I'm certain that HS2 will eventually reach the Manchester area but because of the Sunak decision a) it will happen about a decade later b) it will cost about 10 billion pounds more due to the need to reacquire the land.
Funny how all these projects are always slated to cost more and more money, in all industries. Does all that money make it to the working class? Does it shite! It goes to parasitical middlemen and dictatorial CEOs!
HS2 without Manchester and Golburne, might as well just be renamed to High Speed South. It's a complete and utter mess in it's current state, and as you've said, might actually lead to a net capacity decrease to major cities across the north.
The east of the Pennines had the ECML, MML and GCR. The west only had the WCML, with the Chiltern only up to Birmingham. Now the east has the MML and the ECML - well served. The west will have the WCML and HS2. Now on equal terms to the east.
@@Rail_Focus Hendy of Network Rail is to upgrade the WCML Crewe to Warrington/Liverpool/ Preston. More power to the wires and maybe 4-tracking - for passengers and freight out of Liverpool's port. Stated in the Integrated Rail plan and reported by others.
What got me was that when he cancelled the remainder of the party at their conference, he did it with a huge smile on his face. I didn’t vote for any of these recent clowns, and I certainly don’t trust them to be taking such important decisions about the future of our country. Disgraceful decision to scrap it. And those who talk about rising costs will do well to remember that government meddling and NIMBYs were the real problem here, We had a golden opportunity to do something magnificent and blew it. I was never this angry with thatcher, but these clowns make my blood boil
He thought he was onto a vote winner, was surprised when there was a backlash and actually voters weren't won around by "Network North" infuriating indeed
Well argued. I have heard politicians claim we don't need HS2 because of fewer people are commuting. OK, WCML numbers may be down since Covid, but the other long distance routes, Midland Main Line and ECML are up. Why is that? Because people can't rely on the WCML? Regarding the likely disruption caused by a WCML upgrade, in the early 2000s, instead of traveling to London from Wigan, I would drive to Wakefield or Warwick Parkway to be sure I made business appointments on time.
I must be naive to think we should expect our leaders to at least consult people who do know. Network North was thrown together without even consulting his transport minister.
Meanwhile they are trumping on about fixing potholes and net zero aviation just because one flight ran on chip fat. I think it's fair to say Sunak & co are firmly in the anti-rail (and pro road & flying) group. What's interesting though is that unlike 30 years ago this position is widely derided and has not been at all popular.
Might as well have a fleet of pacer units for all the good this diluted sham is going to bring. Only in California do they F*** railway planning and financing up so badly. Maybe Sunak picked up some tips on his last LA holiday.
Very eloquent, a useful statement of the f88k-up resulting from Sunak's October knee-jerk and a useful warning for what may follow. Nicely done and thank you.
You diagram at 21 secs show 37 trains going into Euston. It now seems we will get 6 trains into Old Oak Common. Seems a total waste of time, especially if it reduces freight north of Birmingham. Freight has suffered badly. I wonder how many realise that freight through Crewe has a speed limit of 10mph
Very informative video there! From the publics' perspective via multiple online polls - either build HS2 in full or don't build it at all. Building Phase 1 after watching this seems less justified after Birmingham if the government can't extend the service to a point where the WCML bottlenecks have been passed. At the very least there should have been 2 HS2 spurs which split a couple of miles further along the line just after Rugeley, with one serving the Stafford/Crewe Branch and the branch towards Stoke-on-Trent - but only after Colwich Junction
At the very least HS2 needs to go to Crewe, thereby by-passing major bottlenecks. Everyone seems to agree on this apart from Rishi Sunak and his aides.
@Rail_Focus Definitely as Crewe is a good start and end point at the very least and would allow for greater connectivity and capacity, unlike ending at Handsacre
@@nicolasl9059unfortunately, Sunak has been busy selling off the land to prevent it. Labour coukd have scotched that bit of vandalism by promising to buy back at cost instead of just throwing up their hands in despair. In the long run something will have to be done about capacity limits on the main line railways to the North & Scotland.
Please could you explain how regional connectivity is improved by having a load of trains going non-stop from the Midlands into London? That was one of my reservations about HS2 - it doesn't connect with anything south of Birmingham. It therefore makes connectivity worse.
Nice to see the levelling up fund has been spent again in the SOUTH. HS2 is only half a job now. The 20 million in the North have been ignored again. The 32 miles of tunnels through the home counties and vanity bridges are the reason this project is so over budget.
Crewe has gone from being a key part of the HS2 network to not even getting a mention in "Network North" but at least Bradford will get a new £2bn, possibly.
@@Rail_Focus Agree Crewe is an important hub which trains pass through. Is Crewe in the Midlands or the North?. Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle etc, have tens of millions who live there and have been side lined by the government. The focus must be on improving the trans pennine link now as HS2 will not benefit the cities in the North.
