As you approach Colton Junction from York it is a 125mph turnout whichever direction you go in. Rather pointless really as no train can achieve 125 by the time they reach it...pmsl.
@@BibTheBoulderTheOriginalOne But they can (and do) do 125 mph through the junction northbound, so that in itself justifies the 125 mph alignment. If passage non-stop through York could be significantly accelerated, then something approaching 125 mph southbound might be achievable too.
@@jeffhawken Think about the track layout. The fact they can do 100mph northbound from either line has no bearing on the need for it to be a 125mph turnout for the Leeds line when travelling southbound.
I could accept limiting speed to 300kmh and ballasted track, but building to UK loading gauge would be a massive wasted opportunity. Being able to run high capacity double decker trains from Manchester at some future date would be a game changer.
Could they build just one bridge somewhere that doesn't conform and keep pointing to that to say they saved money, so that they can quietly replace it with one that does conform later as a "minor upgrade".
To be honest I'm very sceptical we could ever recoup the cost of a high speed rail At least it needs to be a UK wide network that includes Scotland otherwise the scale is just not worth it
@@vinniechan That's exactly the thinking that got us here. Building infrastructure for perceived immediate profit instead of for it's actual purpose. The benefit to GDP from various factors will be significant outside of raw operating profits. But I wholeheartedly agree about integrating Scotland in. The entirety of the UK is sorely lacking competent high speed rail
People do not understand the benefits of making something right the first time, specially on nationalwide infrastructure that is going to be used in the future
The exception was the Paddington Station, where Brunel decided to build (at the time) "a massive station" that is now fit for purpose and wouldn't have been had he listened to the sort of people who have scrapped most of HS2. As well as his western railway work. So ahead of his time, even now - let alone then!
Oh I think people understand alright; but it's increased short-termism among politicians and in today's financial world market dominated by global capital/ private equity, which all want their return on the investment yesterday or by the end of next week.
@@stephen2d338 Was very easy to do at a time when private investors were falling over themselves to blindly fund large infrastructure projects in the hopes of generating massive profit (which ultimately never really came). Today investors only do that if you’re a tech company - ideally one that throws around the term “AI” as frequently as possible. The money flowing around the railways back then was massive and unsustainable, and we’re lucky that marvels of engineering like Paddington were built before the money tree created by gullible investors finally ran out. There wasn’t really a whole lot different between the investors of the 19th century and the ones we have today, both couldn’t really give a crap about making life better for people, they were just in it for a quick buck - it’s just that back then the financial system managed to convince itself that railways would be the quickest buck, there’s a reason why the period was termed “Railway Mania”. Would be lovely if trains could be made as sexy as AI startups and Nvidia GPUs are today, but unfortunately that fad passed over a century ago.
Scrapping the European loading gauge is ludicrous, makes more sense to leave it even if the trains are going to be slightly slower but achieve the same traveling capacity.
Absolutely agree. Abandoning slab track is another retrograde step. Why are UK decision makers incapable of learning from the catalogue of idiotic missteps which have plagued the British rail network since Day One?
@@TheHoveHeretic It is becoming apparent that many of these decisions are mode for short term financial manipulations rather than the stated objective of providing utility.
Where in the plans of HS2 has it ever been mentioned officialy that the line was going to be built to UIC Gauge or Berne Gauge, I have watched every officail vidio put out by HS2ltd and there has never ever been a mention of, it has always been said that it is being built to the UK loading gauge because no European train will run on HS2, no train service from HS2 will travel to Europe and if HS" trains were built to UIC size they would not be possible to operate on the WCML to Liverpool and Scotland. It is a case of Chinese whispers where by some one in the past mentioned something and now people think it was going to happen. In the UK we do not require our loading gauge built to UIC standards, all it means is slightly wider bodied and higher coaches. So no the UIC Gauge on HS2 was not scrapped but never enversaged to have been the case.
@@TheHoveHeretic Slab track is never used exept in tunnels, to cosly to fit all along the line and difficult to maintain, when ordinary concrete or steel sleeper rails when are reqired to be replaced are just lifted out in situ and replaced in a couple of hours.
In an era where our rail network is already painfully prone to extreme weather, and when climate change means that is only going to get worse, building ballasted tracks as opposed to slab tracks is sheer madness.
The Dutch, who built their HSL Zuid, might disagree. Because it's so sturdy, it's also a lot harder to correct mistakes, and they have made some engineering mistakes which have lead to speed reductions on key parts of the line, from 300 km/h to at one place 80... Chances are, they will have to rebuild from the ground up. That said, the main reason is their terrible soil, the track has shifted 8 cm at that spot, that's the reason for the speed restriction.
Ballasted or slabbed, what really matters is designing the formation and the drainage runs right. It's only above a certain train frequency on each track (IIRC HS2's Andrew McNaughton said 12tph) that the higher initial cost of installing slabbed is justified.
First time I have watched one of your videos and I thought it was excellent - clear, precise, very well presented, no unnecessary music etc., and intelligent. Very well done.
To block the possibility of running European guage trains is plain stupid. This means that the UK would be blocked from buying off the shelf high speed trains from the big European manufacturers and even blocked from buying secondhand trainsets. The cost savings aren't worth it. That said any savings from running at a slightly slower speed (300kph) are probably worth it as the short route probably has only a short distance able to be run at the higher speeds and the associated time saving probably doesn't justify the extra energy usage.
Agreed, especially as even those lines where there's a theoretical maximum speed of over 300, the commercial speed is generally limited to 300, as the extra operating cost is hardly worth it. That operating cost goes up exponentially... 300 to 320 seems to be the sweet spot.
Of course, the main reason why it's silly to recommend British loading gauge is that before too long, the equipment and expertise being used to construct Phase One will be freed up. What kind of sense does it make to commit to plans which would lead to - for example - the TBMs being useless?
One of the only policy decisions that makes me feel physically angry. Such short-sightedness is unbelievable, and the level of ignorance displayed by central government to transport anywhere north of Watford is simply staggering. We need to build these lines, and soon, or the UK will fall even further behind our European neighbours
I wish we could do it. But recontrating would be super complex..even then the cancelation cost us at least 5 years and probably add 10 to 40 billions to project cost.
Construction started on phase 1 first, as the southern section of the WCML is the area that was predicted to reach capacity the soonest. However politically it would have been a lot harder to cancel if they'd started building the Northern legs first, so I don't disagree with your assessment.
Oh give it a rest, for what reason should HS2 have started in Leeds of all places, the soul purpose of HS2 is to relieve congestion on the West Coast Mainline from Crewe to London Euston via Birmingham allowing more capacity for freight services on the busy winding southern section of the WCML from Crewe to Euston via the Trent Valley route and speed up WCML Inter City Trains.
@@verygoodbrother It has, it is being constructed from Birmingham North to Lichfield and Manchester and South towards London and from London North and in between, it was the last Government that stopped it being built from Manchester
@@TheFrogfather1For a second there, I thought 'short sighted' was the intended poor choice of words. I was thinking of something rhyming with "rodding meticulous"!
Even if the EU loading gauge north of Birmingham was used, it means that HS2 trains can only run to Liverpool and Manchester but not anywhere further north As far as I am aware under the original HS2 then UK spec trains would have to be used for London Glasgow routes, even if they used HS2 tracks up to Birmingham or Manchester etc
There were never any plans to use the UIC European loading gauge other wise HS2 trains would not be able to go to Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland as they would of been out of Gauge for the existing UK rail network no mention other than building to the UK loading gauge is mentioned in HS2 ltd Video's plus why do trains ned to be built to the European loading gauge when these trains are not planned to go into Europe.
when can we as a country choose to splash out on one thing to futureproof it - just once, instead of cutting absolutely everything. Are we not an important location for business, banking and a couple of other sectors? Where is the money?
HS2 was built to relieve traffic congestion of trains south of Crewe... There is no traffic congestion of trains in Devon... Your comment explains why HS2 got gold platted and involved into a boondoggle...
Thank you very much 🙏 To be honest I'm blown away by the response this video's received, as I seem to have gained ~100 subscribers overnight which is absolutely insane and far more than I've ever got from a single video before (either here or on my main channel)
Being able to get into London from Warrington would be a massive deal for me. Often it can be done in an hour 45, it being done in about an hour would be dramatic and help incentivise travelling down to London this way rather than via car.
I only started this channel relatively recently so that's probably why, although I do have another channel with about 900 subscribers. Just a couple of days ago this channel only had ~100 subscribers but since releasing this video it's grown rapidly! Anyway glad to hear you enjoyed the video!
Given that the majority of cost for building rail is in the planning, land acquisition and physically putting shovels in the ground, the "premium" for higher speeds is very marginal - as Adonis noted. The idea that they can magically save 40% of the cost is laughable. Arup have really disgraced themselves here as it's very obvious the study was not done by a rail specialist but by someone with a spreadsheet and some basic unit costs. Gareth Dennis noted that this section of line has several viaducts and bridges. Viaducts and bridges will be slab-tracked for rigidity, which means ballasting the rest of the line incurs costly and precision-engineered transitions between slab and ballast. The saving in lower per-km cost of ballast therefore starts to evaporate with every transition you need - something the Arup study quietly ignores. Dennis also called into question their asseessment for S&C (Switches and Crossings) as they've planned additional interconnects with existing lines. S&C is very expensive and requires wider corridors (more land) where you put those junctions in. Ultimately as you say, the cheapest and fastest way to build a railway on that route is to build HS2 - because it's already been designed, the surveys and consultations are done and it's "shovel ready" - indeed some sites through Staffordshire already had preliminary boreholes going in. Any attempt to half-arse a compromise line requires new designs, new consultations and will throw hundreds of millions of pounds worth of design and survey work in the bin. And in 20 years we'll regret it when people start talking about high speed lines to Glasgow or Edinburgh and we've got this slow 300kmh bit bottlenecking the core of our national HS spine and people then start talking about ripping up the ballast and building it properly. I don't want to let perfect be the enemy of good. HS2 was not perfect - but it was good. This proposal would be better than what we have now, but it also involves painting ourselves into a corner, as well as lumbering ourselves with a much higher maintenance burden in perpetuity. That's an insane thing to do. It's not "gold plating" to build infrastructure with an eye to reliability, low-maintenance and ensuring that future upgrades can be done relatively seamlessly. And as for private finance. Absolutely risible. Nobody can borrow cheaper than Treasury - who can issue bonds at base rate (and can lean on the BoE to reduce base rate if required). Private capital will always be more expensive than central government funding (as we're finding out with increaisngly unaffordable PFI deals) and offer a worse return to taxpayers.
Fairly typical for Britian over the past century. Start out with a good idea. Try and cut corners and fudge bits to save money. Those cut corners then end up costing you more down the line so the project has to be scaled back to stop costs spiraling. You then end up with a worse end result that costs more than just doing it correctly in the first place
@@EisenbahnenBw it would be better to just continue the hs2 Services on the existing network towards the north (as planned) and safegard the northern extension of hs2 to build it later
@@nicolasblume1046 how long can those safeguards stay in place? I'm not British, so I'm sure it differs, but in Belgium, all planning permits and permits for eminent domain are time-sensitive, if you don't start building, you might have to redo the whole planning permission procedure again. That would be an argument for building _something_.
