Surprise surprise HS2

Steer said:
Looking forward to the new plans, which include:

New central London to Watford underground line
2 new bridges over the Thames to improve links between the north and south of the city
New subsidised ebikes scheme for Greater London
New fleet of electric London busses
Refurbishment of around 100 London underground stations
And a new coat of paint for the bench in Hartlepool train station waiting area.
Click to expand...
Hartlepool is too far north for that to happen, and like Middlesbrough years ago, haven't got a local MP to represent them.
 
  • Being able to get from Manchester to a new station in Bradford in 30 minutes;
  • Manchester to Sheffield in 42 minutes;
  • Manchester to Hull to 84 minutes, all on a "fully electrified line";
  • Protection of £12bn funding to link up Liverpool and Manchester;
  • Build the Leeds tram and Midlands rail hub
  • Expansion for West Midlands metro system;
  • "Upgrades" to A1, A2, A5 and M6;
  • Funding for Shipley bypass and Blyth relief road as part of 70 road schemes;
  • Resurfacing of roads "across the country".
Whilst I appreciate those of us in Manchester are having some money spent on us (for now) since they shelved HS2, I can't say any of this stuff really excites me. I suppose if they electrify the whole line to Hull then journeys between Liverpool and Leeds/York/Darlo/Newcastle will be improved (a bit).

Not exactly sure what the £12bn for Manchester-Liverpool 'link up' is.

Shaving ten minutes off the journey to Sheffield doesn't feel like a huge priority, they keep promising electrification then binning it. I guess the people of Bradford will benefit the most from this, although they'd been promised that station/line already.
 
Last edited:
atypical_boro said:
Not exactly sure what the £12bn for Manchester-Liverpool 'link up' is.
Click to expand...

I THINK there was a tunnel section in the original HS2 proposal which had a line from Liverpool going via Manchester Airport and then onto Piccadilly. Andy Burnham was making a plea yesterday that, at least, this was preserved.

What stuck for me was a mention of the 'A2 upgrade'. If this means the Lower Thames Crossing east of Dartford, this is currently costed at £9bn. That's 25% of the £36bn if true.

..... not the most northern relevant use of the money ......
 
atypical_boro said:
Not exactly sure what the £12bn for Manchester-Liverpool 'link up' is.
Click to expand...

It means that, although they’re now not spending £36bn on HS2, they’re still spending a third of that money on the new Manchester Airport to Manchester Piccadilly link. Which presumably means the HS2 cost to Manchester was only really £24bn?

So £24bn to be spent on other schemes rather than the £36bn announced. If any of those actually happen.

Edit - oh, and there’s still the cost to complete the line to Euston. So probably a lot less than £24bn actually available.
 
masquesmog said:
I THINK there was a tunnel section in the original HS2 proposal which had a line from Liverpool going via Manchester Airport and then onto Piccadilly. Andy Burnham was making a plea yesterday that, at least, this was preserved.

What stuck for me was a mention of the 'A2 upgrade'. If this means the Lower Thames Crossing east of Dartford, this is currently costed at £9bn. That's 25% of the £36bn if true.

..... not the most northern relevant use of the money ......
Click to expand...
Indeed, you've probably just figured out exactly why HS2 North is being scrapped then.

So this tunnel, who will benefit? Scousers who need to use Manchester Airport? I can already get to Lime Street in just over 30 minutes from Victoria. Obviously I'd rather this money was spent on the North, but even this feels like a lot of money to spend on something that won't actually benefit that many people. There's already a tram and a fast train to the airport from Piccadilly.
 
As a resident of Sheffield, I'm not sure 42 mins versus 54 is truly that significant. The following are all more transformational imo:
Increased capacity btwn Man-Shf (I'll still be p***ed off if I'm stood for 42 mins instead of 54)
Direct connectivity to Man Airport (this was removed during Covid and never returned)
Improved road connectivity across the Peak - fact it takes 90 minutes or so to cover the 30 miles to Manchester is 17th century at best.

As for the Don Valley line, I had to look it up and I live here. Essentially it will link the centre of town with the one blue constituency in this part of South Yorkshire. Apparently a station at "Sheffield Ski Village" is also mooted, despite the fact said attraction has been closed for 11 years.
 
atypical_boro said:
So this tunnel, who will benefit? Scousers who need to use Manchester Airport?
Click to expand...

I assume if you want to maintain the idea of a faster West to East route, and go via the airport and central Manchester, you still need this section to have a dedicated route. Hence Burnham's plea.
 
If they want to improve the transpenine services the first thing to do would be to hire enough train staff to reduce the constant cancellations.

Oh and the irony of electrifying the line from Manchester to Sheffield... Woodhead Line

300px-Class_76_locomotives_76033_and_76031_at_Woodhead_on_24th_March_1981.jpeg
 
I'm no expert (far from it so am happy to be told I'm wrong here) but although a lot of emphasis is put on time of journey when discussing these projects in the news when I believe the real benefit is in increased capacity...?

So although a 12 minute saving from Sheffield to Manchester may seem fairly insignificant, it may allow them to run additional services which is where the real benefit is? Could be wrong, this may also not really be required.

I know the Transpennine line between Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool can be extremely busy so additional capacity would surely be beneficial even if the time savings seem small.
 
thewanderer said:
Oh well at least the London bit gets finished, that's all that matters right?
Click to expand...
All the way to Euston too.

So they're more than happy to commit to the bit which some are saying is impossible (Old Oak Common to Euston), but they don't want to commit to the bit which is:
a: cheaper per mile
b: easier per mile
c: actually levelling up
d: not levelling down (like the London bit)

The Old Oak Common to Euston bit won't actually be impossible mind, as we will soon find out. It's only our own daft requirements, regulation and "rules" stopping progress.

It's the same daft "Three R's" which are responsible for 80% of the cost increase, don't let them con you into thinking it's inflation, it's not.
 
Cameron is not happy, don't think I've seen him comment on government policy before, guess the Tories are going to have a few interesting conversations, as I understand it the decision will need to be approved by parliament
 
Why is every building work / upgrade work SO expensive to do in this Country? £80M to renovate “Big Ben” is a joke.
 
B_G said:
I'm no expert (far from it so am happy to be told I'm wrong here) but although a lot of emphasis is put on time of journey when discussing these projects in the news when I believe the real benefit is in increased capacity...?

So although a 12 minute saving from Sheffield to Manchester may seem fairly insignificant, it may allow them to run additional services which is where the real benefit is? Could be wrong, this may also not really be required.

I know the Transpennine line between Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool can be extremely busy so additional capacity would surely be beneficial even if the time savings seem small.
Click to expand...
To some extent yes....

For HS2 that was definitely true as it's an entirely new line, you are effectively siphoning off the highest spending rail users and freeing up capacity on existing routes.

Less of an impact for the Hope Valley I would think. Headways probably dictate you can run some additional trains on the line, but not many I wouldn't think. Could be wrong but it's a fairly antiquated signalling system on that line too which will limit the volume of trains (although presumably that's part of the upgrade).

Rolling stock availability seems to be a real issue at present. Longer trains and platforms is a relatively quick fix, emphasis on the relatively!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top