Another very useful summary especially the issue of capacity north of Birmingham. It will be interesting to see how the issues at Hansacre will be resolved if at all. Perhaps a new government will revive Phase 2a at least?
@@Rail_Focus It would be interesting to hear your interpretation of the 'money directed elsewhere' on other rail projects. The only news near me is the upgrade of the rail junction at Ely in East Anglia. Not sure what this entails, but I'm sure any investment would be an improvement. Ely as you know is a real bottleneck.
"money directed elsewhere" is a lie. There is no money, HS2 is funded through borrowing, so no HS2, no money. Each project Sunak claims will be funded will first have to go through an assessment process to ensure it provides value for money before borrowing can be agreed for each individual project. So it's not even certain that projects will be green lit by the Treasury. If they're not convinced by the business case then the Treasury will not sign off borrowing for the project. Ultimately it should not be a case of either or. We need both investment in existing infrastructure and HS2.
I love how since the Manchester leg was cancelled, the media have pretended that the eastern leg [which was axed with very little fuss made by anyone] never existed at all. I never understood why Yorkshire and the North east is so easily ignored.
_Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle-London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2._ - GreenGauge21 (HS2 consultants|)
@@Rail_Focus Bottlenecks on ECML can be removed and NEED to be removed with strategic plans to remove them irrespective of HS2. Traffic all along the ECML benefits. All that money for 10 mins? Wow.
@@Rail_Focus ECML 140mph London-Edinburgh will be within a few minutes of HS2. London-Edinburgh record was set decades ago on ECML which HS2 would not beat.
Excellent analysis- You have a better grasp of the situation than our useless government. It should be realised that I have been against HS2 from the outset, but leaving it in this state achieves nothing but an expensive mess, with the previous expenditure wasted. I would, however, disagree that its construction has always been about capacity. It was sold to the public as "World leading" High Speed with a design speed in excess of European lines. That in itself doomed the project as another example of a government prestige project (only far worse than Blair's Millennium Dome). It was only when the costs sky-rocketed (as predicted by cynics like me) that the PR teams started specifying capacity as the raison d'etre. If it truly was only about capacity, the cost would have been much less with a sensible line speed (thus less energy intensive), avoidance of tunnelling, and better connectivity, including to HS1. Even a designated freight route could be built cheaply. Perhaps the biggest savings could be achieved by not involving the DfT in anything involving transport because they make a cock-up of everything where they influence the design. As it is, passengers who wish to travel between a West London suburb and an isolated bit of Birmingham will have a wonderful service. For anybody wishing to travel somewhere useful, not so good. I expect all will be forgiven when the executives call it the "Charles Line" and get their knighthoods!
HS2 was always about capacity. The reason for it was to relieve congestion on both the ECML & WCML. It was the politicians that bulled up the High Speed apect and then gold plated it with higher speeds than other European countries instead of aiming for a similar standard to HS1 which was delivered within budget. Add the that pandering to home county NIMBYism let to unnecessary tunnelling through the Chilterns. The link to the Northern end of the WCML was also cancelled as a result of lobbying by a local Tory MP, Sir Graham Brady. A classic piece of NIMBYism.
@@Rail_Focus Thank you for your suggestion. I have just watched that video and have gained an insight into some of the decision making regarding the construction, which unfortunately, reinforced my early view that it would be a money pit. Despite constant reassurances that money would not be diverted from other projects in the country, the Government finally admitted that was what happened. As someone who has issued (successfully) contracts, I am well aware of the way costs can ramp up with variations. Making it up as you go along is criminal. It may have been sold to the government as being for capacity, but the early public emphasis was definitely on speed. As regards the comments by Andrew McNaughton, I have no problem with slab track- it does cut costs in the long term, but tunnelling to satisfy Nimbys was a bad mistake. It may be that there is no option for reaching Euston, but the Chilterns? A nice little earner for foreign companies (Boring machines and concrete segments). TGV routes just go over hills. To say that the higher speed than used elsewhere does not cost any more is quite wrong. The trains themselves require considerable design and construction systems to suit the higher speeds. Running costs were not mentioned. Energy consumption by the trains will be very much higher- note that the East Coast main line in the North of England has for a number of years been incapable of supplying sufficient electrical power to permit a full electric service, resulting in some bi-modes running on diesel. Where is the grid capacity for the power supply needed? With an ever increasing demand for electricity because the Government has decided that we all need electric cars and heat pumps, there is not going to be sufficient generation. There is one further question that was not addressed in the video- who is the line for? The business market has shrunk, with most of the recovery being in leisure travel. Who are the leisure travellers who wish to travel through tunnels instead of watching pleasant scenery on their way to Curzon Street, of all places?