The lack of plan of solving the capacity issue in Crewe is always going to be an issue. A new Platform 13 is needed for Manchester - South Wales services to ensure trains don't have to cross each line. Dual tracking between Crewe and Alsager, and electifying between Crewe and Chester is needed - but Crewe station as a whole needs serving in order to boost connectivity to the regions and not just to cities
I love the idea of our metros working together to fix the mess of the tories but PLEASE do not Cheap out build it properly with Slab tracks and Euro gauges for future proofing...
They might as well just resubmit the Phase 2A paperwork under a different name. They've literally come to the conclussion that the best idea is the one that already existed, then they made said idea worse to make it cheaper.
the changes to the gauges is so tragic. seriously hope something happens regarding that, because i often think about the fact manchester initially had a eurostar service until they changed the type of train. i hope one day manchester can have access to continental europe via a single rail journey.
It's such a shame nowadays you need all kinds of experts to build a railway track. It used to be that state directed the unemployed to these kind of job sites with a shovel and many learned the various jobs at the site. Many fine projects got built and are still standing. Secondly you could cover large parts of the extension with vertical solar panels ( they generate electricity in the morning and evening when the demand = price is higher) and finance part of the loan payments with it.
Agree with most of the comments. You're all sensible. For an addition, I would recommend a link from the bham flying junction to the MML towards Tamworth and derby. Electrify and upgrade MML to Sheffield, Nottingham, x country etc
Hopefully something like this gets considered because it would be an immense waste of the flying junction not to do something with it! Could also significantly reduce the journey time to Sheffield and provide some capacity relief to the southern section of the MML even if not as much as would have been provided under the original HS2 scheme.
It doesn’t go to the north east of England though. So it’s not really a high speed rail system. It needs to be up to Newcastle and the north east not the north west
Build it properly, I'd be trying to expand the scheme if I was in government. Cutting or changing plans just costs more money in the long run. Build it properly and quickly. That's how you save money.
absolutely correct 👍 _ since when did changes actually save money on these projects _ that would require a lot of searches & probably prove it doesn't save _ it costs more
One of the main concerns Andy Burnham had with HS2 being scrapped is that the capacity was mostly wanted, not necessarily the higher speeds. I still think we shouldn't settle for any BS downgrades. The country invented rail. Why can't we act like it? It's pathetic. Tax the billionaires, give them the ultimatum to pay their fair share or leave the UK with their businesses. Then we'd see some proper infrastructure.
I don't think the plan was to run at that speed regularly. From my understanding, HS2 trains would run at 320/330km/h in normal service, and would only speed up to 360km/h if they're running late and need to make up time
@@damiendye6623 it's similar to that, but the pendolinos don't run above 125MPH because the signalling system *physically won't allow them to*. HS2 trains will be capable of the 360km/h speed, and unlike pendolinos probably will reach it in service, it just won't be done regularly from my understanding.
I argued many times that this review was simply a political trick to throw sand into Sunak's gears and buy time to stop him selling the HS2 land before he get's booted from office. Obviously HS2 should be built as designed. It's good to go, and spades could hit the ground tomorrow. With Sunak gone, the only problem left is to change Starmer's mind.
I may be mistaken but didn't Sunak already sell off a lot of the land bought up to construct HS2 phase 2 at bargain bin prices? Which would mean that land would need to be bought up again to be built on, adding even more delays and cost to the project. Of course imo Labour should absolutely just get on with it and get the ball rolling again, but I don't think it's quite as easy as spades on the ground once Starmer decides it's go time
Extend HS2 to all major Midland cities and further to Glasgow and Edinburgh. This rail infrastructure will have a life of well over 100 years and will cost less now than later. Britain may also become more forward thinking and positive as a result. Less gold plating of the infrastructure design and build while still attaining 350 km/h speeds should be possible.
Thank you very much! I confess I haven't watched the BBC programme yet, but I've heard it's pretty one-sided and relies on a lot of misguided or outright untrue information!
@@NetworkNewsUK not quite it shows what really happens in government and the DfT about lies. It also shows how much the nimbies added to the overall cost.
Is there anything more stupid than an 'East Midlands Hub'? This hub would be at Toton, midway between Nottingham and Derby so let us look at the passengers choice if they are travelling to Nottingham or Derby. Option 1. Go via the new HS2, change at the new 'East Midlands Hub' cross platforms to wait for a local (currently 2-car 156-158-170) to Nottingham or Derby. Option 2. Catch a through train from St. Pancras. Almost certainly quicker due to the lack of need to change trains. Clearly less hassle as you don't have to drag your luggage around from platform to platform at east Midlands Hub. Almost certainly cheaper as it is highly likely the new HS2 will command a premium to help pay it off. Thus the new 'East Midlands Hub' is a complete white elephant.
Maybe about time that the UK took the lead from other small countries like Switzerland and Netherlands... capacity, feequency and quality are more important than speed for its own sake.
"Other small countries" is an insane comparison, Great Britain is five times larger than those countries. Speed has some impact on frequency and daily capacity, and potentially ticket costs. An increase of travel times by 15mins in this section means a total 30mins added to the rotation of a train. For a fixed number of trains and staff members this might be enough to mean one less rotation per day than would otherwise be possible. Meaning less frequency and therefore less seats per day. And ultimately higher ticket prices. If you start extending the lower speed further and further, increasing traveling times more and more, the more economical potential you lose. I understand what you mean, for most passengers simply using the train, indeed, frequency and quality are going to be much more important than speed. Specially for these journeys that will be taking only a few minutes more but are still getting faster than before. But when you start looking at lengths like London-Glasgow/Edinburgh or beyond then speed is very important in making the railway a viable alternative to flights.
@@DavidKnowles0 well, it will have once it starts operating, hopefully, if all goes well! Without a fully built Euston that frequency won't be as excellent as it was planned. But it's not very clear what point you are trying to make? London-Birmingham is only a small stretch of the network.
Because the plans were never formally "dropped", the government just pulled the funding for it (this is why I showed it as grey on the map rather than deleting it entirely). It is still the intention to proceed with Euston, but we'll just have to see whether the new government is able to find the money (either directly, or with the help of the private sector)
Another thing is that by reducing the load gauge and subsequently reducing the diameter of the tunnels, you wouldn’t be able to reuse the Tunnel boring machines and tunnel lining factories used at the HS2 sites. The infrastructure used to manufacturing them could not be reused, the whole point is to standardize the infrastructure throughout the railway lines. What they should really focus on is standardizing all the viaducts and bridges to cut down costs. There’s way too many variants of them along the HS2 routes. This is an engineering project t not an architectural project.
@@NetworkNewsUK The private sector is never going to do the tunnel. The hope is that they would use profits from homes and office sales to fund the station,but that would mean much of the land being lost to those offices, leaving only enough space for 6 platforms, which is inadequate for the complete HS2 project.
Scrap an extension to the Elisabeth line and the new Thames crossing along with the new underground stations. The prosperity of the South East is due to the high spending per head of population on Infastucture compared to other regions. The deprived areas of the North and Midlands is to the lack of Infastucture. The fact it can take up to an hour to travel the mile to nearest junction of the M1 is due to the planned improvement to junction 28 of the M1 being cancelled twice. I worked for a transport company that relocated away from junction 28 due to the high cost of hours wasted in traffic hold ups
My view of this that HS2 could have been viewed as a strategic asset, because if need to we could use it to transport military hardware such as tanks and armoured vehicles. Something we haven't done due to the Challenger Tanks being larger than the UK loading gauge. This could be paid for by the defence budget in part. If we did this we could move forward in the long run establishing new defence industry along the route.
@@NetworkNewsUK It was the original mandate from the EU that drove the whole concept of Europe-wide High Speed Rail in the first place, was the movement of troops and military hardware across the continent and across the UK.
Capacity? Chiltern connects Birmingham and London with typically 4 carriage trains. So could triple its capacity just by trippling the length of trains to the 12 carriage trains which is the intention with the trains SW of London (currently they are 10 carriage trains).
The southern section was prioritised as that's the section of the WCML which was expected to reach capacity the soonest. However, it would have been politically more challenging to cancel if they'd started with the Northern sections!
HS2 is like any large construction like a Motorway, they never start in one place, if you ever came to look at HS2 construction, no Stations other than London OOC are being constructed at the moment, the builders are constructing all the tunnels, viaducts, bridges and track formation from Birmingham going North to Handsacre and South to London and from London progressing North and in between, so no they are not starting in one place, it is not London Centric as the HQ of HS2 ltd the people building HS2 is in Birmingham City Centre not London and if it had of been started in Manchester it would not of been as far constructed as it is now.
Just want to add that using ballastless tracks also saves in train maintenance. Due to the high speeds some of the ballast will get kicked up and has a chance of damaging the underbody. This is, besides increased power usage, also why for instance trains in Spain don't run at 350kph even though the tracks and trains are rated die that speed
We do already have a high speed route to Scotland, the ECML. I have seen ECS do Heaton jn - Bounds Green in 95mins. The line was designed for 225kph, hence the building of the 225 trains. Its limited to 125mph thanks to the LC's and 2track along the route. Make it 4track and take the crossings out would be a relatively minor cost to the corrupt £100bn guesswork estimates
The main reason trains can't go over 125mph on the ECML is that it requires in cab signalling. ETCS is being implemented but as it stands there are currently no plans to raise the track speed to 140.
Speed of travel is well down the list of priorities for most people. We want reasonable ticket prices and frequent, reliable services. That’s it really. A rail link to Leeds Bradford airport would be handy too for those of us in the area (apparently only a short extension is required as a line passes close by).
4 месяца назад+1
Don't be confused between commercial speed and maximum speed. Most of europe high speed tracks have a commercial speed of 300-320 kph but their max speed can reach 360 kph.
Sounds like a typical "British Solution" we set out to design a cheetah and end up with a camel. Most of the proposals to save money result in a second class railway. Short term gains with long term consequences. P.S What is it obsession with top speed? If it takes 15 mins less to get to Manchester what do the passengers do with that 15 minutes that is so important? The HS125 proved a resounding success so a top speed of say 150 or 175 would be adequate IMO.
The obsession with top speed is it's comparison to current rail networks, e.g. HS2 is expected to cut ~30 minutes off a journey from London to Birmingham for example. Which would be ~ 1 hr 30 min rather than 2 hr. Not a particularly large change. The more time saved on journeys, the more sense it makes, including just 15 mins. 1 hr 15 mins starts to seem significant compared to 2 hr using the aforementioned example
I am firmly of the view - and always have been - that the need is for capacity on Britain's railway network. Higher speed is a bonus and kills off internal air services - which is what the Greenie Nimby crew seem to want.
Do you really not understand the link between speed and capacity? The number of trains able to run on the line at once is determined by the speed of the trains and the length of the line. Quicker line speeds increase the capacity of the line to a point. But the higher speeds also reduce journey times, meaning an individual train can carry more passengers when viewed over a longer timescale. Think of it like this; train A takes an hour to travel from London to Birmingham, and train B takes 30 minutes. This means in the time it takes train A to travel from London to Birmingham, train B has travelled from London to Birmingham and back to London again, and thus has doubled the capacity just using a higher line speed. It's not rocket surgery
Basically with higher average speeds you can carry more passengers with fewer trains (and staff). If a service has an average speed of 100km/h 4 trains are needed to run half hourly service on a 100km line. At an average speed of 200km/h the same line and frequency can be served by two trains. This is of course a simplified view as it leaves out things such as turnaround times. That being said there is a point of diminishing returns. Depending on factors such as geography, station spacing, expected service level, etc. The sweetspot seems to be somewhere between 300-320km/h. Planning for higher speeds is sensible so trains can run faster than scheduled to make up delays.
