HS2

[Ron Ron Ron]

19 minutes ago, DenysW said:

Agreed. But the lunacy that is the Euston end and mothballing expensive tunnelling machines until a resolution happens might get resolved.

 

Indeed, but Euston and the Euston tunnels are part of Phase 1, not Phase 2.

It needs to be sorted out within the next few months.

 

Phase 2 will have to be "repackaged" in some way, even if it's just Phase 2a (and possibly 2b) under a different name.

 

.

[woodenhead]

Well if they want closer ties to Europe, point those tunnelling machines at Stratford......

 

This is clearly a joke, it is not intended for serious debate.

[jjb1970]

It was obvious long before the election that the question wasn't whether there would be government cuts, the question was what would be cut. I think maintaining a capital program that supports employment, supply chains and will provide a strategic asset for UK plc in the future should be prioritised but politically it doesn't really work like that. 

[david.hill64]

1 hour ago, jjb1970 said:

It was obvious long before the election that the question wasn't whether there would be government cuts, the question was what would be cut. I think maintaining a capital program that supports employment, supply chains and will provide a strategic asset for UK plc in the future should be prioritised but politically it doesn't really work like that. 

And indeed the last bunch of clowns actively promoted the savings from HS2 investment (capital spend) to be used for pothole repairs (revenue account). Politically of course that is a vote winner. Most people have no idea of the benefits that they will see by having HS2, whereas not having to pay for damages to your car caused by the appalling state of the roads is readily understood.

[melmerby]

Back on the table again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k3k87y497o

[APOLLO]

From the above link,

 

Quote

A private consortium has proposed the new 50-mile (80km) Midlands-Northwest Rail Link – running from Lichfield, north of Birmingham, to High Legh, south-east of Warrington – following a review commissioned by the mayors.

 

High Legh is in the middle of nowhere, just to the east of the M6 / M56 junction. Neither the WCML (over 7 miles) or the Crewe-Manchester line (10 miles around Wilmslow) are anywhere near it, also 7 miles from the airport.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@53.349528,-2.4697517,13.09z?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI0MDkxMS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

 

Is High Legh where Boris's "back of fag packet" Liverpool, Warrington, Man Airport, Yorkshire "Northern Powerhouse" line is planned (BTW I've never seen a decent plan for this, has anyone got a link to one ?).

 

And it will be of no use for the important WCML trains to Scotland either, unless the Golborne spur is brought back.

 

A very posh and expensive area is High Legh, so it won't be cheap. Perhaps another cull of pensioners will be required.

 

Brit15

 

 

[woodenhead]

19 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Back on the table again

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1k3k87y497o

A normal railway for normal trains - so over 60% cheaper than HS2.

 

As a solution to the problem it has merits and given the eye watering cost of HS2 lines plus a need to tighten our belts it sounds a plausible solution.  No detail clearly, but I hope it uses the existing HS2 alignment so that it does not kick start another compulsory purchase spree with the associated complaints, worries and upset.

[woodenhead]

@APOLLO It looks like where a Northern Powerhouse would reach a HS2 connection from where they would head to the Airport and then on to Manchester.

 

A triangular junction would be necessary so that Liverpool also benefits from the new not HS2 line from London.

 

Maybe, just maybe they might then build a junction with the WCML at Warrington to allow Wigan, Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow to benefit.  They are going to need to rebuild Bank Quay, so why not do it in style and put in the connection.

Edited Friday at 09:11 by woodenhead
Spelling

[APOLLO]

Yes we need to see an outline plan that does not have "Capstan Full Strength" printed on the back !!

 

Brit15

[woodenhead]

@APOLLO Another thought, if they did build this and it still goes to Crewe so Cheshire benefits too, then Glasgow trains could rejoin there as well.

 

If Liverpool trains then also ran via the the new route north of Crewe to join Northern Powerhouse then there would be less trains on the WCML north of Crewe which would benefit freight as well as retaining capacity for the Preston and Glasgow.  Maybe Preston trains could route via Manchester and Bolton if this is not going to be a super fast super duper new line.

[DenysW]

Also from the link:

 

"The plan relies on investment from the private sector, and would cost substantially less than HS2 phase 2, which would have seen a new high-speed railway built between the West Midlands and Manchester."

 

"the proposal, which is predicted to cost between 60 and 75% less than the proposed HS2 northern leg."

 

"The savings would be delivered through lower design speeds, ballasted track, UK rather than European standard cross-sections and building on the existing rail network."

 

So it relies on  borrowed money from people who will want a better-guaranteed return than the present owners of Thames Water face, and would be costed based on raising the money at 2024-2027 baseline rates not the very low rates of the past. So probably more like a guaranteed line rental than a design-and build, on the lines of payment per kW-hr to build nuclear power stations. There's also the grim example of the loss-making M6 Toll for design-build-operate-charge more.

 

It also appears to rely on not using the HS2-2 alignment. As it starts at Lichfield, is it mostly a plan to hextuple the existing (mostly 4-track) WCML Birmingham Bypass line to Stafford?

 

I can't see this being more than a Consultant's rough-cut feasibility report to sustain the present Mayor of Manchester's pipe-dream. I also can't see those changes saving 60-75% of the cost of HS2-2 - they feel more like scratching around the edge of the causes of high costs, as often debated on this thread.

Edited Friday at 09:36 by DenysW
Add Lichfield comment

[Grovenor]

3 hours ago, DenysW said:

It also appears to rely on not using the HS2-2 alignment. As it starts at Lichfield, is it mostly a plan to hextuple the existing (mostly 4-track) WCML Birmingham Bypass line to Stafford?

Also from the link:

Quote

More than £2bn had been spent on HS2 phase 2 before it was scrapped, with the consortium proposing to use much of this land and infrastructure.