I ponder, with the HS2 'classic compatible' Trainsets not having any tilt mechanisms, I wonder if for destinations north of Birmingham, and the initial need - and perhaps permenant need - to change trains at Old Oak Common - if indeed there will in reality be any time saving? let alone capacity reduction in passenger terms unless as you suggest trainsets are lengthened
The tilt saving is often over stated. Network Rail, Transpennine Express and HS2 Ltd have been talking about lifting the non tilt speed limit from 110 to 125 on straight sections of track, which would reduce the time penalty. HS2 to Handsacre will typically provide a 30 minute time saving from the North. OOC will be quicker to Tottenham Court Road and Canary Wharf, but ultimately Euston has to be built as that's where most passengers want to travel to.
That issue has been mentioned in the December issue of Modern Railways, mainly re the complexity of more than 2 different maximum speeds with the current signage regime. However, another future option could well be increasing the allowable cant deficiency on curves for some novel stock - maybe up to those allowed on the Deutsche Bahn. @@Rail_Focus
Great video, the prime minister has royal fucked everyone up in the north. I mean terminating at Birmingham is a daft idea. There are 10s of millions of people in the north of the uk. Yes the north has some good regional rail systems but the services connecting cities are majorly lacking. For example Liverpool, which has a brilliant, reliable network has just got terrible times for connections with other cities. Lots of northern cities are very cut off from the rest of the uk despite their population and economic growth. Typical government
the cons are not bothered about railways as the prime minister goes every where by helicopter and it was only mejnt to go to brum as a faster way there
A Tory leader that wasn’t voted in by the people. When cocoa was ousted there should have been a general election. Instead they decided some dimwit woman would be best suited to the job. Having got that so wrong what makes them think they can get anything right. This country is going to the dogs and not just with our inability to perform essential infrastructure projects.
What about reopening the peak railways from buxton to matlock via derby and using the Midland mainline to Manchester via that. It would be slow through the peaks, but much cheaper and increase capacity. Or just send trains past Sheffield via the hope valley like they did in 2003 with project rio. Again it would be slower, but it's about capacity. East Midlands already run trains from Sheffield to london and Manchester, so could compete against avanti and the wcml.
So whilst all these road works, speed restrictions in place ie from 70 mph down to 30 -50 mph. Has anyone done a survey of how many people have been caught on their pre planned speed cameras installed before any work commenced on the hs2? I bet the fines themselves will fund the hs2.
I wonder how much all those Loads cost! Jobs for the Boys. Maybe the should try a Lady (lord) next time or a lay person who hasn't been to Public School or even University
Please could you explain how regional connectivity is improved by having a load of trains going non-stop from the Midlands into London? That was one of my reservations about HS2 - it doesn't connect with anything south of Birmingham. It therefore makes connectivity worse.
By freeing capacity on existing lines. You wouldn't believe the amount of capacity it takes to run Avanti services mostly non-stop south of Crewe. People often overlook the communities along the WCML which are bypassed currently by Avanti services
I really don't understand the points you are making. Suppose HS2 merges in to the WCML at Handsacre as planned - why is this going to reduce the number of stopping trains on the Trent Valley section (serving Rugeley, Lichfield and Tamworth). Part of the argument for HS2 was that the fast services that currently serve these stations (1 or 2 a day) would be removed and with the extra capacity HS2 afforded, it would mean *more* services for the likes of Lichfield TV.
It depends which junction is constructed, if they stick with the slow line junction then HS2 services will conflict stopping and freight services on the slow lines between Colwich and Handsacre. But even if the fast line junction is constructed it's not certain that there will be any capacity between Colwich and Rugby for more services. So at best the Trent Valley will be left with the 1 LNR service. The point I'm trying to make is Sunak made his decision without consultation or understanding what it would mean for the WCML.
Why at first Dont they just make say 12 sidings after old oak common station So at first old oak common station just used as a pass through Not a terminating point for the trains
Because Old Oak Common is technically subterranean station. So would need tunnels with somewhere for them to go. Plus people want to go to Euston, DfT's own modelling show 70% of passengers will travel to Euston
@@Rail_Focus I just think as euston hs2 station tunnels and tracks to it is 2035 minimum who knows when that's landing even as a example if shortly after old common u got to come from underground to the surface lay some siding s so trains can rest then turn around there There be no passengers on them and old oak Common can be used as 4 north bound platforms for departures and 2 for arrivals to begin with As trains will not have to stay at old oak Common then no longer than the time it takes of loading or exiting time of passengers Leading to more paths and people of the north benefiting straight away Without euston go ahead u can't have trains arriving ,passengers exiting, driver s changing end , trains being cleaned ,prepared, and reloaded with passengers at old oak Common that will never work and will be kaos
Where in London are you going to find space for tracks? May as well go to Euston where there's currently a great swath of land already prepared for the new station.