Working in a civil engineering firm in the uk myself, I can say that often companies are more worried in ‘appearing’ as if they are cutting costs and making something good. Thank actually cutting cost for the client and making something good.
Thank you for a masterpiece of story-telling and factual analysis. The "new" line will now be Sensible, pragmatic - and permanently gauge-crippled in terms of the kit that can run on the "Connector" tracks. At least the future-needs "Crewe Dive-under Tunnel" can be planned for a future generation, when the "Stafford Bottleneck" has moved north to "The Crewe Bottleneck": I reckon this bottleneck will move northwards at a planning rate of one mile per year - roll on 2054! So - welcome to "Grate Britain" where we argue forever and deliver not a lot. Meanwhile, the M6 and WCML are STILL stuffed full! Whilst the population of the UK grows by 800,000 bodies per year...
The gauge issue is a big mistake. But quite why we,as a nation need to have a faster service that what appears to be a standard elsewhere in Europe. Please tell me this isn't simply national chest inflating?
The reason a lot of European high speed lines are slower is simply because they're older. Most modern high speed lines are built to a higher speed simply because it makes sense to do so that the line is futureproofed. In the case of HS2, it was the alignment which dictated the speed rather than the other way round. Once the planners had decided on an alignment which minimised impact on the environment and surrounding villages, it just happened to be very straight, allowing for higher speeds!
@@NetworkNewsUK "The reason a lot of European high speed lines are slower is simply because they're older." .. The oldest true High Speed line in Europe is in France: in 1981 France built the Paris-Lyon HS line, 391 kilometers, first in Europe. TGV train broke the world speed record on rails running on this line: 380 kph in 1981. And in 2007, TGV broke again the world speed record on rails on the new commercial HS line Paris-Strasbourg: 574 kph. French High Speed lines are built since 1981 to allow HSTs running at such high speeds.
A political fudge by Andy Street, who has protected his role by backing HS2 Phase 1 and Andy Burnham whose business rate income stands to benefit most from it. Great illustration and analysis of the proposal to deliver the capacity benefits of HS2 (as was), thanks NN.
The proposed use of ballasted track and BS loading gauge is very surprising, but I get the reasoning. Hopefully, if this goes through the existing design development carried out for HS2 can brought in again instead...
Most use single-deck will use as many they will. The only does one concerns; is require less 5,000m Height with on rail track of the train, additionally will few or some use new Double-decker trains [not re-use BR class 4DD] on primary few routes if possible (not many though as rural branches)?
slab track is a mistake which can be corrected at a future time (with added cost and disruption) the loading gauge is a mistake which can't be corrected.
The mistake we made with hs1 was trying to build too quickly. In Europe high speed lines take decades of planning, costs went up and mistakes were made as we tried to do things quicker and better. Pleased something is now being done, with declining car ownership more public transport is absolutely necessary. Its a shame they wasted so much on excessive tunnelling but good to see the local mayors are helping push this much needed infrastructure through. Hopefully once we establish a protocol for large projects it will be easier in the future.
We should aim to gradual open up our whole network to UIC. Our trains cost twice as much as they do in the EU because they are all “special”. With regards to routes, what most commentators totally miss is that much of the so called Manchester to London traffic actually comes from Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke. For some reason the blinkered comments stupidly only consider Manchester to London. In the longer term, if we are really concerned about pollution etc. the biggest disaster was the omission of the connection between HS1 and HS2. Why should I have to go to London, walk in the rain down the Euston road, wait another hour at least then set off for, say Koln. That’s why it’s easier to drive to Manchester Airport and spray the world with aviation fuel ! In Germany I can get on a train an do 1000 miles under the wires at 200mph without getting out or walking down the Euston Road, or crossing the Bullrink in Birmingham between stations. UK plc just can’t do joined up thinking.
I don’t like it. It’s tacitly endorsing a lower standard for the north that not only leaves us stuck with an unnecessary compromise for the foreseeable future, but also increases our national infrastructures vulnerability to future climate change and limits room for further expansion of European standard trains. It’s needless cost cutting that makes no sense on the long term at all
If they build everything to European loading gauge, they can still say it was built to british loading gauge, as anything conforming to the former conforms to the latter. Alternatively, they could build one bridge (preferably whichever would affect least traffic or be cheapest and easiest to replace at a later date) that doesn't conform to the European gauge and use that as evidence that they didn't confirm to the gauge, but leave all other bridges and tunnels conforming.
As it should be cheaper to build high speed rail in the more sparsely populated north than the Birmingham to London leg, it makes sense to connect high speed rail to all major cities of the midlands and also to Glasgow and Edinburgh. A high speed midlands east-west and a Edinburgh to Glasgow direct link also makes sense. Construction of all these high speed lines liberates existing tracks for more freight trains and local passenger trains. High speed rail is likely to be the best form of passenger transport for at least another 100 years and it makes sense to harness the benefits earlier. Construction costs will only increase over time.
It is incredible how short-sighted the plan is if examined with even the slightest bit of scrutiny compared to the original plans. One can only hope some of the more nonsensical "cost savings" will be rolled back upon further examination.
The loading gauge issue is particularly mad when you consider platform heights. Are they proposing to maintain HS2’s 1,115mm high platforms, or build the British standard 915mm? How would a 20cm gap between train and platform factor in with PRM and accessibility considerations? That suggestion alone would suggest that the person writing the report doesn’t understand what they’re on about.
The decision to go with a platform height higher than the national standard for HS2 was so baffling that I have a whole video dedicated to it! In terms of what this new line does, it only has one intermediate station (Crewe) where it will share platforms with existing national rail trains, so therefore using the standard 915mm platform height. As for the Manchester/Liverpool stations, it's hard to say, but I imagine it will be done based on an assessment considering both -HS2- MNWRL and NPR.
@@NetworkNewsUK While yes the decision to design higher-than-standard platforms appears odd, I think it’s a reasonable deviation in order to ensure step-free access which may not have appeared possible when initially designing HS2. While Crewe will be the only shared station, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to suggest that as a part of any upgrade it receives dedicated HS2 platforms built to 1,115mm to maintain step-free access. Ultimately, while odd, it doesn’t need to conform to national standards as HS2 services, even on the legacy network, could be timetabled to justify dedicated platforms. My thoughts on the gauge suggestion are that it’s fodder to be done away with. There’s just no way that anyone, even the hilariously-inept DfT, would agree to build two halves of a national high-speed network to two different (and significantly-so) loading gauges.
That is easily over come as was on the Eurostar sets, when the doors open at a different height platform all what happens is the Steward/Guard pesses a button and a small step operates
@@peterwilliamallen1063 a step, though, isn’t step-free. PRMs would still require assistance from staff instead of being able to independently board the train (as should the goal be).
@@TheFirstConcorde Due to the animal a Railwy is you won't on the main rail network always get step free entrances to trains and people in wheel chairs do get assistance at stations to board and alight trains
It’s ironic to see comments complaining about abandoning sections, on a project that’s already been abandoned. To me the U.K. has to complete Liverpool to London with a full HS2 system, then complete HS3, Hull via Leeds and Manchester to Liverpool as the priority with U.K. Rail investment over next two decades. These major cities of the North have the people, land and infrastructure of Ports and Airports to drive Britain as they did in the past taking pressure off the South East. Then beyond that and between 2040 to 2050, start Cross Rail 2 and the next East Coast upgrade from London to Newcastle forming HS4. Ultimately finishing our HS network with HS5 into the 2060’s through the West and to Cardiff. It might take 50 years the join the world family with a true country wide HS grid but its a legacy future Britain can build. Ultimately this transit grid would allow Freight Services at night to relocate containers to all major parts of the U.K. The only part of a HS grid that does not make sense to me is a HS service to Edinburgh or Glasgow because passengers from these cities are probably best served by Aviation and the current near high speed lines already in use long ECML and WCML. Ultimately the U.K. needs two big spends over the next 20 years High Speed rail and Waste Water treatment. What I can fathom is the billions they want to plung into Wind and Solar that will be bought in from China and Germany but have less impact and greater cost for a short term benefit.
HS2 only running from Old Oak Common to Birmingham is almost pointless. The whole point was to connect as many major cities together . It really needs to get from Birmingham to Liverpool , Manchester , Leeds and a few other places. 1) Most importantly I'd definitely use the concrete slab track rather than ballasted track. That seems like a no brainer to me. Cheaper long term maintenance, and less maintenance ! 2) I'd probably go for the full Euro sized tunnels. It seems a bit short sighted not to. How much extra capacity would the larger gauge enable ? It almost sounds like a good way to get a real lot extra capacity for not a lot more on cost. 3) HS2 really does need to directly connect to HS1 . If this happens, well (2) really needs to be full Euro sized tunnels. 4) 300 KPH or 400 KPH , this I think is the least of the issues. 300 KPH is fast enough, I guess it'd be nice to have 400KPH top speed. All depends on how much it costs. There seems to be a whole lot more stops on the northern leg of the route. Is there enough distance to even get much advantage on a 400KPH top speed ?
I used to think whats the point of HS2 as it was marketed at getting to London quicker and we have issues with trains in the North. But once I heard it was to alleviate congestion on the WCML, I believe we need it or an alternative solution to it. Manchester to Birmingham is very congested
Yeah the PR department did a rubbish job of explaining the benefits of HS2 in the early years. The truth is that the biggest benefits of HS2 will be on the existing network, not on HS2 itself!
Eurostar trains have been built to the UK loafing gauge. The White Rose service on the ECML made use of the North of London sets. So,the choice of loading gauge is not as important as you are making out.
@NetworkNewsUK and building it to the UK's loading gauge is the only option. Back in the 1960s the Western Region wanted to build coaches to fit the 3x-GWR lines that were built to Brunel gauge. Sensibly this request was denied as such coaches would be limited to those lines and could not be used elsewhere.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 would it? GB loading gauge is much smaller than other loading gauges, limiting future flexibility of the line. It costs an extremely small amount to build to a larger loading gauge but leaves options open in the future to order cheaper, higher capacity off-the-shelf trains!
@NetworkNewsUK and then you are limited to your route availability. Rumour has it that the old GCR London extension was built to the Berne gauge. But how could that be as the opened decade before the Berne gauge was settled upon? Also, all of the rolling stock had to be able to traverse the rest of the GCR, and in the case of wagons, all other lines in the UK. Building the line to any loading gauge means that if the line is closed for maintenance or an emergency the trains are stuck on that line unless you start rebuilding other lines as well, at much expense including lives (see Penmanshiel). This means the only financially viable option remains the UK loading gauge if you want full flexibility.
Looking at a map of Great Britain, it seems to me if a proper investment is done on transport links in Liverpool to Hull corridor, there will be a big boost to the UK economy. This corridor is almost in the middle of Britain. There are some impoverished towns in this area, as a result the investment goes a long way. Also, plenty of empty houses in this area. I don't understand the obsession with connecting the HS2 to central London. Very few people would want to travel, say between Manchester to central London.
That's the thing though, there is a big demand on that corridor! The WCML is the busiest mixed-traffic railway in Europe and during the peak hour you'll see 3 or 4 trains per hour running between London and Manchester, which are often full! Whilst I don't disagree with the need to improve east-west links, this should be done as well as improving north-south links, not instead of it!
