Will HS2 get axed?

[whole diary]

[Btline]

The new FGW^▸ (First Great Western) ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) tells the companies to IGNORE HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) when making predictions.

The first section of HS2 should have opened between London and Birmingham before the franchise ends in 2028, although bidders are being told to disregard the implications of the new High Speed line when making their calculations and suggestions.

Does this shocking revelation mean the government is preparing to swing the axe?

[Electric train]

The new FGW^▸ (First Great Western) ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) tells the companies to IGNORE HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) when making predictions.

The first section of HS2 should have opened between London and Birmingham before the franchise ends in 2028, although bidders are being told to disregard the implications of the new High Speed line when making their calculations and suggestions.

Does this shocking revelation mean the government is preparing to swing the axe?

No it does not mean HS2 is being axed.  HS2 is too early in the development stage to accurately predict its implications to GW^▸ (Great Western) franchise during construction and final operation, for tendering purposes all those bidding will be bidding on knowns and not putting in a lot of assumptions; assumptions always add woolliness to contact pricing, it will be a lot simpler to renegotiate / compensate at the time of HS2 indeed that could be built into the HS2 franchise to compensate TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) n FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company)   

[onthecushions]

The justification for HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) was firstly capacity, the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) will be (not is) full in the middle distance and secondly speed, with a high value being put on saving of business time. (A pity equal value was not put on commuters' time - we are the same people after all). The alternative of higher capacity and speed on the WCML was seen as prohibitive as widening in towns would need tunnelling (imagine 6 tracks through Ealing Broadway!), combined with the complication and disruption experienced in the last WCML upgrade.

Up to 2010, including the eRUS (Oct 2009) this seems to have been accepted, with little scent of the Electric Spine. The Oxford - Bedford reopening/wiring (option B18.1 App 4, p111) was stated to have Low to Medium benefits and Basingstoke - Coventry was listed as an add-on, after GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) (A13.4, App3, p105) but was ranked as Tier 3 (i.e low), Birmingham - Leeds/Doncaster by contrast (A19.2, App 3 P106) was ranked as Tier 1, even including our Banbury line. Wires didn't seem to be going South of Basingstoke.

What's changed?

Well, HS2 has risen in price, with half the first 70 miles in tunnel and sundry costly other concessions. Also, traffic projections must have lowered with the longer recession, as must the balance of flows. The "Spine" appears to deliver freights to Nuneaton, North of the critical Rugby stretch, and to Bedford for the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), North of the Thameslink services. In effect the WCML will have a pair of splints, to take the extra traffic. If sufficient slower traffic could be removed from (or not added to) the WCML, then new, tunnelled fast lines aren't necessary and we just need the formation and alignment improving for a more modest scheme. 

I'm not defending it, just reading the tea-leaves.

OTC

[paul7575]

... The "Spine" appears to deliver freights to Nuneaton, North of the critical Rugby stretch, and to Bedford for the MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), North of the Thameslink services. In effect the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) will have a pair of splints, to take the extra traffic. If sufficient slower traffic could be removed from (or not added to) the WCML...

But the 'electric spine' doesn't really remove any WCML traffic, two of us have already tried to explain this.  What it does is remove conflicting traffic from the Coventry area. 

From the Southampton direction, nearly all freight to the NW is currently routed up through Leamington/Coventry/Nuneaton.  What they are talking about is diverting this route via Bletchley, ie to join the WCML earlier, thereby increasing the flow through the Milton Keynes/Northampton/Rugby section.  If any flows from Southampton are sent via the MML to destinations such as Leeds, they will be services that don't currently affect the WCML anyway.

There is however a separate project to move freight to/from Felixstowe onto the cross country route to Nuneaton via Ely and Peterborough.  (This route doesn't seem to be down for electrification however.) Also, and this is a significant issue, although this does theoretically remove freight from both the NLL and the WCML(S), this is only so that the existing paths can be used for new services from the new container port at Thames Gateway (Shellhaven).

Just to add a PS, this is all covered in chapter 9 of the London and SE RUS^▸ (Route Utilisation Strategy), which concerns freight in the 'greater south east':

9.4.9 Capacity over the Nuneaton ^ Leamington Spa corridor therefore appears to be a potential barrier to future freight growth from Southampton, especially due to the crossing move at Nuneaton in the southbound direction. Interventions to address this issue may therefore be required in the future, as noted under Gap 8 of the Freight RUS.