@@Rail_Focus we are not going to euston anyway near the beginning of hs2 Especially when u hear them talking about private finance to get there 2040 maybe did say 2035 So for now as old oak station is underground, extend shortly after underground to while the tunnel boring machine are there Provide some siding s underground eg loop back under the elizebeth line Depot underground Go under great western main line Or build under the hitachi depot on the other side All underground Old oak Common will never work as a terminus station with 6 platforms Note this am saying this is as a tempory measure until u can get to euston to provide more paths on hs2 And free up west coast main line south of Birmingham instantly This is not a idea out of the sky it's me saying how old common could possibly work when hs2 opens And give Instant results for next 10 years till we get to euston and how there spending would probably be the cheapest tunnels they dig underground just sidings with buffers 6 to 12 would do
Despite HS2 not going to extend North towards Manchester, Leeds and East Midlands. I still do think that HS2 will benefit faster journeys from London to Birmingham.
There were three options to bypass WCML around Stafford by Network Rail. HS2 came along so shelved. Time to get them out. Network Rail will do it cheaper than HS2.
Phase 2a is effectively the Stafford by-pass, it makes no sense drop it in favour of a Network Rail option, which will deliver a sub optimal connections. There's no reason to believe NR will deliver it any cheaper as they'll be calling upon the exact same contractors who are building HS2.
@@Rail_Focus Network Rail has _three_ options of varied design and cost to bypass Stafford. On the Internet to be seen. I would assume they are cheaper now as work on the junction at Handsacre is paid for by HS2. Then trains will be faster end to end and maybe more of them on the line. 2A is all the way from Handsacre to Crewe. The WCML from Stafford to Crewe is straight, capable of 160mph. No need for 2A, just a fast WCML Stafford bypass joining WCML just north of Stafford. Network Rail could even build the bypass before HS2 is finished, and cheaper as they know how to run these projects. Stafford to Handsacre is a black spot, so needs attention asap. Fatalities there 15 years ago. What would be nice is a WCML tunnel under Crewe, a bottleneck, to allow, Liverpool, Lancs and Scots trains to run right through.
HS2 was always about vanity and nothing to do with capacity. If it was about capacity they would have reviewed other options such as building a new domestic line which would have been far cheaper and wouldn't have required the same engineering that a high speed line requires.
Nope, was always about capacity. Many options were investigated including upgrades. But why if you're going to build a new line would you want to limit it to 140mph, it saves very little in terms of cost.
Class 373s are very old technology. A modern high-speed train will use less energy travelling at 360km/h than a cl373 travelling at 300km/h. Hopefully between Alstom and Hitachi they can come up with a good product
If you would like to consider supporting the channel click: www.patreon.com/Chris_Rail_Focus or become a Member here on RUclips
I'm certain that HS2 will eventually reach the Manchester area but because of the Sunak decision
a) it will happen about a decade later
b) it will cost about 10 billion pounds more due to the need to reacquire the land.
Funny how all these projects are always slated to cost more and more money, in all industries.
Does all that money make it to the working class? Does it shite! It goes to parasitical middlemen and dictatorial CEOs!
Fun fact the phase 1 branch cost more than phase 2
I hope you're right that it gets built
You have an opinion, you are *not* _certain._
@@johnburns4017 I am certain it will be built. I am uncertain when.
They’ve truly managed to royally f**k up the UKs rail future huh… 🙄
Yup 🙁
Yep, in 13 years straight 😒
HS2 without Manchester and Golburne, might as well just be renamed to High Speed South. It's a complete and utter mess in it's current state, and as you've said, might actually lead to a net capacity decrease to major cities across the north.
Once finished with a WCML Stafford bypass London to Liverpool/Mcr will be around 1hr 30-35 mins.
The east of the Pennines had the ECML, MML and GCR. The west only had the WCML, with the Chiltern only up to Birmingham.
Now the east has the MML and the ECML - well served.
The west will have the WCML and HS2. Now on equal terms to the east.
Excellent summary! Many thanks. Could you also do the same for freight?
I could potentially look at freight. Glad you liked the video.
@@Rail_Focus
Hendy of Network Rail is to upgrade the WCML Crewe to Warrington/Liverpool/ Preston. More power to the wires and maybe 4-tracking - for passengers and freight out of Liverpool's port. Stated in the Integrated Rail plan and reported by others.
What got me was that when he cancelled the remainder of the party at their conference, he did it with a huge smile on his face.
I didn’t vote for any of these recent clowns, and I certainly don’t trust them to be taking such important decisions about the future of our country. Disgraceful decision to scrap it.
And those who talk about rising costs will do well to remember that government meddling and NIMBYs were the real problem here,
We had a golden opportunity to do something magnificent and blew it.
