HS2 spiralling costs

We must be. I was talking about why we need the new lines in Yorkshire and the North of England more generally. The new reduced HS2 does nothing much for us here at all. And nor will the “upgrades”. For anyone looking at a commercial site of any size here now, the government have made it clear to prioritise access to the road network above all else… don’t consider leaning on rail use when planning for the future. COP26 is already long forgotten…

Everything that @kelvin said.

HS2 was badly marketed/explained as being about speed above all else. Now clearly, speed does matter, it's why internal flights exist! If everyone was content to bumble around at 45mph, they wouldn't be necessary...

However, speed is not the main point of HS2. It was supposed to be the backbone of a network. HS2 in full and in between the Y bit at the top, an integrated "semi high speed" Northern Powerhouse Rail network. Everything interlinked, connectivity across the Pennines from Liverpool to Hull, connections on both sides to and from London.

Once all that is in place, you've completely freed up the existing, largely Victorian infrastructure to run more stopping services, more freight and do it more reliably because it doesn't have to keep getting out of the way of intercity stuff.

this keeps on being said but Edinburgh / Glasgow main line was upgraded and electrified while still carrying the usual services pretty much.

And you keep on saying this but (a) it's ONE line and (b) you caveated it with the phrase "pretty much".
Manchester and Leeds in particular both have massive web of lines going out in all directions and they are already the cause of delays all across the north. A few minutes waiting for a platform at Leeds or getting through Castlefield Corridor at Manchester and that delay is exported all across the network, impacting every other train that has to run across the path of the first. Trying to upgrade the lines will result in another situation like the timetable debacle of May 2018. It's one of the reasons why nothing has been done for decades (the other being criminal lack of investment by Government...) the fact that what's there at the moment is creaking at the seams but basically working to a bare minimum standard so they keep patching and mending, unwilling to face the years of disruption that a full overhaul will cause.

Agree with you Kelvin.

Out of curiosity.  Does a damage assessment exist comparing the road focus or rail focus options for environmental damage?

And you keep on saying this but (a) it’s ONE line and (b) you caveated it with the phrase “pretty much”.

Actually its rather more complex than you seem to think. the track was both relaid IIRC and electrified all while running a full service and its one of many lines in the area all interconnected and crossing. Both Edinburgh and glasgow have multiple lines running out of the station going to differnt places

I said "pretty much" as I do not remember any significant issues while the line was upgraded

That line of 45 miles now has 100mph electric trains on it rather than 65mph diesels

Crazy legs - you seem to have believed the nonsense talked about HS2 - its obvious that it was never going to be the full network. Not a chance in hell those added on bits in the north of england were ever going to be built. such an obvious add on to placate folk.

Manchester and Leeds in particular both have massive web of lines going out in all directions

So do Edinburgh and Glasgow - Glasgow especially and in Edinburgh you have the huge bottleneck between waverly and haymarket but yet somehow what you claim is impossible to do was done.

I think your overestimating the complexity of the network for Edi/Gla.

I never used that line at the time, but I've certainly heard some colourful language used to describe the knock on effects.

I used it regularly but infrequently and had no issues

Glasgow in particular is a complex web of rail. Edinburgh less so but still significant issues with space and timetabling becauuse of the bottleneck

I can accept Manchester would be more complex what I cannot accept ( unless someone can give me a good reason) is that what was done on one of the edinburgh glasgow lines cannot be done in the north of england

I can accept Manchester would be more complex what I cannot accept ( unless someone can give me a good reason) is that what was done on one of the edinburgh glasgow lines cannot be done in the north of england

Because "the north of England" is rather more than ONE line between TWO cities...

Crazy legs – you seem to have believed the nonsense talked about HS2 – its obvious that it was never going to be the full network. Not a chance in hell those added on bits in the north of england were ever going to be built. such an obvious add on to placate folk.

The slight problem is that in my office at work are all sorts of contracts about NPR, HS2, letters from DfT, business cases, 10 years of promises from various Tory Chancellors, Transport Secretaries and some bloke called Boris about building HS2 in full coupled with many years of correspondence from various Northern leaders, metro mayors etc about the importance of the investment in the pan-northern transport infrastructure. I don't think anyone necessarily believed all of it but certainly hoped for most of it.

