SkyscraperCity Forum banner

HS2 General Thread (all phases/discussion)

4M views 32K replies 616 participants last post by  passiv 
G
#1 ·
Just thought I'd see if anybody thinks about this subject as much as I do and if anyone had ideas as to what they'd like to see under this name.

I think the best place for it's London terminus will be St Pancras but how I wonder.

Can see two options possible:

1) an annex on the west side of the existing station

Advantages being more platforms but high speed trains would be blocked from easy interchange with the Eurostars by the Midland Mianline tracks acting as a kind of barrier.

2) an annex on the east side

Infinitley more difficult but with the advantage being Eurostars and domestic HST's would be in the same area of the station.

As for the line itself, the seemingly obvious place to start is using the North London line for relatively low speed running (say about 160-220km/h) through urban London. Although I'm not sure if that single track connection from HS1 would end up being a problem capacity wise.

There would need to be another line going under the current St Pancras-NLL chord and onto the NLL. Think of it like the soon to be opened St Pancras-HS1 layout with the two running tracks going over/under each other.

A station at Willesden Junciton (see my other thread) would be good I reckon and from here the line continues at classic line speeds to Denham before the new High Speed formation breaks away.

Then to get a bit more basic from here the line should go to Coventry Parkway-Birmingham International-Lichfield Trent Valley-Stoke-Stockport-Manchester Eastlands-Preston-Carlisle.......then up to a triangle junction in the Scottish Central belt with links to Glasgow and Edinburgh.

Obviously there would be branches to Liverpool (from Stoke), Leeds (from Manchester) and Derby, Sheffield, Doncaster, York, Teeside & Newcastle (from Birminghm International).

Sorry to go on but it would be good to hear what others think, it might be an irrelevant discussion knowing this Government but it's always interesting to talk about it.
 
See less See more
#7,581 ·
Well you carry on bashing your head against a brick wall then if you want to.

One things for sure, l don't want my city (Sheffield) to waste any more time or resources living in cloud cuckoo land. They're latest master plan for the city centre shows an HS2 station in the centre, and they are actually basing assumptions about how the centre should develop on this.

It's futile, counter productive nonsense and needs to stop now.
Is that aimed at me?

I agree with you, the main point of my post was about Sheffield given how out of touch the local authority seems to be with what is actually happening in the real world!
 
#7,585 ·
Yep that's the one.

I did ask the guy who produced it why they had put it at Victoria and he said Meadowhall had only been chosen as the preferred option and nothing had been decided yet. I guess they have to lobby for what they believe is the best option for the city but l think its increasingly obvious they're wasting their time. I find the notion that they are basing development decisions in the centre on it ridiculous, and that they should be focusing on how to maximise opportunities for the city with the station at Meadowhall.
 
#7,586 ·
Agree.

It won't be long now.

We will see the responses to the consultation soon enough.

No doubt dream world wish lists from all sorts of places, caveat-ed with stuff about how if they don't get their preferred options (which they know they won't but have to try anyway) then they would like some very minor amendments and commitments to the original scheme.

If those suggestions can be delivered at zero cost then I have no doubt they will happen.

I think everyone, including those responding to the consultation realise that whilst they have to ask for expensive improvements they have zero hope of being funded.
 
#7,587 · (Edited)
Well you carry on bashing your head against a brick wall then if you want to.

One things for sure, l don't want my city (Sheffield) to waste any more time or resources living in cloud cuckoo land. They're latest master plan for the city centre shows an HS2 station in the centre, and they are actually basing assumptions about how the centre should develop on this.

It's futile, counter productive nonsense and needs to stop now.
I think Sheffield's a little different, perhaps. You are already on full HS (albeit an out of town station which some question the merit of) and so indeed the council may decide (if they think what they are getting is worth it) to can Victoria and keep quiet.

Liverpool on the other hand is submitting a bid for full HS to the city centre in due course, that has already been confirmed. Liverpool's not currently getting anything so amazing that's worth keeping quiet over. It will be happening.