I was never this angry with thatcher, but these clowns make my blood boil
He thought he was onto a vote winner, was surprised when there was a backlash and actually voters weren't won around by "Network North" infuriating indeed
Well argued. I have heard politicians claim we don't need HS2 because of fewer people are commuting. OK, WCML numbers may be down since Covid, but the other long distance routes, Midland Main Line and ECML are up. Why is that? Because people can't rely on the WCML? Regarding the likely disruption caused by a WCML upgrade, in the early 2000s, instead of traveling to London from Wigan, I would drive to Wakefield or Warwick Parkway to be sure I made business appointments on time.
Avanti is well down, but still carried 26m passengers between 22-23. Imagine what that figure would be if the service wasn't so awful.
HS2 should have provided more capacity for freight on the WCML, and the M6 is already chock-a-block with trucks!
The simple fact is that Rishi & Co don't understand railways like we do
I must be naive to think we should expect our leaders to at least consult people who do know. Network North was thrown together without even consulting his transport minister.
I don't think Wishy Washy Rishi and Co understand anything at all!
Larry should've been PM.
It would be silly to expect them to _care!_ Their job isn't to look after us, it's to look after billionaires!
Meanwhile they are trumping on about fixing potholes and net zero aviation just because one flight ran on chip fat. I think it's fair to say Sunak & co are firmly in the anti-rail (and pro road & flying) group. What's interesting though is that unlike 30 years ago this position is widely derided and has not been at all popular.
Excellent summary - “here’s what we could have had” *sigh*
Thanks, but it is depressing isn't it 🙁
@@Rail_Focus very
Might as well have a fleet of pacer units for all the good this diluted sham is going to bring. Only in California do they F*** railway planning and financing up so badly. Maybe Sunak picked up some tips on his last LA holiday.
This highlights the sheer stupidity of Sunak's decision.
It's utterly depressing
Very eloquent, a useful statement of the f88k-up resulting from Sunak's October knee-jerk and a useful warning for what may follow. Nicely done and thank you.
You diagram at 21 secs show 37 trains going into Euston. It now seems we will get 6 trains into Old Oak Common. Seems a total waste of time, especially if it reduces freight north of Birmingham. Freight has suffered badly. I wonder how many realise that freight through Crewe has a speed limit of 10mph
No, that's all of the separate proposed diagrams for the now lost northern extensions 🙃
Very informative video there!
From the publics' perspective via multiple online polls - either build HS2 in full or don't build it at all. Building Phase 1 after watching this seems less justified after Birmingham if the government can't extend the service to a point where the WCML bottlenecks have been passed. At the very least there should have been 2 HS2 spurs which split a couple of miles further along the line just after Rugeley, with one serving the Stafford/Crewe Branch and the branch towards Stoke-on-Trent - but only after Colwich Junction
At the very least HS2 needs to go to Crewe, thereby by-passing major bottlenecks. Everyone seems to agree on this apart from Rishi Sunak and his aides.
@Rail_Focus Definitely as Crewe is a good start and end point at the very least and would allow for greater connectivity and capacity, unlike ending at Handsacre
@@Rail_Focus It could be compared to HS1 ending at Ebbsfleet - if that had been permanent capacity on the network would have been reduced
@@Rail_Focus Also proven by the fact phase 2A was already well on going 😄
It needs to be back on track and quickly.
@@nicolasl9059unfortunately, Sunak has been busy selling off the land to prevent it. Labour coukd have scotched that bit of vandalism by promising to buy back at cost instead of just throwing up their hands in despair. In the long run something will have to be done about capacity limits on the main line railways to the North & Scotland.
Shame there are no grown-ups in the government...
I know it's shocking.
Any grown up would put a stop to a purchase whose price just kept going up and up and up.
Please could you explain how regional connectivity is improved by having a load of trains going non-stop from the Midlands into London? That was one of my reservations about HS2 - it doesn't connect with anything south of Birmingham. It therefore makes connectivity worse.
By freeing up capacity on existing lines. It's not rocket science.
Taking non-stop trains off the WCML means there's room for more local trains, as well as freight. SImples. @@andrewhotston983
Nice to see the levelling up fund has been spent again in the SOUTH. HS2 is only half a job now. The 20 million in the North have been ignored again. The 32 miles of tunnels through the home counties and vanity bridges are the reason this project is so over budget.
Crewe has gone from being a key part of the HS2 network to not even getting a mention in "Network North" but at least Bradford will get a new £2bn, possibly.
@@Rail_Focus Agree Crewe is an important hub which trains pass through. Is Crewe in the Midlands or the North?. Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle etc, have tens of millions who live there and have been side lined by the government. The focus must be on improving the trans pennine link now as HS2 will not benefit the cities in the North.
@@tommcmanamon8327 Crewe's Cheshire, so in the North West... Barely.
Another very useful summary especially the issue of capacity north of Birmingham. It will be interesting to see how the issues at Hansacre will be resolved if at all. Perhaps a new government will revive Phase 2a at least?
