that with a long programme timeline if the discussion was about improving service x only to find a few years down the line that actually it was better to improve service y instead by the time HS was delivered.

There are (semi) specific things which could be talked about, like the removal of long distance services from the existing Manchester platforms allowing quite a lot of services to see improvements.

However, in contrast, if you looked at passenger numbers at Coventry in 2009 it didn't have a particularly high number, however by 2019 the growth had been much higher than the national average and so if the plan was based on 2009 numbers Coventry might not get the level of service the 2019 numbers would justify.

 

[chris2]

Anyone else think Street losing in West Midlands is potentially bad for the possibility of a 2a alternative??

 

[Tezza1978]

Anyone else think Street losing in West Midlands is potentially bad for the possibility of a 2a alternative??

Line in a story in the Express on MSN

"Turning their guns on the PM for cancelling the extension of HS2 beyond Birmingham, they said: "It was HS2 that did it and that was all Rishi, Rishi cancelled it. It's time for Rishi to move on now and call an election. It's over."

Its not just about HS2 - its the "optics" of not delivering levelling up and instead boasting about fixing potholes in London instead.

Don't think it will make any difference. Particularly after seeing that interview with Merriman. Zilch is going to happen re land sales in next 6 months

 

[The Ham]

Anyone else think Street losing in West Midlands is potentially bad for the possibility of a 2a alternative??

Could be, however given the wide ranging scorn the cancellation caused you'd have to be brave* to try and impact this on the run up to an election.

*Feel free to change to a word/phrase of you're choice.

 

[HSTEd]

Part of the problem, and why there's so much talk of vague terms, is that with a long programme timeline if the discussion was about improving service x only to find a few years down the line that actually it was better to improve service y instead by the time HS was delivered.

There are (semi) specific things which could be talked about, like the removal of long distance services from the existing Manchester platforms allowing quite a lot of services to see improvements.

However, in contrast, if you looked at passenger numbers at Coventry in 2009 it didn't have a particularly high number, however by 2019 the growth had been much higher than the national average and so if the plan was based on 2009 numbers Coventry might not get the level of service the 2019 numbers would justify.

Unfortunately, as a result of this vagueness they were unable to produce a narrative that sustained the public support for the project beyond the 15 years of political consensus. To be fair, they were lucky to get 15 years of political consensus in the first place if we are honest!
High speed rail in the UK is pretty much dead now.

 

[Tezza1978]

High speed rail in the UK is pretty much dead now.

Really? Are you now assuming NPR is dead if Labour win the next election/next 2 elections?

I'd be interested to know why you are so sure of that. Despite other pressing concerns re the NHS, social care and education. CapEx spending/investment very different to day to day spending.

 

[HSTEd]

Really? Are you now assuming NPR is dead if Labour win the next election/next 2 elections?

NPR more or less died with HS2 Phase 2b, they've just been going through the motions (and only the really cheap motions!) since then.
They've already started repackaging it into an upgrade package, with the length of new line getting shorter and shorter.

Given the extremely slow progress on the Transpennine upgrade, its almost certain it will be pushed into the future in favour of "accelerating near-term improvements" or similar buzz words.
I'd be very surprised if anyone ever actually approves construction on a significant length of high speed track, without major political change beyond that currently anticipated.

I'd be interested to know why you are so sure of that. Despite other pressing concerns re the NHS, social care and education. CapEx spending/investment very different to day to day spending.

The Government and Policy communities simply have no faith in the ability of the rail industry to deliver.
That is what has caused the cutbacks on HS2 and the Rail enhancement budget more generally.

Given that Starmer has been against HS2 from the beginning it is hardly likely he will pour money into derived projects like NPR now.
Especially as the entire capital budget is going to be sucked away into the NHS and education for capital spending.

Even HS2 was admitting that the "cheap" HS2 Phase 2 had reached around £7bn before its cancellation, I doubt there will appetite for anything now.

 

[Tezza1978]

NPR more or less died with HS2 Phase 2b, they've just been going through the motions (and only the really cheap motions!) since then.
They've already started repackaging it into an upgrade package, with the length of new line getting shorter and shorter.

Given the extremely slow progress on the Transpennine upgrade, its almost certain it will be pushed into the future in favour of "accelerating near-term improvements" or similar buzz words.
I'd be very surprised if anyone ever actually approves construction on a significant length of high speed track, without major political change beyond that currently anticipated.


