The Sleeper's Blog

James   12/08/2016 at 14:58

I may be viewing this very simply, but why should either scheme take priority over the other? Work on HS2 is progressing well with construction set to begin next year. If HS3 was given priority now, what would happen to HS2? Is the North really expecting that HS2 will just sit there and wait doing nothing until HS3 has been built?

John Burns   12/08/2016 at 17:37

In March the National Infrastructure Commission's report, "High Speed North", recommended collaboration between TfN and HS2 Ltd. on the design of the northern parts of HS2 and HS3. The Institute of Public Policy Research this month urged the government to prioritise HS3 over HS2. As HS2 has 'sort of' been designed either side of the Pennines, I would say it needs a 'serious' re-think to accommodate say Liverpool using HS3 then branching into HS2. Similar with all cities, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield. The current idea of the ridiculous big HS2 S bend around Tatton (miraculously Tatton is Osborn's seat) and running via Manchester Airport and into Manchester Piccadilly via a gold plated branch tunnel may, and should, go. Even terminating at Piccadilly does not make sense any longer as Manchester Victoria is the logical station for HS3 and HS2. Even having Piccadilly station does not makes sense when a new big flagship station could emerge at Victoria making Piccadilly redundant. The building of the Ordsall Cord was the first nail in the coffin of Piccadilly. The Port of Liverpool needs a line into the city ASAP to give capacity for increased freight due to the new post-Panamax container terminal and biomass terminal. Economists assess that HS3 will defiantly create economic growth while HS2 in its current form will have negative impact on some cities. If HS3 is built first, having branches onto the WCML, ECML and MML, will improve existing services using classic lines to London and Birmingham. The Manchester service from London could run via the MML and then east through a Pennines tunnel, also alleviating capacity on the WCML. For many reason, it all makes sense to build HS3 first with a view of HS2 coming along - if it ever does ever get further north of Birmingham or Crewe of course.

Peter Gordon   19/08/2016 at 13:46

HS2 will certainly make the UK more London centric. You can argue whether this is a good or a bad thing. My solution would be to build branches of most of the cultural and economic facilities in London in the north - it would cost a lot but I bet that the increased growth and tax take would more than compensate. This would require enhanced links in the north (look to the Ranstadt in the Netherlands) which I would rank way ahead of HS2 which looks too much like a testosterone fuelled "lets go faster" vanity project. The argument about lack of capacity on the conventional network is actually correct. However I reckon that whereas increasing capacity on the existing network (for example four tracking the Chiltern Line and using it as the main route to Birmingham to relieve capacity on the WCML) would remove the need for HS2 and don't think that the reverse is true (although taking sensible steps such as easing gradients so that freight trains can use it at night would help). Since we are not going to be able to afford HS2 and a major upgrade of the conventional network lets go for the latter.

Alan Marshall   19/08/2016 at 15:50

Readers should take sound note of the letter, responding to IPPR (North), published 13 August in The Guardian from Professor Ian Wray, of University of Liverpool’s Department of Geography and Planning, and David Thrower, who co-authored with the late Prof. Sir Peter Hall the proposal for HS3. They state that HS3 is still only “an outline concept” and “yet to be sufficiently planned, even as a broad corridor on a map”. They add: “HS3’s planning is many years behind HS2’s.” And they conclude: “To delay HS2’s construction so that HS3’s planning can be accelerated is unnecessary and could even put both at risk. The two schemes are complementary, and there would be no advantage to HS3’s planning in such a move. To delay HS2’s first phase would simply create uncertainty at a time when the UK economy needs exactly the opposite.” QED, I think.

John Burns   08/09/2016 at 12:13

@Ian Marshall, I disagree with Professor Ian Wray. If HS3 is to merge with HS2 each side of the Pennines HS2 at these points needs re-designing. That is clearly obvious. The likes of that ridiculous HS2 S bend in Cheshire and the 7.5 mile tunnel, and tunnel under Crewe station can clearly be dropped. If HS3 design is accelerated and HS2 is a secondary project, in that its design is changed to suit HS3, and HS3 is built first. We may find that the project, HS2, with highly suspect economic points will not be built. Why would HS2 not be built? Because trains that run on existing tracks are getting faster and faster (e.g, Alstom are building a 182mph tilting train to run on existing tracks), negating the need for high-speed rail in the UK. These trains can also use HS3 to access cities. So, we need HS3, which gives positive economic benefits connecting clusters of cities over 100 miles which have the combined population of many mid sided European countries. HS3 must be a priority over secondary HS2. HS2 gives negative economic benefits to some cities.