We can only hope Labour revives phase 2a at the very least.
@@Rail_FocusEven then it leaves West Yorkshire and the North East out of the picture.
Indeed, it should absolutely be built to Leeds. But the bare minimum required so not to trash the WCML is to Crewe.
@@Rail_Focus It would be interesting to hear your interpretation of the 'money directed elsewhere' on other rail projects. The only news near me is the upgrade of the rail junction at Ely in East Anglia. Not sure what this entails, but I'm sure any investment would be an improvement. Ely as you know is a real bottleneck.
"money directed elsewhere" is a lie. There is no money, HS2 is funded through borrowing, so no HS2, no money.
Each project Sunak claims will be funded will first have to go through an assessment process to ensure it provides value for money before borrowing can be agreed for each individual project. So it's not even certain that projects will be green lit by the Treasury. If they're not convinced by the business case then the Treasury will not sign off borrowing for the project.
Ultimately it should not be a case of either or. We need both investment in existing infrastructure and HS2.
I love how since the Manchester leg was cancelled, the media have pretended that the eastern leg [which was axed with very little fuss made by anyone] never existed at all.
I never understood why Yorkshire and the North east is so easily ignored.
This is true, however myself and others did try to make a fuss, but the mainstream media just didn't care.
_Upgrading the East Coast Main Line to 140mph operation as a high priority alongside HS2 and to be delivered without delay. Newcastle-London timings across a shorter route could closely match those achievable by HS2._
- GreenGauge21 (HS2 consultants|)
140mph 10 minutes slower than HS2, only achieved by wrecking ECML capacity. HS2 would've provided better journey times and capacity on the ECML
@@Rail_Focus
Bottlenecks on ECML can be removed and NEED to be removed with strategic plans to remove them irrespective of HS2. Traffic all along the ECML benefits.
All that money for 10 mins? Wow.
@@Rail_Focus
ECML 140mph London-Edinburgh will be within a few minutes of HS2.
London-Edinburgh record was set decades ago on ECML which HS2 would not beat.
Excellent analysis- You have a better grasp of the situation than our useless government.
It should be realised that I have been against HS2 from the outset, but leaving it in this state achieves nothing but an expensive mess, with the previous expenditure wasted.
I would, however, disagree that its construction has always been about capacity. It was sold to the public as "World leading" High Speed with a design speed in excess of European lines. That in itself doomed the project as another example of a government prestige project (only far worse than Blair's Millennium Dome). It was only when the costs sky-rocketed (as predicted by cynics like me) that the PR teams started specifying capacity as the raison d'etre.
If it truly was only about capacity, the cost would have been much less with a sensible line speed (thus less energy intensive), avoidance of tunnelling, and better connectivity, including to HS1. Even a designated freight route could be built cheaply. Perhaps the biggest savings could be achieved by not involving the DfT in anything involving transport because they make a cock-up of everything where they influence the design.
As it is, passengers who wish to travel between a West London suburb and an isolated bit of Birmingham will have a wonderful service. For anybody wishing to travel somewhere useful, not so good. I expect all will be forgiven when the executives call it the "Charles Line" and get their knighthoods!
Regarding capacity, cost and speed I suggest listening to this Green Signals episode 👇 ruclips.net/video/LRRtJ3cZi8o/видео.htmlsi=Tjar62FHkwogUCgA
Very well put. I usually cringe at the way the HS2 for/against arguments go but respect to you. 👍
HS2 was always about capacity. The reason for it was to relieve congestion on both the ECML & WCML. It was the politicians that bulled up the High Speed apect and then gold plated it with higher speeds than other European countries instead of aiming for a similar standard to HS1 which was delivered within budget. Add the that pandering to home county NIMBYism let to unnecessary tunnelling through the Chilterns. The link to the Northern end of the WCML was also cancelled as a result of lobbying by a local Tory MP, Sir Graham Brady. A classic piece of NIMBYism.
@@Rail_Focus Thank you for your suggestion. I have just watched that video and have gained an insight into some of the decision making regarding the construction, which unfortunately, reinforced my early view that it would be a money pit. Despite constant reassurances that money would not be diverted from other projects in the country, the Government finally admitted that was what happened. As someone who has issued (successfully) contracts, I am well aware of the way costs can ramp up with variations. Making it up as you go along is criminal. It may have been sold to the government as being for capacity, but the early public emphasis was definitely on speed.
As regards the comments by Andrew McNaughton, I have no problem with slab track- it does cut costs in the long term, but tunnelling to satisfy Nimbys was a bad mistake. It may be that there is no option for reaching Euston, but the Chilterns? A nice little earner for foreign companies (Boring machines and concrete segments). TGV routes just go over hills.
To say that the higher speed than used elsewhere does not cost any more is quite wrong. The trains themselves require considerable design and construction systems to suit the higher speeds.