The Government and Policy communities simply have no faith in the ability of the rail industry to deliver.
That is what has caused the cutbacks on HS2 and the Rail enhancement budget more generally.

Given that Starmer has been against HS2 from the beginning it is hardly likely he will pour money into derived projects like NPR now.
Especially as the entire capital budget is going to be sucked away into the NHS and education for capital spending.

Even HS2 was admitting that the "cheap" HS2 Phase 2 had reached around £7bn before its cancellation, I doubt there will appetite for anything now.

We will probably have to agree to disagree on some of this sir! While I take your point that some of the E-W NPR upgrades are likely to be downgraded /slowed down due to cost reasons, I'm not convinced that the same applies for other bits - including the airport part of 2b and the whole of 2A.

I've recently been doing a lot of driving up and down the M6 between Warrington and Crewe for an NHS project at Leighton Hospital. The unreliable journey times door to door (45 minutes on paper/but often 2 hours in rush hour!) for a 30/35 mile one way journey show how bad congestion and sheer weight of traffic are on this route (despite the "smart" motorway). What's it going to be like in 5 to 10 years time?? If rail links aren't upgraded both passengers and motorists will suffer.

Doing nothing is clearly not an option.

 

[daodao]

We will probably have to agree to disagree on some of this sir! While I take your point that some of the E-W NPR upgrades are likely to be downgraded /slowed down due to cost reasons, I'm not convinced that the same applies for other bits - including the airport part of 2b and the whole of 2A.

I've recently been doing a lot of driving up and down the M6 between Warrington and Crewe for an NHS project at Leighton Hospital. The unreliable journey times door to door (45 minutes on paper/but often 2 hours in rush hour!) for a 30/35 mile one way journey show how bad congestion and sheer weight of traffic are on this route (despite the "smart" motorway). What's it going to be like in 5 to 10 years time?? If rail links aren't upgraded both passengers and motorists will suffer.

Doing nothing is clearly not an option.

I'm well aware of the problems in travelling from Warrington to Leighton Hospital at rush hours - I lost an excellent secretary, who had moved to Warrington, because of this traffic issue. However, building HS2 phase 2b through Cheshire won't relieve the M6 or make it any easier to get to places such as Leighton Hospital. Building HS2 phase 2b from High Legh via the airport to central Manchester won't improve journeys from Liverpool to Manchester and places further east as the route would be so roundabout.

 

[The Planner]

Given the extremely slow progress on the Transpennine upgrade, its almost certain it will be pushed into the future in favour of "accelerating near-term improvements" or similar buzz words.

Thats what happens when you try to upgrade a live railway.

 

[Tezza1978]

I'm well aware of the problems in travelling from Warrington to Leighton Hospital at rush hours - I lost an excellent secretary, who had moved to Warrington, because of this traffic issue. However, building HS2 phase 2b through Cheshire won't relieve the M6 or make it any easier to get to places such as Leighton Hospital. Building HS2 phase 2b from High Legh via the airport to central Manchester won't improve journeys from Liverpool to Manchester and places further east as the route would be so roundabout.

But if we can get more freight on the WCML with more paths freed up by the completed HS2, and encourage more people to do Manc to Birmingham by train for leisure and business - surely that's going to help reduce M6 congestion -lorries and cars. My recent regular journey by car- always - going to be quicker by car as the hospital is not based by a train station. Getting other freight traffic and city to city travel to switch modes is key.

I can't see what the alternative is here. The "smart" motorway is already 4 lane running, no more smart motorways are being built for safety reasons and the chance of a new motorway or relief road is below zero.

 

[AdamWW]

But if we can get more freight on the WCML with more paths freed up by the completed HS2, and encourage more people to do Manc to Birmingham by train for leisure and business - surely that's going to help reduce M6 congestion -lorries and cars. My recent regular journey by car- always - going to be quicker by car as the hospital is not based by a train station. Getting other freight traffic and city to city travel to switch modes is key.

I can't see what the alternative is here. The "smart" motorway is already 4 lane running, no more smart motorways are being built for safety reasons and the chance of a new motorway or relief road is below zero.

Treat them the same way as the railways and price people off?

 

[Tezza1978]

Treat them the same way as the railways and price people off?

Well, quite. That's one option but its not conducive to growing the economy.