The comment about loading gauge is interesting as it implies the existing double deck high speed trains could be running now in the UK, this would be desirable to meet passenger demand as it continues to increase.
The only place I'm aware of on the existing UK network which could run double-decker trains is HS1. In fact Evolyn (a new company that hopes to compete with Eurostar) is planning to use double-decker trains from London - Paris. HS2 would be built to European loading gauge and therefore able to accommodate double-decker trains, but they wouldn't be able to run on the existing network so there wouldn't be much point.
Given Rachel Reeves words at the party conference today, it would be jaw dropping if the government didn't support this new proposal. How on earth otherwise does she expect to shift commerce and factories to the north and north-east if the transportation links are not in place.
If the right of way was aready planned for say 350, then building for 300 might just be a signaling issue ( size of blocks, ETCS config etc) and that relatively be retrofitted later on. But the loading gauge is a major show stopper because that can never be fixed without shutting service down to redig tunnels. It also means that high speed rolling stock manufactured for HS1 can't be ordered for HS2 and they will need to do their own special custom order for a few trains to run on their proprietaary tracks. Might as well use Russian or Iberian gauge. ordering custom trains means headaches and a few years with a lot of reliability issues compared to ordering trains that are already iun production, with existing tooling, trained manufcturing staff etc. If all they will run on it are conventional trains, then why build it for 300, why not signal it for 200 ?
Build without the Key segments to interlace with WCML... and people will be socially nudged to demand it. :) Ballast NO. Changing tunnel dynamics... such as making the bore holes smaller... WTF?? The Cost to TBM a 7m bore is same as a 17m bore... it is just a larger cutting face on the TBM. The extra concrete (made with reuse of spoil) is insignificant cost-wise. IF a PPP is the way to build, use it to build. The PPP can always be purchased out later or a bankrupted lender to become a freebie. This is a PR Social Nudge... an introducing the idea/concept into the minds of the Public. Now it is out in the public domain, it will be easier to get people and this 'lack of vision' government into motivation gear. Yes vastly disappointed as this is the first labour govt in the past 100 years who LACKED a Vision, Direction, a Destination for Socio-economic future in legislative objectives.
A very interesting and comprehensive view of the current position and new proposals. Clearly, the current situation whereby HS2 only runs from Old Oak Common to Birmingham is ludicrous and the bit into central London must be completed. Anything less is frankly stupid. Beyond Birmingham, Sunak’s decision to cancel is equally daft (and highly political). The whole point was to provide new capacity for fast trains, so existing lines can then, themselves, carry more slower traffic. Simply running the HS2 carriages on from Birmingham means they go slower, they have to be shorter and there is no freeing up of space. The only sensible way forward is to get the Birmingham to Manchester section built as soon as possible, and if that’s under the Metro Mayors proposals, so be it. But I agree it makes far more sense to build with the European loading rules plus the slab track as in the longer term this will work out less expensive and give the opportunity for European trains to run through to the north. I don’t, though, see that the track necessarily has to allow 360 or 400 k/h trains; the primary object should be to get more fast capacity. I think we’ve also seen more than enough of the PFI system of financing these projects. We don’t want yet another one arranged which ends up costing the taxpayer for decades to come, way after the original build costs have been covered. What so many politicians seem so often to do is to plan and legislate only for the short term; they have neither the vision nor the intellectual strength (balls) to look further than the next election and narrow political advantage. Let’s hope someone in authority can finally get the thing completed.
I would think that if/once it's been approved then various aspects would be revised. "Having worked through the proposals in more detail we can construct to the European loading gauge at comparable costs, but with long term savings of having double deck trains with lower weight per passenger,..." Or something like that. The other points - how difficult would it be to rebuild using slab track, and what physical characteristics were being planned that will reduce the top speed, and can this be reversed later on? Avoiding the tunnel at Crewe, and PPP are less worrisome
Converting to slab track in the future would absolutely be possible, but it would be enormously disruptive, likely requiring the line to be closed for weeks if not months. The French are looking at ways of converting the Paris-Lyon line to slab track but are yet to make any meaningful progress because of the need to shut down the line whilst works take place. As for increasing the speed in the future, I'm not too sure, but I imagine it would be possible if designed right, as the alignment has already been optimised for 360/400km/h. You'd likely run into issues with the tracks needing to be relaid, and possibly modifications needing to be made to catenary and signalling systems as well, but anything's possible with enough money and political will!
@@NetworkNewsUK yeah, I assume that upgrading to slab is a lot more awkward than redoing the knitting. The transition between sleepers and slab is probably a bit more complicated and not something you can do easily in overnight or even weekend possessions. I didn't know that the PSE route is going to be upgraded.
I still would like to see HS2 to the north being built despite its no longer going to happen. And it’s a real shame with all that money being wasted just to build a brand new rail line to the North of England. Such a shame that HS2 North has been cancelled because of high costs.
It's definitely possible, but many of the 373s have been scrapped now and the rest will likely follow at some point in the future as they're getting pretty old at this point! Of course, new trains could be procured to British loading gauge, but it's generally easier for operators such as Eurostar to procure off-the-shelf stock built to European loading gauge, as it's usually cheaper to do so.
This was an experiment in British Rail Days when the Channel Tunnel opened and they tried them on a service from Manchester to Paris via Birmingham which did not work out due to lack of patronage and the fact the trains were too long for the existing stations, they were then transfered to the ECML and operated for a while from Leeds to Kingscross but again there were logistical problems and were sent back to France where these 373 units were used on the Paris to Brussels services of SNCF/SNCB you can find all this information on Google
And after 30 years, the worst-corroded half of the 373 fleet was pensioned off. The Channel Tunnel is a very hostile environment for steel train carriages (as we found) - and the "wrong kind of snow" in the 373 electric converters didn't help about ten years ago. So, with the "billion-pound per mile" NIMBY-friendly Chiltern Tunnel and others, what are the options - 40-year old 373s?
@@NetworkNewsUK It's a real shame and missed opportunity. All these great ideas that pop up, yet no one gets on with it and allows costs to go up 10 times the speed of sound and light put together. I very much love to see Birmingham to Continental Europe services to allow for a variety of routes to run on HS2 like London to Birmingham or Manchester or even Paris/Brussels to Birmingham/Manchester running express between Lille and Old Oak Common, with the London services on HS1 calling at Calais, Ashford and Ebbsfleet. A sleeper could include the tip of Scotland to the bottom of France, maybe Inverness to Marseille? You can decide on that lol
@@NetworkNewsUK Whichever way we come up with, we need a high speed line somewhere to not only ease up congestion on the east coast and west coast mainlines, but to also act serious in our competition on modern high speed rail services with the rest of Europe such as France with their TGV and Germany with their ICE. I can literally hear them laughing and pointing fingers at us right now. "Oh look at Britain, they're still stuck in the past with their old Victorian railway system. We on the other hand our modern and fit for the future with our high speed rail lines". D'ya see what I mean? We are a literal laughing stock in front of all of Europe if not the world stage as far as modern railways go!
The HS2 line needs to be linked to HS1 to run trains from Manchester through Birmingham and on to Europe, with stops at Ashford & Ebbsfleet as Eurostar have yet to restart these serives post COVID.
There was an appetite for developing Cross rail through London, with great and costly measures taken to tunnel around existing structures and already functioning services, but as soon as it’s outside London, it all goes away. Whoever has, to him shall be given….but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that that he has.
The junction near Stafford is Colwich, not Colton, which is south of York.
Well spotted, clearly a slip of the tongue on my part!
@@NetworkNewsUKyou need to shutdown your channel now… it’s the only way to redeem yourself! 😂
As you approach Colton Junction from York it is a 125mph turnout whichever direction you go in. Rather pointless really as no train can achieve 125 by the time they reach it...pmsl.
@@BibTheBoulderTheOriginalOne But they can (and do) do 125 mph through the junction northbound, so that in itself justifies the 125 mph alignment.
If passage non-stop through York could be significantly accelerated, then something approaching 125 mph southbound might be achievable too.
@@jeffhawken Think about the track layout. The fact they can do 100mph northbound from either line has no bearing on the need for it to be a 125mph turnout for the Leeds line when travelling southbound.
I could accept limiting speed to 300kmh and ballasted track, but building to UK loading gauge would be a massive wasted opportunity. Being able to run high capacity double decker trains from Manchester at some future date would be a game changer.
Yeah that seems like a massive own goal that couldn't be easily undone.
Where would they run from in Manchester?
@@HexAyedthrough to London or Birmingham or Leeds or maybe even potentially Kent or the continent in the future if stuff is done
@@Ro99 No. Where would they run IN Manchester. They woudn't fit in Piccadilly or Victoria because they'd be European Standard not British
Could they build just one bridge somewhere that doesn't conform and keep pointing to that to say they saved money, so that they can quietly replace it with one that does conform later as a "minor upgrade".
The longer we put off developing a high speed rail network, the longer it will be before those benefits start to accrue.
To be honest I'm very sceptical we could ever recoup the cost of a high speed rail
At least it needs to be a UK wide network that includes Scotland otherwise the scale is just not worth it
@@vinniechan That's exactly the thinking that got us here. Building infrastructure for perceived immediate profit instead of for it's actual purpose. The benefit to GDP from various factors will be significant outside of raw operating profits.
But I wholeheartedly agree about integrating Scotland in. The entirety of the UK is sorely lacking competent high speed rail
Genius!
What benefits? I live 300 miles North of you. Won't make the slightest difference to me other than my wallet will be lighter... as usual.
@@chancergordy how will your wallet be lighter? Unless you're a billionaire with lots of wealth stashed away in assets.
People do not understand the benefits of making something right the first time, specially on nationalwide infrastructure that is going to be used in the future
The exception was the Paddington Station, where Brunel decided to build (at the time) "a massive station" that is now fit for purpose and wouldn't have been had he listened to the sort of people who have scrapped most of HS2. As well as his western railway work. So ahead of his time, even now - let alone then!
the UK got no future!
its will crack up soon...the moment the English are left behind by the other 3 nations!
Oh I think people understand alright; but it's increased short-termism among politicians and in today's financial world market dominated by global capital/ private equity, which all want their return on the investment yesterday or by the end of next week.
@@stephen2d338 Brunel and Bazalgette were capable of seeing into the future and overbuilt their projects. Sadly we have lost this ability.
@@stephen2d338 Was very easy to do at a time when private investors were falling over themselves to blindly fund large infrastructure projects in the hopes of generating massive profit (which ultimately never really came). Today investors only do that if you’re a tech company - ideally one that throws around the term “AI” as frequently as possible. The money flowing around the railways back then was massive and unsustainable, and we’re lucky that marvels of engineering like Paddington were built before the money tree created by gullible investors finally ran out.
There wasn’t really a whole lot different between the investors of the 19th century and the ones we have today, both couldn’t really give a crap about making life better for people, they were just in it for a quick buck - it’s just that back then the financial system managed to convince itself that railways would be the quickest buck, there’s a reason why the period was termed “Railway Mania”.
Would be lovely if trains could be made as sexy as AI startups and Nvidia GPUs are today, but unfortunately that fad passed over a century ago.
Scrapping the European loading gauge is ludicrous, makes more sense to leave it even if the trains are going to be slightly slower but achieve the same traveling capacity.