Running costs were not mentioned. Energy consumption by the trains will be very much higher- note that the East Coast main line in the North of England has for a number of years been incapable of supplying sufficient electrical power to permit a full electric service, resulting in some bi-modes running on diesel.
Where is the grid capacity for the power supply needed? With an ever increasing demand for electricity because the Government has decided that we all need electric cars and heat pumps, there is not going to be sufficient generation.
There is one further question that was not addressed in the video- who is the line for? The business market has shrunk, with most of the recovery being in leisure travel. Who are the leisure travellers who wish to travel through tunnels instead of watching pleasant scenery on their way to Curzon Street, of all places?
I ponder, with the HS2 'classic compatible' Trainsets not having any tilt mechanisms, I wonder if for destinations north of Birmingham, and the initial need - and perhaps permenant need - to change trains at Old Oak Common - if indeed there will in reality be any time saving? let alone capacity reduction in passenger terms unless as you suggest trainsets are lengthened
The tilt saving is often over stated. Network Rail, Transpennine Express and HS2 Ltd have been talking about lifting the non tilt speed limit from 110 to 125 on straight sections of track, which would reduce the time penalty. HS2 to Handsacre will typically provide a 30 minute time saving from the North. OOC will be quicker to Tottenham Court Road and Canary Wharf, but ultimately Euston has to be built as that's where most passengers want to travel to.
That issue has been mentioned in the December issue of Modern Railways, mainly re the complexity of more than 2 different maximum speeds with the current signage regime. However, another future option could well be increasing the allowable cant deficiency on curves for some novel stock - maybe up to those allowed on the Deutsche Bahn. @@Rail_Focus
Great video, the prime minister has royal fucked everyone up in the north. I mean terminating at Birmingham is a daft idea. There are 10s of millions of people in the north of the uk. Yes the north has some good regional rail systems but the services connecting cities are majorly lacking. For example Liverpool, which has a brilliant, reliable network has just got terrible times for connections with other cities. Lots of northern cities are very cut off from the rest of the uk despite their population and economic growth. Typical government
the cons are not bothered about railways as the prime minister goes every where by helicopter and it was only mejnt to go to brum as a faster way there
Another idea that has been floated in the December issue of Modern Railways is a simplified version of Old Oak.
Oh, and rant aside, another smashing video 😄🤞
Thanks 🙂
All the result of an ill-informed knee-jerk reaction from a Tory leader trying to win favour. As you say....a mess!
A Tory leader that wasn’t voted in by the people.
When cocoa was ousted there should have been a general election. Instead they decided some dimwit woman would be best suited to the job. Having got that so wrong what makes them think they can get anything right. This country is going to the dogs and not just with our inability to perform essential infrastructure projects.
What about reopening the peak railways from buxton to matlock via derby and using the Midland mainline to Manchester via that. It would be slow through the peaks, but much cheaper and increase capacity.
Or just send trains past Sheffield via the hope valley like they did in 2003 with project rio. Again it would be slower, but it's about capacity.
East Midlands already run trains from Sheffield to london and Manchester, so could compete against avanti and the wcml.
HS2 wasn't just about serving Manchester though, none of your alternatives would have any benefit for Liverpool, Glasgow or WCML north of Crewe.
Well Thameslink kicked off in the 1980's so by 2050 we might actually have a suitable HS network
Politicians seem willfully to have no grasp of science or engineering. "Organise, knees-up, brewery, couldn't."
They don't like Railways so they will probably go for the version that Causes to most disruption and least capacity just for spite!
That's Mick Lynch's plan!
Certainly feels vindictive
So whilst all these road works, speed restrictions in place ie from 70 mph down to 30 -50 mph. Has anyone done a survey of how many people have been caught on their pre planned speed cameras installed before any work commenced on the hs2? I bet the fines themselves will fund the hs2.
That'd be good, people who don't follow the rules of the road paying for a railway 👍
I wonder how much all those Loads cost! Jobs for the Boys. Maybe the should try a Lady (lord) next time or a lay person who hasn't been to Public School or even University
🤷
Please could you explain how regional connectivity is improved by having a load of trains going non-stop from the Midlands into London? That was one of my reservations about HS2 - it doesn't connect with anything south of Birmingham. It therefore makes connectivity worse.
By freeing capacity on existing lines. You wouldn't believe the amount of capacity it takes to run Avanti services mostly non-stop south of Crewe. People often overlook the communities along the WCML which are bypassed currently by Avanti services
I really don't understand the points you are making. Suppose HS2 merges in to the WCML at Handsacre as planned - why is this going to reduce the number of stopping trains on the Trent Valley section (serving Rugeley, Lichfield and Tamworth). Part of the argument for HS2 was that the fast services that currently serve these stations (1 or 2 a day) would be removed and with the extra capacity HS2 afforded, it would mean *more* services for the likes of Lichfield TV.