The elephant in the room is that at some point a government might want to look at road pricing.

But - its electoral kryptonite. Imagine what the newspapers reaction would be. ULEZ x 1000.

 

[AdamWW]

Well, quite. That's one option but its not conducive to growing the economy.

I'm not sure that massively congested roads are either.

I do appreciate that it's not going to happen though.

 

[HSTEd]

Thats what happens when you try to upgrade a live railway.

Well quite, but that won't stop the ongoing project being used as a weapon to prevent NPR from ever happening.

But if we can get more freight on the WCML with more paths freed up by the completed HS2, and encourage more people to do Manc to Birmingham by train for leisure and business - surely that's going to help reduce M6 congestion -lorries and cars. My recent regular journey by car- always - going to be quicker by car as the hospital is not based by a train station. Getting other freight traffic and city to city travel to switch modes is key.

I can't see what the alternative is here. The "smart" motorway is already 4 lane running, no more smart motorways are being built for safety reasons and the chance of a new motorway or relief road is below zero.

Do people travelling between Manchester and Birmingham really make up a substantial fraction of the traffic on most of the North West's motorway system though?
An awful lot of people who are driving on these motorways tend to be making relatively short journeys, often of the type that would be very difficult for public transport to cater for. Or at least of the type that a single high speed line will really help the public transport system with.

I'm not sure more lanes on the M6 are really much less likely than spending the ~£20bn that HS2 Phase 2a and 2b (West) are admitted to cost at this point.....

And before anyone says that building roads is futile because of induced demand, the same logic applies equally to all public transport.

 

[The Planner]

Well quite, but that won't stop the ongoing project being used as a weapon to prevent NPR from ever happening.


Do people travelling between Manchester and Birmingham really make up a substantial fraction of the traffic on most of the North West's motorway system though?
An awful lot of people who are driving on these motorways tend to be making relatively short journeys, often of the type that would be very difficult for public transport to cater for. Or at least of the type that a single high speed line will really help the public transport system with.

I'm not sure more lanes on the M6 are really much less likely than spending the ~£20bn that HS2 Phase 2a and 2b (West) are admitted to cost at this point.....

And before anyone says that building roads is futile because of induced demand, the same logic applies equally to all public transport.

118,000 vehicles per day on the M6 at Penkridge, 17% of that is HGV. Further up you get 100,000 at Keele, 140,000 at Sandbach, 126,000 around Knutsford, 43,400 on the A556 at Mere. I think its relatively safe to say a lot of that traffic at Mere is M6 to Greater Manchester and vice versa.

 

[Krokodil]

Building HS2 phase 2b from High Legh via the airport to central Manchester won't improve journeys from Liverpool to Manchester and places further east as the route would be so roundabout.

It will improve journey times between Liverpool/Warrington and Manchester Airport for a start. Not to mention that most people don't want to go to Victoria, so they must use the slower CLC service which is often crowded. It's not just about journey times, it's about capacity.

Well, quite. That's one option but its not conducive to growing the economy.

The elephant in the room is that at some point a government might want to look at road pricing.

But - its electoral kryptonite. Imagine what the newspapers reaction would be. ULEZ x 1000.

Can you imagine the reaction to surge pricing?

And before anyone says that building roads is futile because of induced demand, the same logic applies equally to all public transport.

Not equally, no. Rail can absorb significantly more traffic using a given quantity of land than road traffic can.

 

[The Ham]

Not equally, no. Rail can absorb significantly more traffic using a given quantity of land than road traffic can.

Quite, a 3 lane motorway has a theoretical capacity of 5,400 vehicles each way, if we assume 1.2 people per vehicle (which is typical for a lot of travel, whilst it can be as high as 1.4 there'll be a fair amount of goods vehicles, so it balances out) that's 6,500 people.

HS2 (400m) trains, even at 50% occupancy, on a single track in each directioncan carry that at a frequency of 12tph (even at 1.4 it'll be 14tph), yet alone 16+ tph.

Also the vast majority of roads have to be at ground level, which gets very expensive to cater for them within cities.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Thats what happens when you try to upgrade a live railway.

Oh no, I see we will have to learn that lesson all over again. And then the conclusion will be do't spend money on any kind of rail improvements.

I can see HS2 Phase 1 looking like an expensive white elephant as far as travel from London to the North of the Midlands is concerned.