Absolutely agree. Abandoning slab track is another retrograde step. Why are UK decision makers incapable of learning from the catalogue of idiotic missteps which have plagued the British rail network since Day One?
@@TheHoveHeretic It is becoming apparent that many of these decisions are mode for short term financial manipulations rather than the stated objective of providing utility.
Where in the plans of HS2 has it ever been mentioned officialy that the line was going to be built to UIC Gauge or Berne Gauge, I have watched every officail vidio put out by HS2ltd and there has never ever been a mention of, it has always been said that it is being built to the UK loading gauge because no European train will run on HS2, no train service from HS2 will travel to Europe and if HS" trains were built to UIC size they would not be possible to operate on the WCML to Liverpool and Scotland. It is a case of Chinese whispers where by some one in the past mentioned something and now people think it was going to happen. In the UK we do not require our loading gauge built to UIC standards, all it means is slightly wider bodied and higher coaches. So no the UIC Gauge on HS2 was not scrapped but never enversaged to have been the case.
@@TheHoveHeretic Slab track is never used exept in tunnels, to cosly to fit all along the line and difficult to maintain, when ordinary concrete or steel sleeper rails when are reqired to be replaced are just lifted out in situ and replaced in a couple of hours.
All about the short term, not thinking of long term :/
In an era where our rail network is already painfully prone to extreme weather, and when climate change means that is only going to get worse, building ballasted tracks as opposed to slab tracks is sheer madness.
Voiding on slab tracks is difficult to fix.
The Dutch, who built their HSL Zuid, might disagree. Because it's so sturdy, it's also a lot harder to correct mistakes, and they have made some engineering mistakes which have lead to speed reductions on key parts of the line, from 300 km/h to at one place 80... Chances are, they will have to rebuild from the ground up. That said, the main reason is their terrible soil, the track has shifted 8 cm at that spot, that's the reason for the speed restriction.
Ballasted or slabbed, what really matters is designing the formation and the drainage runs right. It's only above a certain train frequency on each track (IIRC HS2's Andrew McNaughton said 12tph) that the higher initial cost of installing slabbed is justified.
Spending more money to build something worse would be very on-brand for Britain
Yep. There's never the money to do things right but always the money to keep sick assets in intensive care forever
@@markiliffit’s a great recipe for structural decline
much silver to cross palms
@@markiliff See the electrification of the trans-Pennine route that's been promised since 1914.
Drives me absolutely mad!
First time I have watched one of your videos and I thought it was excellent - clear, precise, very well presented, no unnecessary music etc., and intelligent. Very well done.
Thank you, glad you enjoyed!
To block the possibility of running European guage trains is plain stupid. This means that the UK would be blocked from buying off the shelf high speed trains from the big European manufacturers and even blocked from buying secondhand trainsets. The cost savings aren't worth it.
That said any savings from running at a slightly slower speed (300kph) are probably worth it as the short route probably has only a short distance able to be run at the higher speeds and the associated time saving probably doesn't justify the extra energy usage.
Agreed, especially as even those lines where there's a theoretical maximum speed of over 300, the commercial speed is generally limited to 300, as the extra operating cost is hardly worth it. That operating cost goes up exponentially... 300 to 320 seems to be the sweet spot.
@@barvdw if you have slab track then the issues with running at speeds over 300 are mitigated
Of course, the main reason why it's silly to recommend British loading gauge is that before too long, the equipment and expertise being used to construct Phase One will be freed up. What kind of sense does it make to commit to plans which would lead to - for example - the TBMs being useless?
Great overview and current status of HS2 and NPR, with many details. Thank you .
Thank you! I put quite a lot of effort into this video so it means a lot!
Clearest explanation I’ve seen on this topic.
One of the only policy decisions that makes me feel physically angry.
Such short-sightedness is unbelievable, and the level of ignorance displayed by central government to transport anywhere north of Watford is simply staggering.
We need to build these lines, and soon, or the UK will fall even further behind our European neighbours
Not just north of Watford, reducing HS2 to OOC is absolute madness, it's like amputating your thumb, you loose half of your dexterity.
Those major at least are dooing the best to gain traction for getting something build.
...and anywhere west of Reading come to that.
If it had been meant to be finished, they would have started in the North. The purpose of HS2 was to line the pockets of Tory donors.
@@lucycooper9149 Not so it was Gordon Brown. The then-Labour government created HS2 Ltd in January 2009.
For God's sake, restart HS2. Cancelling it was an act of weapons-grade stupidity.
weapon-grade stupidity being an apt description of the government at the time
I wish we could do it. But recontrating would be super complex..even then the cancelation cost us at least 5 years and probably add 10 to 40 billions to project cost.
@@paxundpeace9970 that makes me impossibly mad...
@@israellai could not put that into better words at all 💀💀💀💀
Because??????
This is an amazing overview of HS2 along with the current news with amazing graphics! Well done and thank you so much! 😁👍🏻
We're such a joke country at times man...
Well researched and well presented. Thank you for this.
Construction really should have started in Leeds, there would be an immediate re-invigoration of northern industries
Construction started on phase 1 first, as the southern section of the WCML is the area that was predicted to reach capacity the soonest.
However politically it would have been a lot harder to cancel if they'd started building the Northern legs first, so I don't disagree with your assessment.
Oh give it a rest, for what reason should HS2 have started in Leeds of all places, the soul purpose of HS2 is to relieve congestion on the West Coast Mainline from Crewe to London Euston via Birmingham allowing more capacity for freight services on the busy winding southern section of the WCML from Crewe to Euston via the Trent Valley route and speed up WCML Inter City Trains.
@@peterwilliamallen1063 It should have started on both ends
@@verygoodbrother It has, it is being constructed from Birmingham North to Lichfield and Manchester and South towards London and from London North and in between, it was the last Government that stopped it being built from Manchester
@@peterwilliamallen1063 Hopefully it restarts
The proposal to build to UK guage is imho very short sighted.
It’s not a decision, just a recommendation. Bear in mind that the report was prepared by a consultancy who firstly wants to get “a boot in the door”.
@@bfapple Sorry, wrong choice of words - I know it's a recommendation. I hope it's not followed!
@@TheFrogfather1For a second there, I thought 'short sighted' was the intended poor choice of words. I was thinking of something rhyming with "rodding meticulous"!
Even if the EU loading gauge north of Birmingham was used, it means that HS2 trains can only run to Liverpool and Manchester but not anywhere further north
As far as I am aware under the original HS2 then UK spec trains would have to be used for London Glasgow routes, even if they used HS2 tracks up to Birmingham or Manchester etc
There were never any plans to use the UIC European loading gauge other wise HS2 trains would not be able to go to Liverpool, Manchester or Scotland as they would of been out of Gauge for the existing UK rail network no mention other than building to the UK loading gauge is mentioned in HS2 ltd Video's plus why do trains ned to be built to the European loading gauge when these trains are not planned to go into Europe.
i like the sound of most of this, but i think we should still use the Europe load gauge and the concert slab rail; looking at whole life cost
auto shenanigans mentioned! great vid man!
Just reinstate the second leg of Hs2. Alternative proposals are a waste of time, and will take years and years of parliamentary nonsense.
when can we as a country choose to splash out on one thing to futureproof it - just once, instead of cutting absolutely everything. Are we not an important location for business, banking and a couple of other sectors? Where is the money?
_important location for business, banking and a couple of other sectors_
We voted to end that in 2016
@@markiliff this guy gets it
@@markiliff without a doubt, but please let me have my delusion
@@nevreiha :-]
The money is in London 😂
Such a stupid "solution" to Sunak's insane cancellation.
Idk about stupid its better than nothing
It's a political gesture which may get Phase 2 restarted, in the absence of any other intiatives.
Meanwhile in Devon, the nearest electrified rail is 60 miles away....
I've been in Devon, I've seen the paved tracks you call roads, investment in railways is the least of your problems.
I agree the South West is far more neglected than the rest of the country. It also seem to be far harder to get anything done down there to fix it.
HS2 was built to relieve traffic congestion of trains south of Crewe... There is no traffic congestion of trains in Devon... Your comment explains why HS2 got gold platted and involved into a boondoggle...
Changing the plans will cause huge delays and higher costs. Just build it as it was originally designed
You've gained a new subscriber, very clear video thank you
Two, actually! 🙂
Thank you very much 🙏
To be honest I'm blown away by the response this video's received, as I seem to have gained ~100 subscribers overnight which is absolutely insane and far more than I've ever got from a single video before (either here or on my main channel)
Being able to get into London from Warrington would be a massive deal for me. Often it can be done in an hour 45, it being done in about an hour would be dramatic and help incentivise travelling down to London this way rather than via car.
This was a great analysis, so surprised that your channel is so small!
I only started this channel relatively recently so that's probably why, although I do have another channel with about 900 subscribers.
Just a couple of days ago this channel only had ~100 subscribers but since releasing this video it's grown rapidly!
Anyway glad to hear you enjoyed the video!
Given that the majority of cost for building rail is in the planning, land acquisition and physically putting shovels in the ground, the "premium" for higher speeds is very marginal - as Adonis noted. The idea that they can magically save 40% of the cost is laughable. Arup have really disgraced themselves here as it's very obvious the study was not done by a rail specialist but by someone with a spreadsheet and some basic unit costs. Gareth Dennis noted that this section of line has several viaducts and bridges. Viaducts and bridges will be slab-tracked for rigidity, which means ballasting the rest of the line incurs costly and precision-engineered transitions between slab and ballast. The saving in lower per-km cost of ballast therefore starts to evaporate with every transition you need - something the Arup study quietly ignores.
Dennis also called into question their asseessment for S&C (Switches and Crossings) as they've planned additional interconnects with existing lines. S&C is very expensive and requires wider corridors (more land) where you put those junctions in.
Ultimately as you say, the cheapest and fastest way to build a railway on that route is to build HS2 - because it's already been designed, the surveys and consultations are done and it's "shovel ready" - indeed some sites through Staffordshire already had preliminary boreholes going in.
Any attempt to half-arse a compromise line requires new designs, new consultations and will throw hundreds of millions of pounds worth of design and survey work in the bin. And in 20 years we'll regret it when people start talking about high speed lines to Glasgow or Edinburgh and we've got this slow 300kmh bit bottlenecking the core of our national HS spine and people then start talking about ripping up the ballast and building it properly.
I don't want to let perfect be the enemy of good. HS2 was not perfect - but it was good. This proposal would be better than what we have now, but it also involves painting ourselves into a corner, as well as lumbering ourselves with a much higher maintenance burden in perpetuity. That's an insane thing to do. It's not "gold plating" to build infrastructure with an eye to reliability, low-maintenance and ensuring that future upgrades can be done relatively seamlessly.
And as for private finance. Absolutely risible. Nobody can borrow cheaper than Treasury - who can issue bonds at base rate (and can lean on the BoE to reduce base rate if required). Private capital will always be more expensive than central government funding (as we're finding out with increaisngly unaffordable PFI deals) and offer a worse return to taxpayers.
A great analysis of the topic
This proposal would be far worse than the original Hs2 proposal.