It depends which junction is constructed, if they stick with the slow line junction then HS2 services will conflict stopping and freight services on the slow lines between Colwich and Handsacre. But even if the fast line junction is constructed it's not certain that there will be any capacity between Colwich and Rugby for more services. So at best the Trent Valley will be left with the 1 LNR service. The point I'm trying to make is Sunak made his decision without consultation or understanding what it would mean for the WCML.
Why at first
Dont they just make say 12 sidings after old oak common station
So at first old oak common station just used as a pass through
Not a terminating point for the trains
Because Old Oak Common is technically subterranean station. So would need tunnels with somewhere for them to go. Plus people want to go to Euston, DfT's own modelling show 70% of passengers will travel to Euston
@@Rail_Focus I just think as euston hs2 station tunnels and tracks to it is 2035 minimum who knows when that's landing
even as a example
if shortly after old common u got to come from underground to the surface lay some siding s so trains can rest then turn around there
There be no passengers on them and old oak Common can be used as 4 north bound platforms for departures and 2 for arrivals to begin with
As trains will not have to stay at old oak Common then no longer than the time it takes of loading or exiting time of passengers
Leading to more paths and people of the north benefiting straight away
Without euston go ahead u can't have trains arriving ,passengers exiting, driver s changing end , trains being cleaned ,prepared, and reloaded with passengers at old oak Common that will never work and will be kaos
Where in London are you going to find space for tracks? May as well go to Euston where there's currently a great swath of land already prepared for the new station.
@@Rail_Focus we are not going to euston anyway near the beginning of hs2
Especially when u hear them talking about private finance to get there 2040 maybe did say 2035
So for now as old oak station is underground,
extend shortly after underground to while the tunnel boring machine are there
Provide some siding s underground
eg
loop back under the elizebeth line Depot underground
Go under great western main line
Or build under the hitachi depot on the other side
All underground
Old oak Common will never work as a terminus station with 6 platforms
Note this am saying this is as a tempory measure until u can get to euston to provide more paths on hs2
And free up west coast main line south of Birmingham instantly
This is not a idea out of the sky it's me saying how old common could possibly work when hs2 opens
And give Instant results for next 10 years till we get to euston and how there spending would probably be the cheapest tunnels they dig underground just sidings with buffers 6 to 12 would do
Despite HS2 not going to extend North towards Manchester, Leeds and East Midlands. I still do think that HS2 will benefit faster journeys from London to Birmingham.
Almost certainly, just a shame about the north
I agree. The North of England really needs HS2.
@AndrewG1989
The North of England does not need another sluice to slide more money into London.
Rishi’s legacy.
Sunak's Folly
There were three options to bypass WCML around Stafford by Network Rail. HS2 came along so shelved.
Time to get them out. Network Rail will do it cheaper than HS2.
Phase 2a is effectively the Stafford by-pass, it makes no sense drop it in favour of a Network Rail option, which will deliver a sub optimal connections. There's no reason to believe NR will deliver it any cheaper as they'll be calling upon the exact same contractors who are building HS2.
@@Rail_Focus
Network Rail has _three_ options of varied design and cost to bypass Stafford. On the Internet to be seen. I would assume they are cheaper now as work on the junction at Handsacre is paid for by HS2. Then trains will be faster end to end and maybe more of them on the line.
2A is all the way from Handsacre to Crewe. The WCML from Stafford to Crewe is straight, capable of 160mph. No need for 2A, just a fast WCML Stafford bypass joining WCML just north of Stafford.
Network Rail could even build the bypass before HS2 is finished, and cheaper as they know how to run these projects. Stafford to Handsacre is a black spot, so needs attention asap. Fatalities there 15 years ago.
What would be nice is a WCML tunnel under Crewe, a bottleneck, to allow, Liverpool, Lancs and Scots trains to run right through.
HS2 was always about vanity and nothing to do with capacity. If it was about capacity they would have reviewed other options such as building a new domestic line which would have been far cheaper and wouldn't have required the same engineering that a high speed line requires.
Nope, was always about capacity. Many options were investigated including upgrades. But why if you're going to build a new line would you want to limit it to 140mph, it saves very little in terms of cost.
HS2 is finished.
Still a few years of construction left.
I dont know why there getting new trains from hitachy instead of useing class 373, because there trains haven't have been the best in recent years
Class 373s are very old technology. A modern high-speed train will use less energy travelling at 360km/h than a cl373 travelling at 300km/h. Hopefully between Alstom and Hitachi they can come up with a good product
@@Rail_Focus like a version of the tgv m
@@Rail_Focus then again the Hitachi design might have cracking issues on day one lol, right.....
@@darksars3622really not a funny joke anymore
True @@TransportTech