In terms of what happens with such bid, well we shall see. After all, what sort of consultation would it be if there were no fair possibilities of having amendments included?...

Indeed, what would be the point of a consultation period at all in such circumstance?

And, I did believe that fairly run consultation periods are a legal requirement, are they not?

It's futile, counter productive nonsense and needs to stop now.
I disagree, but I guess it depends on what you count as being counter productive versus productive.

I have a feeling that Liverpool's bid will prove to be highly productive.
 
#7,588 ·
I disagree, but I guess it depends on what you count as being counter productive versus productive.

I have a feeling that Liverpool's bid will prove to be highly productive.
And what productive outcome do you predict will happen? The identification of possible alignments to be built (and their respective costs) if funding should ever become available?
 
#7,590 ·
And what productive outcome do you predict will happen? The identification of possible alignments to be built if funding should ever become available?
There are only a few possible results from the bid as far as I can see, and that result that will form the basis of the outcome. I'm not predicting any result, but I can foresee many outcomes.

Fob offs containing 'possibilities' for the future are meaningless in themselves and to that result and outcome. Even if one were to trust the UK to keep its word or find the funding, we don't want things in 50 years time when it's of no use and when possibly damage may have already been done to our economy, we want it now when it's of most use to us. To reject the bid with that I would simply view as an added insult.

As I say, Liverpool only has to concern itself with its bid's validity, not with providing charity slack to HS2 just because it's in the doo doo (or not, as the case may be). I see no need here to scale ambitions back and no need here to scale expectations back. How HS2 copes with those is their problem.

I look forward to hearing HS2's response to Liverpool's bid, and seeing what happens.
 
#7,591 ·
I think that is what realistically many places will be asking for.

Acknowledge the lack of money, request future commitments when money is available.
It's well worth doing - the amount of contigency / optimism bias being demanded by the Treasury is huge (so says the Financial Times). We can but hope that the build of the planned 'Y' route will come in well under the P95 figure. If that happened some of the 'spare' cash may indeed be released for add-ons, perhaps as early as 2026 when phase 1 is completed to Brum/Lichfield and the true costs of building HS2 start to become clear.

This also gives regional politicians and planners time to develop financial cases and consider other funding methods for their pet schemes - such as EU grants and local taxation. Perhaps secure some section 106 promises can be extracted from local developers if local HS2 infrastructure can be delivered.
 
#7,592 ·
As I say, Liverpool only has to concern itself with its bid's validity, not with providing charity slack to HS2 just because it's in the doo doo (or not, as the case may be). I see no need here to scale ambitions back and no need here to scale expectations back. How HS2 copes with those is their problem.
It's not HS2's problem, its your problem. You'll also have to convince the Treasury.

Good luck, your going to need it.
 
#7,593 · (Edited)
It's well worth doing - the amount of contigency / optimism bias being demanded by the Treasury is huge (so says the Financial Times). We can but hope that the build of the planned 'Y' route will come in well under the P95 figure. If that happened some of the 'spare' cash may indeed be released for add-ons, perhaps as early as 2026 when phase 1 is completed to Brum/Lichfield and the true costs of building HS2 start to become clear.

This also gives regional politicians and planners time to develop financial cases and consider other funding methods for their pet schemes - such as EU grants and local taxation. Perhaps secure some section 106 promises can be extracted from local developers if local HS2 infrastructure can be delivered.
Given all the fuss over these current phases of HS, I don't see how anyone can credibly pass off any prospect of future development. Why would Labour or the Tories do that to themselves again?
 
#7,594 ·
It's not HS2's problem, its your problem. You'll also have to convince the Treasury.

Good luck, your going to need it.
Indeed, the idea that those responding to the HS2 consultation need not worry themselves with 'minor' issues such as cost just about sums how how many contributors on here have failed to ever understand what's going on.


Cost cost cost, it's all that matters. It's all the media care about. It's all the government care about. It's all the treasury care about.