Fairly typical for Britian over the past century. Start out with a good idea. Try and cut corners and fudge bits to save money. Those cut corners then end up costing you more down the line so the project has to be scaled back to stop costs spiraling. You then end up with a worse end result that costs more than just doing it correctly in the first place
Nonetheless it would be highspeed rail against no highspeed rail
@@EisenbahnenBw it would be better to just continue the hs2 Services on the existing network towards the north (as planned) and safegard the northern extension of hs2 to build it later
@@nicolasblume1046 how long can those safeguards stay in place? I'm not British, so I'm sure it differs, but in Belgium, all planning permits and permits for eminent domain are time-sensitive, if you don't start building, you might have to redo the whole planning permission procedure again. That would be an argument for building _something_.
@@JSmith19858they never recovered from WW2 😅😅😅😅
The lack of plan of solving the capacity issue in Crewe is always going to be an issue. A new Platform 13 is needed for Manchester - South Wales services to ensure trains don't have to cross each line. Dual tracking between Crewe and Alsager, and electifying between Crewe and Chester is needed - but Crewe station as a whole needs serving in order to boost connectivity to the regions and not just to cities
I love the idea of our metros working together to fix the mess of the tories but PLEASE do not Cheap out build it properly with Slab tracks and Euro gauges for future proofing...
They might as well just resubmit the Phase 2A paperwork under a different name.
They've literally come to the conclussion that the best idea is the one that already existed, then they made said idea worse to make it cheaper.
fantastic and clear analysis 👍
the changes to the gauges is so tragic. seriously hope something happens regarding that, because i often think about the fact manchester initially had a eurostar service until they changed the type of train. i hope one day manchester can have access to continental europe via a single rail journey.
It's such a shame nowadays you need all kinds of experts to build a railway track. It used to be that state directed the unemployed to these kind of job sites with a shovel and many learned the various jobs at the site. Many fine projects got built and are still standing.
Secondly you could cover large parts of the extension with vertical solar panels ( they generate electricity in the morning and evening when the demand = price is higher) and finance part of the loan payments with it.
Agree with most of the comments. You're all sensible. For an addition, I would recommend a link from the bham flying junction to the MML towards Tamworth and derby. Electrify and upgrade MML to Sheffield, Nottingham, x country etc
Hopefully something like this gets considered because it would be an immense waste of the flying junction not to do something with it!
Could also significantly reduce the journey time to Sheffield and provide some capacity relief to the southern section of the MML even if not as much as would have been provided under the original HS2 scheme.
It doesn’t go to the north east of England though. So it’s not really a high speed rail system. It needs to be up to Newcastle and the north east not the north west
Build it properly, I'd be trying to expand the scheme if I was in government. Cutting or changing plans just costs more money in the long run. Build it properly and quickly. That's how you save money.
absolutely correct 👍 _ since when did changes actually save money on these projects _ that would require a lot of searches & probably prove it doesn't save _ it costs more
HS2 must be fully built
Both eastern and western legs must be built
NPR must be fully built
Why?
@@ronclark9724 seriously!!!, both East and West Coast mainlines are either at capacity or near capacity that is why
One of the main concerns Andy Burnham had with HS2 being scrapped is that the capacity was mostly wanted, not necessarily the higher speeds. I still think we shouldn't settle for any BS downgrades. The country invented rail. Why can't we act like it? It's pathetic. Tax the billionaires, give them the ultimatum to pay their fair share or leave the UK with their businesses. Then we'd see some proper infrastructure.
I tend to agree with the SNCF that speeds above 350 km/h- 218 mph are no longer economic because of the electrical consumption of the trains…
I don't think the plan was to run at that speed regularly. From my understanding, HS2 trains would run at 320/330km/h in normal service, and would only speed up to 360km/h if they're running late and need to make up time
@@NetworkNewsUK you mean like the pendos being cable of 140mph but never have
@@damiendye6623 it's similar to that, but the pendolinos don't run above 125MPH because the signalling system *physically won't allow them to*.
HS2 trains will be capable of the 360km/h speed, and unlike pendolinos probably will reach it in service, it just won't be done regularly from my understanding.
Prices for electricity are subject to change
@@paxundpeace9970
It’s not only a question of money…
I argued many times that this review was simply a political trick to throw sand into Sunak's gears and buy time to stop him selling the HS2 land before he get's booted from office. Obviously HS2 should be built as designed. It's good to go, and spades could hit the ground tomorrow. With Sunak gone, the only problem left is to change Starmer's mind.
Absolutely. Once again it simply comes down to appalling politicians
I may be mistaken but didn't Sunak already sell off a lot of the land bought up to construct HS2 phase 2 at bargain bin prices? Which would mean that land would need to be bought up again to be built on, adding even more delays and cost to the project. Of course imo Labour should absolutely just get on with it and get the ball rolling again, but I don't think it's quite as easy as spades on the ground once Starmer decides it's go time
@matthewturnock8725 I think not. He tried to but he was stopped. I could be wrong.
@@matthewturnock8725The design is locked in and finalised. It just needs parliament to pass it.
Hi the other problem might be that the country is broke financially, and in other ways.
The British state is totally and completely inept, and cares very little about the north.
Extend HS2 to all major Midland cities and further to Glasgow and Edinburgh. This rail infrastructure will have a life of well over 100 years and will cost less now than later. Britain may also become more forward thinking and positive as a result. Less gold plating of the infrastructure design and build while still attaining 350 km/h speeds should be possible.
Sadly even if Starmer agreed to do this(which I doubt) the tories would imo come in and then start cutting it again
@@gothicgolem2947 are the New Model Tories not finished as a prospective party of government?
Thank you for your presentation
Wonderful , detailed video , better than the bbc panorama program. Thanks.
Thank you very much!
I confess I haven't watched the BBC programme yet, but I've heard it's pretty one-sided and relies on a lot of misguided or outright untrue information!
@@NetworkNewsUK not quite it shows what really happens in government and the DfT about lies. It also shows how much the nimbies added to the overall cost.
BBC Panorama was sceptic biased; very poor presentation
Found my new favourite RUclips channel
Is there anything more stupid than an 'East Midlands Hub'? This hub would be at Toton, midway between Nottingham and Derby so let us look at the passengers choice if they are travelling to Nottingham or Derby.
Option 1. Go via the new HS2, change at the new 'East Midlands Hub' cross platforms to wait for a local (currently 2-car 156-158-170) to Nottingham or Derby.
Option 2. Catch a through train from St. Pancras. Almost certainly quicker due to the lack of need to change trains. Clearly less hassle as you don't have to drag your luggage around from platform to platform at east Midlands Hub. Almost certainly cheaper as it is highly likely the new HS2 will command a premium to help pay it off.
Thus the new 'East Midlands Hub' is a complete white elephant.
Great video mate
Maybe about time that the UK took the lead from other small countries like Switzerland and Netherlands... capacity, feequency and quality are more important than speed for its own sake.
"Other small countries" is an insane comparison, Great Britain is five times larger than those countries.
Speed has some impact on frequency and daily capacity, and potentially ticket costs. An increase of travel times by 15mins in this section means a total 30mins added to the rotation of a train. For a fixed number of trains and staff members this might be enough to mean one less rotation per day than would otherwise be possible. Meaning less frequency and therefore less seats per day. And ultimately higher ticket prices.
If you start extending the lower speed further and further, increasing traveling times more and more, the more economical potential you lose.
I understand what you mean, for most passengers simply using the train, indeed, frequency and quality are going to be much more important than speed. Specially for these journeys that will be taking only a few minutes more but are still getting faster than before. But when you start looking at lengths like London-Glasgow/Edinburgh or beyond then speed is very important in making the railway a viable alternative to flights.
@@f.g.9466 HS2 Birmingham to London leg has excellent frequency and excellent speed.
@@DavidKnowles0 well, it will have once it starts operating, hopefully, if all goes well! Without a fully built Euston that frequency won't be as excellent as it was planned.
But it's not very clear what point you are trying to make?
London-Birmingham is only a small stretch of the network.
They seem to have left out the Euston connection, that doesn’t make sense.
Because the plans were never formally "dropped", the government just pulled the funding for it (this is why I showed it as grey on the map rather than deleting it entirely).
It is still the intention to proceed with Euston, but we'll just have to see whether the new government is able to find the money (either directly, or with the help of the private sector)
Another thing is that by reducing the load gauge and subsequently reducing the diameter of the tunnels, you wouldn’t be able to reuse the Tunnel boring machines and tunnel lining factories used at the HS2 sites. The infrastructure used to manufacturing them could not be reused, the whole point is to standardize the infrastructure throughout the railway lines. What they should really focus on is standardizing all the viaducts and bridges to cut down costs. There’s way too many variants of them along the HS2 routes. This is an engineering project t not an architectural project.
@@NetworkNewsUK The private sector is never going to do the tunnel. The hope is that they would use profits from homes and office sales to fund the station,but that would mean much of the land being lost to those offices, leaving only enough space for 6 platforms, which is inadequate for the complete HS2 project.
Can we please just build HS2 as intended? The delay and replanning will make it cost more after everything is said and done, for less value.
Great vid, hit the subscribe button straight off the bat.
Scrap an extension to the Elisabeth line and the new Thames crossing along with the new underground stations.
The prosperity of the South East is due to the high spending per head of population on Infastucture compared to other regions.
The deprived areas of the North and Midlands is to the lack of Infastucture.
The fact it can take up to an hour to travel the mile to nearest junction of the M1 is due to the planned improvement to junction 28 of the M1 being cancelled twice.
I worked for a transport company that relocated away from junction 28 due to the high cost of hours wasted in traffic hold ups
My view of this that HS2 could have been viewed as a strategic asset, because if need to we could use it to transport military hardware such as tanks and armoured vehicles. Something we haven't done due to the Challenger Tanks being larger than the UK loading gauge. This could be paid for by the defence budget in part. If we did this we could move forward in the long run establishing new defence industry along the route.
Well that's an interesting take that I've never heard before!
@@NetworkNewsUK It was the original mandate from the EU that drove the whole concept of Europe-wide High Speed Rail in the first place, was the movement of troops and military hardware across the continent and across the UK.
Capacity? Chiltern connects Birmingham and London with typically 4 carriage trains. So could triple its capacity just by trippling the length of trains to the 12 carriage trains which is the intention with the trains SW of London (currently they are 10 carriage trains).
Correct. But that costs money, and as the TOCs are already subsidised anyway, it would further eat into their profit margins.
The trouble is everything is London centric they should have stated at Crewe and headed south to London it would not have been cancelled then
The southern section was prioritised as that's the section of the WCML which was expected to reach capacity the soonest.
However, it would have been politically more challenging to cancel if they'd started with the Northern sections!
@@NetworkNewsUK London is a monster that gobbuls up all the money and then still wants more
HS2 is like any large construction like a Motorway, they never start in one place, if you ever came to look at HS2 construction, no Stations other than London OOC are being constructed at the moment, the builders are constructing all the tunnels, viaducts, bridges and track formation from Birmingham going North to Handsacre and South to London and from London progressing North and in between, so no they are not starting in one place, it is not London Centric as the HQ of HS2 ltd the people building HS2 is in Birmingham City Centre not London and if it had of been started in Manchester it would not of been as far constructed as it is now.
Just want to add that using ballastless tracks also saves in train maintenance. Due to the high speeds some of the ballast will get kicked up and has a chance of damaging the underbody. This is, besides increased power usage, also why for instance trains in Spain don't run at 350kph even though the tracks and trains are rated die that speed
We do already have a high speed route to Scotland, the ECML. I have seen ECS do Heaton jn - Bounds Green in 95mins. The line was designed for 225kph, hence the building of the 225 trains. Its limited to 125mph thanks to the LC's and 2track along the route. Make it 4track and take the crossings out would be a relatively minor cost to the corrupt £100bn guesswork estimates
The main reason trains can't go over 125mph on the ECML is that it requires in cab signalling. ETCS is being implemented but as it stands there are currently no plans to raise the track speed to 140.