And that's not including all the compulsory purchase stuff that HS2 have done, the preparatory work, the interlinked development stuff locally where a city has said "ooh, shiny new HS2 / NPR station here, we can start to plan a new development". So yes, most of the North had been believing / hoping. Maybe not all the hype all the time but certainly the basic promises.

Because “the north of England” is rather more than ONE line between TWO cities…

so is the central scotland network. there are 4 lines glasgow / edinburgh at least

Its just an example of upgrading a line being possible thats all. I still do not see why this is so impossible to do in the north of england when it was done successfully in Scotland

At the same sort of time another Edinburgh / glasgow line was reopened as well - bathgate to airdrie section

Edit - I know you know a lot more about this than I do but I just cannot see why upgrading is so difficult. Educate me?

Its just an example of upgrading a line being possible thats all. I still do not see why this is so impossible to do in the north of england when it was done successfully in Scotland

While I'm no train expert, but the geography of the area (in the parts of the North were discussing) is a major factor, I'd have thought. Plus just a casual glance at the upgrade between Glasgow and Edinburgh reveals it to be hardly the roaring success story that you're describing TJ, I've seen news articles complaining about lengthy (20weeks) station closures, a dramatic change in the planning stages to go from more trains to lengthened trains instead, and complaints about journey times becoming longer again despite faster trains.

I'm assuming the Edinburgh to Glasgow main line was already pretty 'main' before any work?

The Leeds to Manchester line is not, once you get to Huddersfield it's a meandering scenic route through deep valleys, long tunnels and bleak terrain until you get to Staylybridge. Electrification is a red herring, the new diesel trains that service the route are almost as good as electric and not really the problem. The issue is how you improve the track and make it faster with more capacity. This will cost a huge sum and cause massive disruption.

I'm not that bothered about HS2 but the NPR line was desperately needed up here and will rightly be seen as a betrayal. Bradford especially would have benefited but will now be left to rot further if that's possible.

'another normal line would be able to run freight as well'

Why would you build another normal line instead of building Hs2 and using the old normal line for extra freight load? Or do you think freight should go on the road (I know you don't, but it has to go somewhere)

Glasgow-Edinburgh isn't really comparable to a trans pennine line - geography is not helping

I said “pretty much” as I do not remember any significant issues while the line was upgraded

You don't remember the turnarounds at Springburn or tours of the west end through Hyndland Junction to the lower level whilst Queen Street was being demolished and rebored? Lucky you, it was shite. Your end was business as usual, Glasgow was a nightmare.

EGIP was nothing like as complex as a northern English equivalent would be.

Edit – I know you know a lot more about this than I do but I just cannot see why upgrading is so difficult. Educate me?

1. Capacity. Both Manchester and Leeds (in particular) are already at or very near capacity. You can't fit any more trains into or through them. Longer trains don't really work because of limitations on platforms across the network and, even if you could fit another couple of carriages on, it still does nothing to decrease journey times. The only answer is to build more lines which also gives you more platforms and/or new stations to fit in more people.

2. Geography. Crossing the Pennines is brutal. The tunnels are long and very deep. Cowburn Tunnel on the Manchester - Sheffield line is the deepest in the country and it's over 3km long. To upgrade (whether to add more lines alongside the existing ones or to electrify the route) would mean closing the entire line, re-boring the entire tunnel then re-laying it all again. That's YEARS of work right there, years where you'd be looking at bus replacement services across one of only 2 reasonable road routes across the Pennines, Woodhead Pass or Snake Pass (both of which are closed regularly in winter because of poor weather). The best answer is a new line which can be built without disruption to the existing ones

3. Journey times. There are relatively cheap interventions which can get you a couple of minutes here and there of reductions in journey times, often down to things like signal upgrades or some slight re-phasing of train orders through a point but it's not "transformational" it's "marginally more efficient". People don't want to save 4 minutes on an 85 min journey, they want to save 40 mins! The current lines simply won't take anything high speed, they're twisty and turny. You can spend billions electrifying the line and put a 100mph electric train on it but it'll still only be able to do 60mph.