9.4.10 One way discounted as a response to the constraints in 9.4.9 was for some Southampton traffic to run via London in normal operating circumstances, then onwards to the north via the WCML, Midland Main Line (MML) or East Coast Main Line (ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line)). This would increase congestion on busy routes in and around the capital so has not been considered further, except for diversionary purposes (which would tend to take place at night or weekends when capacity for freight is significantly improved). It would also conflict with freight demand growth from other origins using the southern end of the WCML. The RUS therefore seeks an option which enables Southampton growth whilst both avoiding London (for traffic not serving that area) and the Coventry/Nuneaton/West Midlands constraints (for traffic not serving
such areas).

9.4.11 One potential approach would be to reopen the currently closed route from Bletchley towards Bicester (at Claydon Junction), as part of the third party promoted East-West Rail (EWR) scheme. Reopening of this line could potentially enable new routeing options for Southampton freight flows to the north, linking in to forecast demand (from Table 9.3) especially to Daventry in the West Midlands or the North West via the WCML.
The most immediate new routeing options would be:
~ Southampton ^ Oxford ^ Bletchley ^ WCML (for the Northwest)
~ Southampton ^ Oxford ^ Bletchley ^ Daventry (for the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal).

Paul

[paul7575]

The new FGW^▸ (First Great Western) ITT^▸ (Invitation to Tender) tells the companies to IGNORE HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) when making predictions.

Does this shocking revelation mean the government is preparing to swing the axe?

Did you read on to the very next section of the ITT?

Bidders should not include the consequences of and possible opportunities from Western Rail Access for the Great Western franchise in their Bid.

So by your logic presumably that must be being axed as well. 

Expressions that spring to mind are 'clutching at straws', or 'making a mountain out of a molehill'...

Paul

[onthecushions]

I really do take the point about existing plans not diverting WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) traffic.

I just question whether, with a wired route both ways, a freight would really go to the NW via Bletchley rather than via Coventry (The mileages, Oxford - Nuneaton are c63 vs c80, E&OE) especially if the WCML is busy and paths perhaps cost more.

I am still mystified as to why low ranking electrification schemes were approved and try to imagine reasons.

Regards,

OTC

[ellendune]

I am still mystified as to why low ranking electrification schemes were approved and try to imagine reasons.

Which do you regard as low ranking?

[Btline]

I'm locking the poll.

Clearly people still think HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will go ahead, although it's divided whether it will be delayed.

I sincerely hope a severe delay doesn't happen, but I doubt it'll opened on time. Nothing ever does in this country!

[JayMac]

I'm locking the poll.

Spoilsport. 

Clearly people still think HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will go ahead, although it's divided whether it will be delayed.

Agreed, although nearly as many think it will be delayed than go ahead as per current timetable.

but I doubt it'll opened on time. Nothing ever does in this country!

Aren't you forgetting your sainted Chiltern? Haven't the recent Evergreen improvements come in on time?

[Btline]

Ok, I won't.

Actually Evergreen 3 was actually delayed! (due to incompetent contractors, not Chiltern themselves)

You could also argue that they weren't quite 100% ready on the first day - see first post of http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=9450.0

[eightf48544]

i was being tongue in cheek re Blechley and the Channel Tunnel.

What should have been kept using 20/20 hindsight was the Didcot - Southampton line what a superb fright route that would be today

Agree 100% with the wartime doublng to Newbury and the installing very long loops South of Neewbury to Whinchester it would be agood freight rioute. Although could Chesil tunnel be enlarged for modern containers. The only trouble is you ahve to cross all 4 lines at Didcot to get onto it for Southampton. 

Always regretted not travelling on it when open. Did see City of Truro working a passenger train to Southampton Terminus in the late 50s when it out in regular traffic. But it was at Eastleigh. My paternal grand parents met at West Woodhay house in WW1 when he was convelesing from wounds and she was working at the house.

She used to tell me stories about going from Southampton to West Woodhay by train.


Little anecdote. Some time in the early sixties due to the inbalance of workings all the tockens ended at one end of the Section. So special arrangements had to be to wothdraw and number of tokens and car tehm to other end.

[onthecushions]

I am still mystified as to why low ranking electrification schemes were approved and try to imagine reasons.

Which do you regard as low ranking?

See Reply No 17 (for brevity)

OTC

[ellendune]

I am still mystified as to why low ranking electrification schemes were approved and try to imagine reasons.

Which do you regard as low ranking?

See Reply No 17 (for brevity)
OTC

The eRUS did not seem to take freight seriously. The opportunity to increase energy efficiency, reduce carbon and to insulate the economy further against shock increases the case for freight electrification.  However to do that you need a spine network or FOCs^▸ (Freight Operating Company) will not invest in electric traction. EW gives access bothe to WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about) giving a range of destinations without the need for traction change.  It also helps resolve some capacity issues north of Oxford.  Like so many economic appraisals it depends on what factors you bring into the calculation.