Do East-West rail next!
Speed of travel is well down the list of priorities for most people. We want reasonable ticket prices and frequent, reliable services. That’s it really. A rail link to Leeds Bradford airport would be handy too for those of us in the area (apparently only a short extension is required as a line passes close by).
Don't be confused between commercial speed and maximum speed. Most of europe high speed tracks have a commercial speed of 300-320 kph but their max speed can reach 360 kph.
Sounds like a typical "British Solution" we set out to design a cheetah and end up with a camel. Most of the proposals to save money result in a second class railway. Short term gains with long term consequences.
P.S What is it obsession with top speed? If it takes 15 mins less to get to Manchester what do the passengers do with that 15 minutes that is so important? The HS125 proved a resounding success so a top speed of say 150 or 175 would be adequate IMO.
The obsession with top speed is it's comparison to current rail networks, e.g. HS2 is expected to cut ~30 minutes off a journey from London to Birmingham for example. Which would be ~ 1 hr 30 min rather than 2 hr. Not a particularly large change. The more time saved on journeys, the more sense it makes, including just 15 mins. 1 hr 15 mins starts to seem significant compared to 2 hr using the aforementioned example
I am firmly of the view - and always have been - that the need is for capacity on Britain's railway network. Higher speed is a bonus and kills off internal air services - which is what the Greenie Nimby crew seem to want.
Do you really not understand the link between speed and capacity? The number of trains able to run on the line at once is determined by the speed of the trains and the length of the line. Quicker line speeds increase the capacity of the line to a point. But the higher speeds also reduce journey times, meaning an individual train can carry more passengers when viewed over a longer timescale. Think of it like this; train A takes an hour to travel from London to Birmingham, and train B takes 30 minutes. This means in the time it takes train A to travel from London to Birmingham, train B has travelled from London to Birmingham and back to London again, and thus has doubled the capacity just using a higher line speed. It's not rocket surgery
Basically with higher average speeds you can carry more passengers with fewer trains (and staff). If a service has an average speed of 100km/h 4 trains are needed to run half hourly service on a 100km line. At an average speed of 200km/h the same line and frequency can be served by two trains.
This is of course a simplified view as it leaves out things such as turnaround times.
That being said there is a point of diminishing returns. Depending on factors such as geography, station spacing, expected service level, etc.
The sweetspot seems to be somewhere between 300-320km/h. Planning for higher speeds is sensible so trains can run faster than scheduled to make up delays.
Working in a civil engineering firm in the uk myself, I can say that often companies are more worried in ‘appearing’ as if they are cutting costs and making something good. Thank actually cutting cost for the client and making something good.
If hs2 can't be resurrected as intended, at least keep the Loading gauge to allow trains to go further north, the track can always be upgraded later.
Thank you for a masterpiece of story-telling and factual analysis. The "new" line will now be Sensible, pragmatic - and permanently gauge-crippled in terms of the kit that can run on the "Connector" tracks. At least the future-needs "Crewe Dive-under Tunnel" can be planned for a future generation, when the "Stafford Bottleneck" has moved north to "The Crewe Bottleneck": I reckon this bottleneck will move northwards at a planning rate of one mile per year - roll on 2054! So - welcome to "Grate Britain" where we argue forever and deliver not a lot.
Meanwhile, the M6 and WCML are STILL stuffed full! Whilst the population of the UK grows by 800,000 bodies per year...
The gauge issue is a big mistake.
But quite why we,as a nation need to have a faster service that what appears to be a standard elsewhere in Europe. Please tell me this isn't simply national chest inflating?
The reason a lot of European high speed lines are slower is simply because they're older. Most modern high speed lines are built to a higher speed simply because it makes sense to do so that the line is futureproofed.
In the case of HS2, it was the alignment which dictated the speed rather than the other way round. Once the planners had decided on an alignment which minimised impact on the environment and surrounding villages, it just happened to be very straight, allowing for higher speeds!
@@NetworkNewsUK "The reason a lot of European high speed lines are slower is simply because they're older." .. The oldest true High Speed line in Europe is in France: in 1981 France built the Paris-Lyon HS line, 391 kilometers, first in Europe. TGV train broke the world speed record on rails running on this line: 380 kph in 1981. And in 2007, TGV broke again the world speed record on rails on the new commercial HS line Paris-Strasbourg: 574 kph. French High Speed lines are built since 1981 to allow HSTs running at such high speeds.
A political fudge by Andy Street, who has protected his role by backing HS2 Phase 1 and Andy Burnham whose business rate income stands to benefit most from it. Great illustration and analysis of the proposal to deliver the capacity benefits of HS2 (as was), thanks NN.
There are going to extension HS2 line from Birmingham crew to Manchester new track instead of west Coast Main Line in in the future.
The proposed use of ballasted track and BS loading gauge is very surprising, but I get the reasoning. Hopefully, if this goes through the existing design development carried out for HS2 can brought in again instead...
Wow, what a great précis of the history up to now! Well done! Now get lou high and Rachel reeves to watch this!
I'm sure they know the background just as well as I do, what matters is what they choose to do going forward!
Most use single-deck will use as many they will.
The only does one concerns; is require less 5,000m Height with on rail track of the train, additionally will few or some use new Double-decker trains [not re-use BR class 4DD] on primary few routes if possible (not many though as rural branches)?
slab track is a mistake which can be corrected at a future time (with added cost and disruption) the loading gauge is a mistake which can't be corrected.
The mistake we made with hs1 was trying to build too quickly. In Europe high speed lines take decades of planning, costs went up and mistakes were made as we tried to do things quicker and better. Pleased something is now being done, with declining car ownership more public transport is absolutely necessary. Its a shame they wasted so much on excessive tunnelling but good to see the local mayors are helping push this much needed infrastructure through. Hopefully once we establish a protocol for large projects it will be easier in the future.
We should aim to gradual open up our whole network to UIC. Our trains cost twice as much as they do in the EU because they are all “special”. With regards to routes, what most commentators totally miss is that much of the so called Manchester to London traffic actually comes from Stockport, Macclesfield and Stoke. For some reason the blinkered comments stupidly only consider Manchester to London.
In the longer term, if we are really concerned about pollution etc. the biggest disaster was the omission of the connection between HS1 and HS2. Why should I have to go to London, walk in the rain down the Euston road, wait another hour at least then set off for, say Koln. That’s why it’s easier to drive to Manchester Airport and spray the world with aviation fuel ! In Germany I can get on a train an do 1000 miles under the wires at 200mph without getting out or walking down the Euston Road, or crossing the Bullrink in Birmingham between stations. UK plc just can’t do joined up thinking.
You cant be arsed to walk less than half a mile? Jeez, have the brits really got that lazy?
We're still not getting the Eastern link. It's needed just as much.
I don’t like it. It’s tacitly endorsing a lower standard for the north that not only leaves us stuck with an unnecessary compromise for the foreseeable future, but also increases our national infrastructures vulnerability to future climate change and limits room for further expansion of European standard trains. It’s needless cost cutting that makes no sense on the long term at all
If they build everything to European loading gauge, they can still say it was built to british loading gauge, as anything conforming to the former conforms to the latter. Alternatively, they could build one bridge (preferably whichever would affect least traffic or be cheapest and easiest to replace at a later date) that doesn't conform to the European gauge and use that as evidence that they didn't confirm to the gauge, but leave all other bridges and tunnels conforming.
As it should be cheaper to build high speed rail in the more sparsely populated north than the Birmingham to London leg, it makes sense to connect high speed rail to all major cities of the midlands and also to Glasgow and Edinburgh. A high speed midlands east-west and a Edinburgh to Glasgow direct link also makes sense. Construction of all these high speed lines liberates existing tracks for more freight trains and local passenger trains. High speed rail is likely to be the best form of passenger transport for at least another 100 years and it makes sense to harness the benefits earlier. Construction costs will only increase over time.
Exactly, the northern sections were always going to have a much cheaper cost-per-mile than phase one so their cancellation is baffling!
It is incredible how short-sighted the plan is if examined with even the slightest bit of scrutiny compared to the original plans. One can only hope some of the more nonsensical "cost savings" will be rolled back upon further examination.
Like I say, this plan doesn't seem to be based on any engineering reality, but rather is a political tool to try and get the line built.
The loading gauge issue is particularly mad when you consider platform heights. Are they proposing to maintain HS2’s 1,115mm high platforms, or build the British standard 915mm? How would a 20cm gap between train and platform factor in with PRM and accessibility considerations?
That suggestion alone would suggest that the person writing the report doesn’t understand what they’re on about.
The decision to go with a platform height higher than the national standard for HS2 was so baffling that I have a whole video dedicated to it!
In terms of what this new line does, it only has one intermediate station (Crewe) where it will share platforms with existing national rail trains, so therefore using the standard 915mm platform height. As for the Manchester/Liverpool stations, it's hard to say, but I imagine it will be done based on an assessment considering both -HS2- MNWRL and NPR.
@@NetworkNewsUK While yes the decision to design higher-than-standard platforms appears odd, I think it’s a reasonable deviation in order to ensure step-free access which may not have appeared possible when initially designing HS2. While Crewe will be the only shared station, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to suggest that as a part of any upgrade it receives dedicated HS2 platforms built to 1,115mm to maintain step-free access. Ultimately, while odd, it doesn’t need to conform to national standards as HS2 services, even on the legacy network, could be timetabled to justify dedicated platforms.
My thoughts on the gauge suggestion are that it’s fodder to be done away with. There’s just no way that anyone, even the hilariously-inept DfT, would agree to build two halves of a national high-speed network to two different (and significantly-so) loading gauges.
That is easily over come as was on the Eurostar sets, when the doors open at a different height platform all what happens is the Steward/Guard pesses a button and a small step operates
@@peterwilliamallen1063 a step, though, isn’t step-free. PRMs would still require assistance from staff instead of being able to independently board the train (as should the goal be).
@@TheFirstConcorde Due to the animal a Railwy is you won't on the main rail network always get step free entrances to trains and people in wheel chairs do get assistance at stations to board and alight trains
It’s ironic to see comments complaining about abandoning sections, on a project that’s already been abandoned. To me the U.K. has to complete Liverpool to London with a full HS2 system, then complete HS3, Hull via Leeds and Manchester to Liverpool as the priority with U.K. Rail investment over next two decades. These major cities of the North have the people, land and infrastructure of Ports and Airports to drive Britain as they did in the past taking pressure off the South East. Then beyond that and between 2040 to 2050, start Cross Rail 2 and the next East Coast upgrade from London to Newcastle forming HS4. Ultimately finishing our HS network with HS5 into the 2060’s through the West and to Cardiff. It might take 50 years the join the world family with a true country wide HS grid but its a legacy future Britain can build. Ultimately this transit grid would allow Freight Services at night to relocate containers to all major parts of the U.K. The only part of a HS grid that does not make sense to me is a HS service to Edinburgh or Glasgow because passengers from these cities are probably best served by Aviation and the current near high speed lines already in use long ECML and WCML. Ultimately the U.K. needs two big spends over the next 20 years High Speed rail and Waste Water treatment. What I can fathom is the billions they want to plung into Wind and Solar that will be bought in from China and Germany but have less impact and greater cost for a short term benefit.