4. Mixed use. The current lines have a mix of "high speed" stuff (intercity up the WCML and ECML), "fast" services (the ones that only stop a couple of times on the way from say, Newcastle to Manchester Airport), stopping services (all the rest) and freight. Freight massively slows down everything else without very careful timing of loops and sidings. However rail freight is absolutely critical if there's anything to be done about road congestion and emissions. Best option is to segregate. Build a new HS line, put the HS / fast stuff onto that and free up the existing network for more stopping services and more freight.

5. Train Operating Companies / franchises. The Edinburgh Glasgow thing you quote has one operator, ScotRail which keep things a bit more simple. "The North" has loads. Northern and TransPennine Express "within" the area then a load of through stuff (Avanti West Coast, LNER) and some that come in then turn around. Arriva Trains Wales for example. It just means a much wider range of rolling stock to accommodate when you're changing lines to electric and franchises don't like it when they're forced to buy/lease new stock. The procurement for stuff like that can last years. Easier to just allow the current stuff to run, build a new line and put some new trains on it.

EGIP is another example of cost-cutting at work. A decent system was proposed, then the bean counters got in amongst it all, cut £250m from the budget and ended up running fewer but longer trains (capacity increase) but no improvement in journey times. It was an "improvement plan" in as much as you got shiny new electric trains and some new stuff at Glasgow station but it's not "transformational". It caused a lot of disruption during build and journey times are no better than they were.

I don't get why you're so against investment in public services like transport? At what stage does £100bn become money spaffed against a wall rather than money invested for the next 100 years of rail use in the UK sparking further development opportunities?
£100bn is the cost of a few dozen road schemes (all of which involve massive loss of wildlife habitat, massive embedded carbon emissions) but people don't really seem to complain about that. It's "investment" and "keeping the economy moving". As soon as you talk about building a railway though it's "a waste of money", a "white elephant", a "vanity project". 🤷‍♂️

^^^ this

I really can't get my head around why environmental destruction for roads garners nowhere near the hostilitity that rail lines do.

The cynic in me thinks it's as much to do with high levels or car ownership than the fragmented nature road building appears to happen in.

2. Geography. Crossing the Pennines is brutal. The tunnels are long and very deep.<snip> The best answer is a new line which can be built without disruption to the existing ones

Loads of Crossrail (and HS2 south) is tunnel including for Crossrail new sub-terranean stations, crossings under Thames, and of course through ground that is riddled with existing infrastructure. Sticking a pair of tubes through the Pennines seems like a doddle in comparison. I get that there are other complexities creating new trans-pennine rail links but creating new long-distance tunnels is par for the course for many high-speed (and legacy) rail infrastructure projects.

Not sure that's comparable either, Crossrail is being dug into clay as opposed to rock like the pennines. And Crossrail was dug at a depth to avoid 'most' of the existing infrastructure afaik?

I really can’t get my head around why environmental destruction for roads garners nowhere near the hostilitity that rail lines do.

Bandwagon syndrome, or if you go deeper, the innate tendency of humans to feel safe believing what other humans with whom we identify do. It's absolutely innate to everyone (including TJ) - people identify with groups - the more popular a viewpoint is the more popular it becomes. Amongst certain groups it's very popular to despise Tories (with very good reason) so if Tories announce HS2 then it's treated with far more suspicion than if Labour, Greens or SNP had announced it. Which is fair enough in most cases but you have to admit the possibility that Tories might do something right occasionally.

Personally, I think we desperately need a high speed rail network, and this is at least a start. I'm fairly sure the rest of it will be built eventually. And of course, you cannot trust the Tories as we know, so they've probably cancelled it now due to negative press, so there's no reason to assume it won't be uncancelled at some point in the future. The need's not going away.

Sticking a pair of tubes through the Pennines seems like a doddle in comparison.

Apologies if I wasn't clear. Sticking a pair of tubes through the Pennines is a doddle if they're new ones as part of NPR.

Taking all the current track out of an existing tube, reboring it / lowering the ground, putting electrics in, re-laying the track is the same amount of work as a new tunnel (give or take) but with the added downside of years of disruption to all the services that would normally use it.

My argument was very much in favour of new tunnels as part of new lines.

Labour did originally announce it, didn’t they? Not the Northern stuff that’s just been canned, admittedly, that was the Conservatives.