The idea a response to the consultation that does not deal with the cost will get any traction in the slightest shows just how confused some are and how they still don't get what's important in this scheme.

So long as the government, DfT and HS2 can control costs this happens, no matter what the authorities in Merseyside, South Yorkshire and East Midlands think, say or do.

They really don't matter, ' it is the treasury stupid' as someone very nearly once said.
 
#7,595 ·
It's not HS2's problem, its your problem. You'll also have to convince the Treasury.

Good luck, your going to need it.
Thanks, that's very kind of you.

I believe it would be whoever is running HS2 who would need to convince the Treasury for extra cash if they needed if, though, rather than Liverpool who simply submit a worked out, fully costed bid (it's definitely not me, for sure!).
 
#7,597 ·
Fob offs containing 'possibilities' for the future are meaningless in themselves and to that result and outcome. Even if one were to trust the UK to keep its word or find the funding, we don't want things in 50 years time when it's of no use and when possibly damage may have already been done to our economy, we want it now when it's of most use to us. To reject the bid with that I would simply view as an added insult.
Oh dear. It sounds then like you are setting yourself up to be bitterly dissappointed and insulted sometime soon. Right now there is no other money on the table. The hybrid HS2 bill due to appear in Parliament this Autumn will clearly not be amended at this late stage to include any significant add-ons to the published route.

As I say, Liverpool only has to concern itself with its bid's validity, not with providing charity slack to HS2 just because it's in the doo doo (or not, as the case may be). I see no need here to scale ambitions back and no need here to scale expectations back. How HS2 copes with those is their problem.
HS2 has no need to 'cope' with anything in relation to unhappy individual towns and cities that failed to get dedicated infrastructure in the initial scheme. That problem is not one for HS2 Ltd to deal with, they have plenty to get on with anyway building the route that has been announced. A lack of support by some people living in a fairly marginal city is not going to make much difference to the reputation or viability of the entire scheme. Indeed a rejection of add-on schemes with a poor financial case is likely to enhance the reputation of the company in the eyes of politicians and policy-makers.
 
#7,599 · (Edited)
Oh dear. It sounds then like you are setting yourself up to be bitterly dissappointed and insulted sometime soon. Right now there is no other money on the table. The hybrid HS2 bill due to appear in Parliament this Autumn will clearly not be amended at this late stage to include any significant add-ons to the published route.

HS2 has no need to 'cope' with anything in relation to unhappy individual towns and cities that failed to get dedicated infrastructure in the initial scheme. That problem is not one for HS2 Ltd to deal with, they have plenty to get on with anyway building the route that has been announced. A lack of support by some people living in a fairly marginal city is not going to make much difference to the reputation or viability of the entire scheme. Indeed a rejection of add-on schemes with a poor financial case is likely to enhance the reputation of the company in the eyes of politicians and policy-makers.
Indeed.

'Look how wrong the IEA were. They said we'd spend £3bn on a captive service to Liverpool, in just 3 months we've proven their report to be utter nonsense, just like the rest of the report.'

Works very well for McLaughlin when he stands up to present the hybrid bill in the autumn.

Correct me if I'm wrong but HS2 have no interest in the consultation response?

Don't they effectively pull a summary of the responses together and the DfT along with the treasury work through any possible amendments?

Did each local authority response to the consultation for phase 1 receive a counter response from HS2/DfT at that point?

I'm not sure some aren't going to be massively disappointed when the DfT publish the final route when it doesn't give detailed responses to each and every item in the consultation and just had general feedback, e.g. 'no captive spur to Liverpool, no funds available and business case not strong. Commit to achieving when funds available and business case stacks up' is the level of detail I'm expecting.
 
#7,600 · (Edited)
^^

As he said - very succinctly! :)
and I said, very succinctly:

Thanks, that's very kind of you.

I believe it would be whoever is running HS2 who would need to convince the Treasury for extra cash if they needed if, though, rather than Liverpool who simply submit a worked out, fully costed bid (it's definitely not me, for sure!).
 
Top