Basically it amounts to building two additional tracks to the WCML, just not right alongside them (cheaper and easier if you haven`t got train wizzing around at 125 mph) and to a higher speed. The plan was that all the express trains would go onto HS2 leaving the remaining 4 tracks (in most parts) free for more local services and freight
The West Coast Mainline (WCML) is the busiest mixed-use rail line in Europe. i.e, it has high-speed, freight, local and regional trains all running along it. High speed trains take up a lot of capacity on the time table and so there is less space for local and regional trains. The demand for trains is increasing rapidly and the current network cannot cope, just look at Euston a couple weeks ago, it was absolutely packed. The roads are also congested so it's better if more people take the train as its more efficient. So, we need more capacity on the train network, which is the entire purpose of HS2. A side result of this is that the fares will become cheaper as there are more services.
If increased capacity was the objective there were cheaper options, including building some sections of new line but to a lower spec. These were never properly explored.
One of the serious findings from the WCRM project of the 2000s was that upgrading Victorian infrastructure was very expensive and disruptive.
Nonsense. That £100bn a year comes from boosting the economy throughout the North to the average for the UK. HS2 might be a (small) part of that, but its impact would be much less than sorting out local and regional transport to allow the big cities to realise agglomeration benefits within metropolitan areas.
Such as?
Yes you're right. It seems like I wasn't fully informed about that figure. Regardless of how much, HS2's economic benefit is significant.
It's also worth remembering that Cameron opposed the third runway for Heathrow in the lead up to the election as he claimed HS2 would dramatically reduce domestic air travel due to its speed. That was probably another reason why speed was emphasised including of course its name of High Speed 2 rather than the additional capacity it would add.
Demand for trains isn't increasing rapidly but its a fair argument that to achieve net zero needs far more people and freight to be moved off rubber tyred vehicles and few percent off road traffic translate into 10-15% extra rail traffic. Any London mainline station rapidly fills up when the service becomes dislocated.
HS2 Ltd are the culprits who despite spending billions on vast numbers of consultants they have catastrophically failed to manage the project so its hardly surprising the govt took the decisions they did. That said they would have been better off stopping phase 1 and using the money to build phase 2A but are where we are. My take from listening to Sir John Thompson at Select Committee last week is that between DafT and HS2 they are stalling any land sales and with a change of govt highly possible the world may look a lot different in 12mths time anyhow.
But Kier Starmer is not leaping to reinstate any HS2 plans - far from it.
Thats the narrative they have to project otherwise as i say they will be badged the tax and spend party although equally that is a credible scenario. Also Reeves puts credible economic growth as the centrepiece of her strategy which says will come from
Kier Starmer categorically stated there is no chance of HS2 phase 2 being reinstated
No idea! My point is that the business case did not systematically consider a range of options, which might have included some mix of enhancements and new build to a lower speed and perhaps smaller loading gauge, using existing trains as an interim measure. It’s true that the track record of building enhancements is not great, but it’s an open question whether it’s as bad as HS2 has been so far.
Also remember that when building something as big as HS2 you're building it to deal with growth in passenger numbers over the next 50 years. It not just about this year, or next year.
Right, and how many times did Sunak say HS2 was definitely going to Manchester before he cancelled it? Politicians say whatever each moment requires, that’s just what they do. If phase 1‘s success cripples the network north of Birmingham, that will be a new moment and Starmer will find a new thing to say about it.
But it does, page 21 in section 1.31 for example and on from there.
Starmer is paranoid that the Torys will put a tax and spend label on him. He will categorically tell you there is NO money for anything currently.
1 person does not make a party. Starmer has been slightly anti-HS2 for a while, not surprising as his constituancy is affected by Euston works.
That’s fair but he is the likely to be PM, and given Rishi Sunak has been able to block HS2, he can too.
There are reams and reams of option reports which were done before the HS2 parliamentary process started. Pretty much anything you can think of was considered at some stage
HS2 also has to buy non-standard stock. Eurostar paid £527m for 17x16 car (34 8 car) fairly standard Velaro sets, adjusted to the 54 8-car sets for phases 1 and 2a it comes out as £837m. Meanwhile, HS2 is expected to spend £1.6bn ([source] - most costs are for stock + 12-year maintenance), for its non-standard classic compatible sets.
Although some would say TSI was less important than level boarding, which would bring significant benefits to everyday users and the network in line with what a modern day network should live up to, rather than sticking to a guideline which doesn’t allow this, and is entirely pointless given the lack of any connection to HS1. The network is largely compliant, was there ever the chance of international trains running on HS2, I’m sure the issue could be revisited.
Driving cars are significantly more expensive than the other coaches due to the cab equipment, so the cost will be significant increased by that regardless. HS2 trains are also specified to travel faster (360kmh vs 320), not a huge difference but regardless of if an e320 can reach 360, safety factors will mean changes in design.
ICE3 sets (25m 8 car) are about 40 million German marks or £17.582m per set, giving £949.428m for HS2. Velaros can already do 360kph, they just get uprated from 8MW to 8.8MW.
Yes, though you wouldn't need as many.
And level boarding can be achieved at TSI compliant platform heights, which incidentally includes (in the UK) 915mm - where level boarding is in operation every day in Greater Anglia. High speed trainsets with floor levels as low as 400mm above railhead have been ins revive for nigh on three decades (TGV Duplex).
That is not necessarily so, not all High Speed rail paradigms require through running onto conventional lines.
Could it not be though that for HS2, the trains like many modern buses will be able to adjust their height such that with the HS2 platforms they become level boarding trains?
As many of the posts above have said it is about having issues in updating and changing the Victorian infrastructure of the West Coast Main Lines, but in having HS2 it helps provide more paths on the WCML so that you can have more freight and slower passenger service trains on the WCML in place of some of the faster passenger services on the WCML.