You'd hope the viability study for replenish existing tunnels vs bore new ones would be over pretty quickly. I'd imagine it could be figured out for £1M in consulting fees and a glossy report 😉

Given the knowledge of Crazy-legs on this topic and myself having recently stopped work on a certain large UK government infrastructure project, I have to wonder if our paths have crossed at some point?!

Ta Crazy legs - so thats a good reason why upgrades transpennine will not work

Point of order - the new edinburgh / glasgow is a lot quicker - 20% ish

I am not against investment in trains at all. I am against london getting all the subsidy ( IIRC around 100times anywhere else per person) I am against vanity projects like this

the same money thats been wasted on HS2 spent wisely would have had far more benefits. New transpennine express, decent trains in the north, electrified lines . upgrades etc Far more bang for the buck but politicians like these big vanity projects. We don't need high speed rail for london, we need decent trains countrywide

I think its rather naive of folk to think the full HS2 was going to be built - to me it was obvious from the start that it would probably stop at Birmingham, maybe get to manchester, never going to get across the pennines

( IIRC around 100times anywhere else per person) I

I remembered wrong =- thought I had better check - many times seems more reasonable - everyone seems to produce very different numbers

London NEEDS many times more money spent on it than other places because there are so many more people and businesses.

Complexity of transport isn't a linear relationship with the number of people who live there. I suggest playing Sim City 4 Rush Hour for a demonstration of this.

Population of London is roughly the same as the North West so I assume transport spending is close aswell.

Population roughly equivalent but more businesses in London? I haven't googled the stats but I wouldn't be surprised if there are considering all the extra money government spends there.

Molgrips genuine question have you any association or familiarity of life outside SE England?

molgrips
Full Member

London NEEDS many times more money spent on it than other places because there are so many more people and businesses.

It's completely the other way round- London soaks up people and businesses BECAUSE it's had so much more money spent on it, going back as far as government spending has really been a thing.

And it's deeply unhealthy for a country to have so much of its economy in a single city. It doesn't create wealth or opportunity, it stifles it for exactly the reason you identified- it reaches a point where it needs huge investment just to keep going, and where it's expensive to live, and expensive to work, and spectacularly expensive to run. London is a vampire

Bandwagon syndrome, or if you go deeper, the innate tendency of humans to feel safe believing what other humans with whom we identify do. It’s absolutely innate to everyone (including TJ) – people identify with groups – the more popular a viewpoint is the more popular it becomes.

Utter nonsense.  I am prerfectly capable of looking at the evidence and making my decision

Its so obvious that hs2 is the wrong answer to the wrong question

More nonsense - London gets many times the transport subsidy of anywhere else in the country.  the M62 corridor has more people but gets far less subsuidy

Bandwagon syndrome, or if you go deeper, the innate tendency of humans to feel safe believing what other humans with whom we identify do. It’s absolutely innate to everyone (including TJ) – people identify with groups

pure nonsense.  I am perfectly capable of looking at the data and making my own mind up.  I despise the Tories with all my heart - not because its trendy but because my partner and I spent our lives dealing with the damage they have inflicted ion the poor.  when yo have seen the results of their deliberate cruely time and time again then it colours your view

I object to HS2 because its another way of London sucking money out of the rest of the country and its so obvious that HS2 was never going to have any effect for the majority of the population.and the money wasted on this huge vanity project could have been spent so much better with much more beneficial effects if spent outsdide London

Population of London is roughly the same as the North West so I assume transport spending is close aswell.

Nowhere close. London has a genuinely excellent public transport system. It has the advantage though of significant public subsidy and of all being run by TfL under devolved powers.

When Thatcher deregulated the buses ("market forces / competition"), London was spared that particular blight so it's got buses run by one company (TfL) for the public rather than half a dozen private bus companies fighting it out for the most profitable routes.

London has geography on its side too, it's a fairly simple hub and spoke pattern for most of it. Nowhere else in the UK even comes close to that level of transport investment.

ctk
Full Member
Population of London is roughly the same as the North West so I assume transport spending is close aswell.

I missed out the winky face/ question mark. I believe London gets x2.5 more spending per person. The rest of the country really does need levelling up. Absolutely crazy that it's a Tory governments idea to do it. More believable that they don't intend to.