 

[jamie92208]

Unless they use the exact line and limits of deviation they will need a new hybrid bill.  They may need another bill to transfer powers to the new project. 

 

Jamie

[Foulounoux]

https://www.midlandsnorthwestraillink.co.uk/

 

The link to the proposal site

 

[phil-b259]

7 hours ago, DenysW said:

Also from the link:

 

...UK rather than European standard cross-sections...

 

 

While the other things are sensible a reducing to a UK cross section (by which I assume they mean loading gauge) would be a mistake.

 

Retaining the ability for the UK to introduce double decker trains at some stage in the future would not add significantly to the bill of the line and offer significant room for growth in coming decades.

 

If there is one thing above all else which cripples the UKs rail potential its the fact the existing infrastructure is all built around short and narrow trains! Fine for the 1850s - useless for the 2050s....

[woodenhead]

Link straight to the main report

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/6639e259219ec5292dcad78f/t/66e1aac8b9a95d4a042577d5/1726065375571/Opportunity+through+Connectivity+Main+Report+FINAL+1.pdf

[DK123GWR]

If it's a choice between this railway and no railway, build this railway. But:

- In Green Signals 45, William Barter expressed concern that increasing journey times by more than a few minutes would make timetable planning considerably more difficult. Presumably that will affect this proposal

- The report acknowledges that the whole-life cost of ballasted track may be higher than that of slab track

- The reduced loading gauge, as mentioned above, could be restrictive in future

 

If it is possible to build HS2 as previously specified, is the capital cost saving for this new proposal worth it?

[Ron Ron Ron]

9 hours ago, DenysW said:

........It also appears to rely on not using the HS2-2 alignment. As it starts at Lichfield, is it mostly a plan to hextuple the existing (mostly 4-track) WCML Birmingham Bypass line to Stafford ?.....

 

 

Concept C. (building the new route), specifically says that it would use the HS2 Phase 2a alignment and already purchased land, from Fradley (near Lichfield) to Crewe.

 

Note that Fradley is where the Handsacre spur (that links into the WCML) diverges from the main N-S  HS2 alignment.

Phase 1 includes the junction at Fradley and stub that was to link into Phase 2a. 

The spur from Fradley to Handsacre is off the main HS2 route, as originally planned.

 

 

.

[Northmoor]

Interesting (and welcome) though this proposal is, I am far from convinced of the cost savings claimed for reducing the line speed.

• The railway's alignment barely changes (even if they weren't, entirely sensibly, going to use the existing acquired land); a 100mph railway, let alone a 180mph one, is as good as straight;
• Land costs what land costs (an extortionate amount in the UK and funnily enough when the buyer is a multi-£Bn project, the seller tends to put up the price);
• It makes no difference to the number of bridges over and under;
• The fencing requirement is the same;
• Tunneling has been largely dictated by the need to pacify local objections, nothing to do with speed (and what tunnels are then on Phase 2?);
• Power demand will be lower so feeder stations will be smaller and with a smaller footprint, so that is a saving;
• High speed trains cost a lot per vehicle regardless of whether they have a 150 or 250mph maximum speed.

Unfortunately I foresee this project being approved offering a 50% saving then going 90% over budget.

[melmerby]

Can't see reducing the loading gauge from European to UK is going to make much difference, apart from preventing the use of larger trains later if traffic volumes dictate the need.

[St Enodoc]

6 minutes ago, melmerby said:

Can't see reducing the loading gauge from European to UK is going to make much difference, apart from preventing the use of larger trains later if traffic volumes dictate the need.

I think that's the point.

[jamie92208]

Dominique has now moved forward and the dismantling phase looks to be being prepared. 

 

Jamie

[david.hill64]

7 hours ago, melmerby said:

Can't see reducing the loading gauge from European to UK is going to make much difference, apart from preventing the use of larger trains later if traffic volumes dictate the need.

Depends on the tunnelling requirement.

When Taiwan HIgh Speed Rail moved from European to Japanese E&M systems, the Japanese suggested that significant savings could be made by adopting the smaller Shinkanshen tunnel section. They were right: THSRC did the sums but still concluded that keeping the UIC cross section would be better. (I wouldn't possibly suggest that as one of the THSRC Consortium members was a civil contractor being paid to dig tunnels, that might have influenced the decision).

 

Moving from slab to ballasted track will save on capital costs but will increase maintenance requirements significantly.

[jjb1970]

Japanese high speed trains have had to adopt some pretty extreme aerodynamic contours to manage the airflow around the train at high speed with tight tunnel clearances. Trains like the E5 lose pretty much half the lead vehicle length as a result.

[DY444]

Whilst I have no expertise at all on the maintenance costs of slab track vs ballasted track and so defer to those who say the ongoing cost of the latter will be higher, what about the effects on the service of that maintenance? 

 

Modern track plant can, and does, maintain or renew hundreds of yards of ballasted track in a shift with the track available for traffic immediately afterwards, so whilst you might need a whole host of shifts to keep the track up to snuff the service can still run.  By contrast renewing a length of slab track is going to require an extended closure measured in days, and, as the infrastructure ages and further lengths need replacing, more and more extended closures.  The signalling presumably will support full bi-di running but even if H&S allows SLW past a work site, operating the full service isn't going to be feasible.   Plus nobody has seen fit to provide a connection to the WCML at Euston so platform capacity there is going to prevent any attempt at providing a temporarily boosted alternative service on the old route. 

 

Seems to me that a few years hence there is a good chance HS2 will be closed as often as it's open whilst hundreds of track miles of concrete slab is replaced.  I still think ballasted track would have been the better option in the round and that they'll eventually regret not using it.

Edited Saturday at 06:55 by DY444