HS2 only running from Old Oak Common to Birmingham is almost pointless. The whole point was to connect as many major cities together .
It really needs to get from Birmingham to Liverpool , Manchester , Leeds and a few other places.
1) Most importantly I'd definitely use the concrete slab track rather than ballasted track. That seems like a no brainer to me. Cheaper long term maintenance, and less maintenance !
2) I'd probably go for the full Euro sized tunnels. It seems a bit short sighted not to.
How much extra capacity would the larger gauge enable ? It almost sounds like a good way to get a real lot extra capacity for not a lot more on cost.
3) HS2 really does need to directly connect to HS1 . If this happens, well (2) really needs to be full Euro sized tunnels.
4) 300 KPH or 400 KPH , this I think is the least of the issues. 300 KPH is fast enough, I guess it'd be nice to have 400KPH top speed. All depends on how much it costs.
There seems to be a whole lot more stops on the northern leg of the route. Is there enough distance to even get much advantage on a 400KPH top speed ?
I used to think whats the point of HS2 as it was marketed at getting to London quicker and we have issues with trains in the North. But once I heard it was to alleviate congestion on the WCML, I believe we need it or an alternative solution to it. Manchester to Birmingham is very congested
Yeah the PR department did a rubbish job of explaining the benefits of HS2 in the early years. The truth is that the biggest benefits of HS2 will be on the existing network, not on HS2 itself!
Eurostar trains have been built to the UK loafing gauge. The White Rose service on the ECML made use of the North of London sets. So,the choice of loading gauge is not as important as you are making out.
It's not the end of the world for sure, but does present an extra barrier which could easily be overcome by just building it right the first time!
@NetworkNewsUK building it right would be building it to the UK's loading gauge.
@NetworkNewsUK and building it to the UK's loading gauge is the only option. Back in the 1960s the Western Region wanted to build coaches to fit the 3x-GWR lines that were built to Brunel gauge. Sensibly this request was denied as such coaches would be limited to those lines and could not be used elsewhere.
@@neiloflongbeck5705 would it? GB loading gauge is much smaller than other loading gauges, limiting future flexibility of the line. It costs an extremely small amount to build to a larger loading gauge but leaves options open in the future to order cheaper, higher capacity off-the-shelf trains!
@NetworkNewsUK and then you are limited to your route availability. Rumour has it that the old GCR London extension was built to the Berne gauge. But how could that be as the opened decade before the Berne gauge was settled upon? Also, all of the rolling stock had to be able to traverse the rest of the GCR, and in the case of wagons, all other lines in the UK. Building the line to any loading gauge means that if the line is closed for maintenance or an emergency the trains are stuck on that line unless you start rebuilding other lines as well, at much expense including lives (see Penmanshiel). This means the only financially viable option remains the UK loading gauge if you want full flexibility.
Looking at a map of Great Britain, it seems to me if a proper investment is done on transport links in Liverpool to Hull corridor, there will be a big boost to the UK economy. This corridor is almost in the middle of Britain. There are some impoverished towns in this area, as a result the investment goes a long way. Also, plenty of empty houses in this area. I don't understand the obsession with connecting the HS2 to central London. Very few people would want to travel, say between Manchester to central London.
That's the thing though, there is a big demand on that corridor! The WCML is the busiest mixed-traffic railway in Europe and during the peak hour you'll see 3 or 4 trains per hour running between London and Manchester, which are often full!
Whilst I don't disagree with the need to improve east-west links, this should be done as well as improving north-south links, not instead of it!
The comment about loading gauge is interesting as it implies the existing double deck high speed trains could be running now in the UK, this would be desirable to meet passenger demand as it continues to increase.
The only place I'm aware of on the existing UK network which could run double-decker trains is HS1. In fact Evolyn (a new company that hopes to compete with Eurostar) is planning to use double-decker trains from London - Paris.
HS2 would be built to European loading gauge and therefore able to accommodate double-decker trains, but they wouldn't be able to run on the existing network so there wouldn't be much point.
@@NetworkNewsUK double deck London - Paris, now that will help with capacity issues - and keep opening prices low!!
Given Rachel Reeves words at the party conference today, it would be jaw dropping if the government didn't support this new proposal. How on earth otherwise does she expect to shift commerce and factories to the north and north-east if the transportation links are not in place.
If the right of way was aready planned for say 350, then building for 300 might just be a signaling issue ( size of blocks, ETCS config etc) and that relatively be retrofitted later on. But the loading gauge is a major show stopper because that can never be fixed without shutting service down to redig tunnels.
It also means that high speed rolling stock manufactured for HS1 can't be ordered for HS2 and they will need to do their own special custom order for a few trains to run on their proprietaary tracks. Might as well use Russian or Iberian gauge. ordering custom trains means headaches and a few years with a lot of reliability issues compared to ordering trains that are already iun production, with existing tooling, trained manufcturing staff etc.
If all they will run on it are conventional trains, then why build it for 300, why not signal it for 200 ?
Build without the Key segments to interlace with WCML... and people will be socially nudged to demand it. :)
Ballast NO.
Changing tunnel dynamics... such as making the bore holes smaller... WTF?? The Cost to TBM a 7m bore is same as a 17m bore... it is just a larger cutting face on the TBM. The extra concrete (made with reuse of spoil) is insignificant cost-wise.
IF a PPP is the way to build, use it to build. The PPP can always be purchased out later or a bankrupted lender to become a freebie.
This is a PR Social Nudge... an introducing the idea/concept into the minds of the Public. Now it is out in the public domain, it will be easier to get people and this 'lack of vision' government into motivation gear. Yes vastly disappointed as this is the first labour govt in the past 100 years who LACKED a Vision, Direction, a Destination for Socio-economic future in legislative objectives.
A very interesting and comprehensive view of the current position and new proposals.
Clearly, the current situation whereby HS2 only runs from Old Oak Common to Birmingham is ludicrous and the bit into central London must be completed. Anything less is frankly stupid.
Beyond Birmingham, Sunak’s decision to cancel is equally daft (and highly political). The whole point was to provide new capacity for fast trains, so existing lines can then, themselves, carry more slower traffic. Simply running the HS2 carriages on from Birmingham means they go slower, they have to be shorter and there is no freeing up of space.
The only sensible way forward is to get the Birmingham to Manchester section built as soon as possible, and if that’s under the Metro Mayors proposals, so be it. But I agree it makes far more sense to build with the European loading rules plus the slab track as in the longer term this will work out less expensive and give the opportunity for European trains to run through to the north.
I don’t, though, see that the track necessarily has to allow 360 or 400 k/h trains; the primary object should be to get more fast capacity.
I think we’ve also seen more than enough of the PFI system of financing these projects. We don’t want yet another one arranged which ends up costing the taxpayer for decades to come, way after the original build costs have been covered.
What so many politicians seem so often to do is to plan and legislate only for the short term; they have neither the vision nor the intellectual strength (balls) to look further than the next election and narrow political advantage.
Let’s hope someone in authority can finally get the thing completed.
I would think that if/once it's been approved then various aspects would be revised. "Having worked through the proposals in more detail we can construct to the European loading gauge at comparable costs, but with long term savings of having double deck trains with lower weight per passenger,..." Or something like that.
The other points - how difficult would it be to rebuild using slab track, and what physical characteristics were being planned that will reduce the top speed, and can this be reversed later on?
Avoiding the tunnel at Crewe, and PPP are less worrisome
Converting to slab track in the future would absolutely be possible, but it would be enormously disruptive, likely requiring the line to be closed for weeks if not months. The French are looking at ways of converting the Paris-Lyon line to slab track but are yet to make any meaningful progress because of the need to shut down the line whilst works take place.
As for increasing the speed in the future, I'm not too sure, but I imagine it would be possible if designed right, as the alignment has already been optimised for 360/400km/h. You'd likely run into issues with the tracks needing to be relaid, and possibly modifications needing to be made to catenary and signalling systems as well, but anything's possible with enough money and political will!
@@NetworkNewsUK yeah, I assume that upgrading to slab is a lot more awkward than redoing the knitting. The transition between sleepers and slab is probably a bit more complicated and not something you can do easily in overnight or even weekend possessions. I didn't know that the PSE route is going to be upgraded.
@@joegrey9807 not sure if it is going to be upgraded or not, but they've been looking into it
I still would like to see HS2 to the north being built despite its no longer going to happen. And it’s a real shame with all that money being wasted just to build a brand new rail line to the North of England. Such a shame that HS2 North has been cancelled because of high costs.
wouldnty it be amazing to get the train to paris, or berlin. or link with the other parts of the uk like gibraltar?
11:00 Can’t we just use Class 373s? They ran on the ECML once before which I think it’s British loading gauge, then they got sent over to HS1
It's definitely possible, but many of the 373s have been scrapped now and the rest will likely follow at some point in the future as they're getting pretty old at this point!
Of course, new trains could be procured to British loading gauge, but it's generally easier for operators such as Eurostar to procure off-the-shelf stock built to European loading gauge, as it's usually cheaper to do so.
This was an experiment in British Rail Days when the Channel Tunnel opened and they tried them on a service from Manchester to Paris via Birmingham which did not work out due to lack of patronage and the fact the trains were too long for the existing stations, they were then transfered to the ECML and operated for a while from Leeds to Kingscross but again there were logistical problems and were sent back to France where these 373 units were used on the Paris to Brussels services of SNCF/SNCB you can find all this information on Google
And after 30 years, the worst-corroded half of the 373 fleet was pensioned off. The Channel Tunnel is a very hostile environment for steel train carriages (as we found) - and the "wrong kind of snow" in the 373 electric converters didn't help about ten years ago. So, with the "billion-pound per mile" NIMBY-friendly Chiltern Tunnel and others, what are the options - 40-year old 373s?
@@NetworkNewsUK It's a real shame and missed opportunity.
All these great ideas that pop up, yet no one gets on with it and allows costs to go up 10 times the speed of sound and light put together.
I very much love to see Birmingham to Continental Europe services to allow for a variety of routes to run on HS2 like London to Birmingham or Manchester or even Paris/Brussels to Birmingham/Manchester running express between Lille and Old Oak Common, with the London services on HS1 calling at Calais, Ashford and Ebbsfleet.
A sleeper could include the tip of Scotland to the bottom of France, maybe Inverness to Marseille? You can decide on that lol
@@NetworkNewsUK Whichever way we come up with, we need a high speed line somewhere to not only ease up congestion on the east coast and west coast mainlines, but to also act serious in our competition on modern high speed rail services with the rest of Europe such as France with their TGV and Germany with their ICE. I can literally hear them laughing and pointing fingers at us right now.
"Oh look at Britain, they're still stuck in the past with their old Victorian railway system. We on the other hand our modern and fit for the future with our high speed rail lines".
D'ya see what I mean? We are a literal laughing stock in front of all of Europe if not the world stage as far as modern railways go!
The HS2 line needs to be linked to HS1 to run trains from Manchester through Birmingham and on to Europe, with stops at Ashford & Ebbsfleet as Eurostar have yet to restart these serives post COVID.
There was an appetite for developing Cross rail through London, with great and costly measures taken to tunnel around existing structures and already functioning services, but as soon as it’s outside London, it all goes away.
Whoever has, to him shall be given….but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that that he has.