I despise the Tories with all my heart – not because its trendy

That wasn't my point at all.

Well its what you said Molgrips!

Bandwagon syndrome, or if you go deeper, the innate tendency of humans to feel safe believing what other humans with whom we identify do. It’s absolutely innate to everyone (including TJ) – people identify with groups – the more popular a viewpoint is the more popular it becomes.

this is pure cod psychology and bad psychology at that.  It may be a general trend but cannot be extrapolated to individuals

Just to point out i am not a train hater i am on the train right now.   Twice in two days.  100mph electric ttain.  Wifi and charging.  This should be the minimum standard.in the uk.

<This message posted via Wi-Fi from a high-speed train. Apologies for brevity, misspelling and shocking punctuation>

😜

Wifi and charging. This should be the minimum standard.in the uk.

this is pure cod psychology and bad psychology at that.

I think it's a pretty widely accepted phenomena isn't it? At it's most basic it's just an easy way for everyone to assimilate cultural norms. It's why you're not applying makeup, high heels and tights like your 18thC ancestors. (because no one else is)

This should be the minimum standard.in the uk.

Did you miss the bit where it's been pointed out by several posters that it's incredibly difficult (if not impossible in places) to upgrade the existing Victorian infrastructure?

The current lines, especially across the north - but also more broadly across most of the country - are surrounded by buildings, wiggly, go through long tunnels, over viaducts/bridges and cannot be upgraded. Not without literally ripping the entire thing up, reboring tunnels and straightening the rails. All for the sake of being able to put an electric train on it that can go 40mph faster but at the cost of decades of disruption.

Lets say you upgrade a line between Manchester and Leeds. OK, what about Liverpool, Warrington, Sheffield, York, Doncaster, Hull...? This is about a NETWORK. I think that's been poorly understood from the start, the fact that HS2 was part of a whole network that was intended to be part of NPR. That's the only way that the whole economic benefit gets unlocked. It's not "a fast train to London". It's a connectivity network for the entire north.

It's also not only about speed, something else which has been excessively commented on. It's about capacity, speed, reliability and connectivity, all interlinked.

Currently, places like Bradford are woefully under-served by rail. Freight in and out of Hull and other NE coastal towns is neglected. There's universal condemnation from northern leaders about the Integrated Rail Plan proposals and the supposed "upgrades" that are alleged to be coming.

To upgrade rail across the north, it needs HS2 in full and the NPR network across the top of it. Not a few bits of electric here and there then back to diesel as it goes through the big tunnel.

Well its what you said Molgrips!

No it's not, I said humans have this innate tendency, and we do. You have a tendency to think you know all about something, overly simplify it and then bang on like you're the world expert; when as a non-expert you should be open to discussion of all the complex issues surrounding the topic. So for that reason, I'm out.

Re trains, the original topic - HS2 may not be perfect, but it's a start, and one we should embrace IMO. You can't make a journey without a first step, even if it is faltering. The fact that they've 'cancelled' the eastern leg is by far the biggest problem.

I object to HS2 because its another way of London sucking money out of the rest of the country

It's really not.

It teally is molgrips.  You have been given the data

The problem with HS2 is its sucked up all the money that could have done more for more people spent more wisely.

No i didnt miss that bit crazy legs.  The money wasted on HS2 could have been used to give yournew transpennie line.  To provide better train services etc but its all been spent on HS2 instead

I thought any money created for HS2 was in effect money ringfenced for it under legislation? If HS2 disappeared overnight, so does the money allocated for it,  You can't "spend it elsewhere" as it literally doesn't exist.

Is that not right?

Crazy legs.  I have listened and accepted what you said about the limited abuty to upgrade.  So some new infrastructure needed.

I just maintain that the money spent on HS2 would have privided .more benefit for more people if spent in the m62 corridor wven if (as i now understand) that means new infrastructure

I am astonished that anyone wver thought it would be built to Yorkshire.   That bit was such an obvious sacrificial add on

A we point of order.   Hs2 was only ever going less than halfway up the country.  .  Manchester is in the southern half of the uk

I have learnt stuff on this thread.  Thanks for thar