HS2 spiralling costs

Not a chance it ever gets north of Birmingham – thats been obvious right from the start.

This means that if you need to get from Cardiff to say, Canary Wharf, it takes about half as long to do the last 10 miles as it does the previous 140 miles. This could be slashed by Crossrail, making other parts of London more accessible.

Yes Crossrail benefits London, makes travel easier in London, means people like you can travel more easily around London. This is levelling up London.

Its the rest of the country that needs levelling up!

Its the rest of the country that needs levelling up!

Very true, but HS2 was never really going to be the answer, much better putting all that money into properly upgrading tracks and rolling stock for the northern regions, and other regions as well, like the southwest – shaving off a half hour or so for well-off London business types shouldn’t come at the cost of massive environmental damage and no advantage to anyone unable to take advantage of the line, because it goes hammering through the local stations without stopping.

‘Upgrading tracks’ means worse service for years while they are ongoing, and then competing demands on lines (commuters/freight/intercity) resulting in continued fragile easily disturbed and delayed service… ie it can push people and goods onto the road, short term and medium term… and doesn’t build the network for the long term. New lines do so so much more. It’s only living in our inwards looking country, where we were lucky to inherit the network we have, that blinds us to the fact the new lines are essential, we paint them as vanity projects while our competitor regions in other countries crack on and install the infrastructure needed for this century of decarbonisation and changing economics.

In England, the economic divide between north and south is greater than the economic divide between east and west in Germany at unification. This won’t be fixed by deciding to reserve new line investment for London and its ever expanding commuter belts. We need new lines connecting up the cities of the North of England, and as a result of that, improved local services on existing lines. Need, not want. It’s the minimum needed. The cancelled HS2 and NPR lines up here were to be at least the start of building that network, and rescuing the regions up here… now it’s stalled completely for at least another 10 years. There is now bugger all chance of rail supporting moving freight and commuters onto electrified rail transit now… all our eggs are in electric vehicles and road widening now. Good luck with that…

‘Upgrading tracks’ means worse service for years while they are ongoing,

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

Also on the idea that HS2 increases capacity – yes by the number of fast passengwer trains on it but if you are running high speed passenger trains you cannot put freight or stopping trains on the smae line can you – so the only extra capacity is those few high speed passenger trains

another normal line would be able to run freight as well

“few high speed trains” – you have no idea what the demands are for getting between cities down here, try getting a low stopping service here between Manchester and Leeds, or York and Sheffield, or Liverpool and Bradford. Try driving those routes as well. We need more connectivity, or accept that economically England is to be just London and its satellites, and keep getting left behind. Anyway, the existing lines could run more freight and local services if they were no longer also the main intercity lines.

Who are all these people that need to get to Manchester from Leeds and vice versa all the time? They should’ve chosen the right city to live in in the first place.

Anyway, the existing lines could run more freight and local services if they were no longer also the main intercity lines.

so no more intercity trains in total then? the claims just do not add up for me.

How many trains a day on the high speed london to Birmingham line? those appear to be the only extra capacity created.

I agree with you that this money should have been spent elsewhere where far greater good could be done for the money

Who are all these people that need to get to Manchester from Leeds and vice versa all the time? They should’ve chosen the right city to live in in the first place.

All these people shuffling around the South East of England every day. With their new lines. And more to come. They shouldn’t have chosen the right area to live in in the first place.

Burn your car jambourgie… see how well you’ve chosen the right exact spot to site yourself in relation to anyone you need to deal with, and to do everything you need or want to do.

so no more intercity trains in total then?

You’ve lost me there. You don’t think dedicated extra lines would result in extra intercity trains? That’s the only thing a lot of people do understand! New lines would carry more passengers between the hubs (as it happens, quicker, but don’t focus on that) and the older lines could have carry more people (importantly more reliably) on stopping and local services, and carry more freight.

kelvin – I think we are slightly at cross purposes. I am assuming as seems more than likely this is going to stop at birmingham. even if it does go to manchester its not going to connect the northern cities

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