Share
Stuart Nathan
Features editor
The Engineer
Time for a rethink on high-speed rail
There’s a good case for a high-speed rail link between London and Birmingham and beyond, says the Commons Transport Committee. So does that mean that the £32bn project should now go ahead? Look at the report, and it seems like the committee themselves aren’t that sure.
In fact, it seems like this ‘good case’ isn’t that good at all. The economic benefit of the line isn’t clear, the MPs said. The line has to go beyond Birmingham, to Leeds and Manchester — a commitment that the government hasn’t yet made, it adds. The impact on communities along the route is substantial. And most worrying of all for supporters of the scheme, the environmental benefits “don’t stand up to scrutiny.”
Taking all that on board, the report, which many had seen as providing a potential green light for the project, begins to look more like amber, or even red. Recommending that the HS2 planners reevaluate the impact, route and benefits of the project is hardly a vote of confidence; in fact, it’s casting severe doubt on pretty much every aspect of the project. And that’s before we even get to surely-vexed questions about who gets the contract to build it and where the equipment comes from.
A high-speed link from London to Birmingham would cut about 20 minutes off the fastest train journey time — Euston to New Street in 49 minutes. But, frankly, so what? That hardly seems like something that’s going to make a massive contribution to industry. It probably isn’t going to persuade that many more people out of their cars and onto the trains. Extending the line to Leeds and Manchester might, indeed, help here; it would mean that it could be worth the while for people in northern cities to use the Channel Tunnel rail link to get to Paris and Brussels, rather than flying, if the train was priced competitively (although the line wouldn’t be complete for 25 years). Taking it even further north, to Edinburgh and Glasgow, would be even better; a good, fast train service could render shuttle flights from London irrelevant.
But every mile of line increases the cost and adds complexity to route planning, and we’re supposed to be avoiding unnecessary spending in these straitened times. Nobody flies from London to Birmingham. Hardly anyone flies to Manchester or Leeds. Without that environmental advantage of changing modes of transport, the basis for HS2 looks very shaky indeed.
We’re enthusiasts for technology at The Engineer; that goes without saying. Big projects fire the imagination, as well as providing employment. But in this relatively small country, with its long-established settlements scattered all over the countryside, infrastructure project such as HS2 are notoriously tricky. The concerns raised by the Commons Committee are beginning to make it look like one of those British disasters-in-waiting that we all dread. It seems like the plan should go back to the drawing-board — and all options, including upgrading existing lines, need to be considered. It’s only worth doing if it’s done right.
View results 10 per page | 20 per page | 50 per page |
Readers' comments (53)
Paul | 9 Nov 2011 1:11 pm
Stuart, you have fallen into the trap of thinking HS2 is all about knocking 20 minutes off the London - Birmingham journey time. It's not. The business case is predicated upon providing the additional low carbon capacity on our key north south axis - and releasing capacity on existing routes - that future volumes of traffic will require. The West Coast mainline will be full before HS2 opens, given the current growth of passengers and freight. Then factor in the likely price of a barrel of oil, given rising demand and falling supply capacity, at the time when HS2 is planned to open ? If you build new, you build high speed to maximise that capacity and attarct all of the connectivity benefits.
Altenative options to upgrade existing lines are disruptive, expensive sticking plasters that offer little additional capacity that will be consumed in a few years. They do not deal with the future capacity conundrum we face at all.
Bear in mind also that all current long distance West Coast trains would use HS2, not just those to Birmingham. There are benefits to all, even from building the initial route. Nevertheless i support your assertion that UK plc really needs this route extended to the north and Scotland, to provide the kind of infrastructure other economies are selling to investors today.
For the record HS1 was even more complex and wasn't a disaster - it opened on time and under budget and is now a success which dominates market share.
I'm just wondering from the tone of your piece, whether you live near the line of the proposed route by any chance ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Editor's comments | 9 Nov 2011 1:11 pm
Nowhere near it, as it happens — SN
Graham | 9 Nov 2011 2:50 pm
Dear Stuart, Your comments remind me of the critics of the likes of IKB and others who faced opposition to building railways in the 1800's. We are still using these routes and because of short sightedness of that era are lumbered with the standard gauge and its associated limitations.
In the 21st century, now is the time to build new routes suitable for moving people around to suit the modern world and the future, not to tinker with the existing routes that are close to their 'sell by date'!
Are you sure you don't have family or friends who live along the proposed route?
Yours sincerely
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Nick B | 9 Nov 2011 2:53 pm
HS2 may reduce the journey times between the major cities but how many people actually commute solely between the cities. Take Euston to Manchester at present, Virgin trains offer stops at Stoke-on-Trent, Macclesfield and Stockport via one line and Crewe, Wilmslow on another route and these are all well subscribed to. HS2will ultimately increase the journey times for people currently using these stations as they will have to go into Manchester and then get a commuter train back out again. HS2 will be just like Concord, unaffordable to the masses!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Harold Birtwistle | 9 Nov 2011 2:58 pm
We can travel from Greater Manchester to London (and vice versa) in two hours. How much faster do we need?
Much better to use the money to drive down cost of travel and eliminate the nightmare of overcrowded rush hour trains.
The question that isn't considered is why we have to go to London and other cities when there's so much electronoc commuication including teleconferencing.
Cities, from a business point of view, are verging on redundancy
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Mike Gray | 9 Nov 2011 3:01 pm
I'm an enthusiast for train travel but reluctantly have my doubts about HS2, though I agree it's (or should be) primarily about capacity, not simply shaving modest amounts of journey time here and there. If, living up here in Scotland, I want to shoot off down to London then that's straightforward enough, but as soon as I stray off single franchise (and more cross country) routes the difficulty of timely connections and fare mess increases exponentially, usually to the point where I grab the car keys instead. I would rather money and effort were spent on properly integrating the system again and making it reliable, and not this for ever let's get to London obsession.
Mike Gray
PS I notice that even the French are beginning to question plans for continuing expansion of their TGV system!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David L | 9 Nov 2011 3:04 pm
There is a clear case for increasing the capacity of the North-South rail links and a new line is also clearly the best way to achieve this. The speed of the trains on this line is almost irrelevant but the promoters and supporters of HS2 have failed to make this case and even by its name, have given opposers a valuable stick to beat them with.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alex | 9 Nov 2011 3:05 pm
Paul, the business case as presented is only positive because it assumes travel time is wasted time. With comfortable seats and WiFi it isn't wasted at all.
The West Coast line could do with more capacity but the cost effective way to do this is to make full use of the Chiltern line. They currently run two four carriage trains per hour to Birmingham. For a fraction of the HS2 investment, this line could run four or six eight carriage double deckers (apparently the line was built to continental loading gauge) to the West Midlands. That would free up sufficient capacity on the West Coast Mainline.
The line would need electrification, some track straightening in key areas, some by passes, and capacity improvements at Marylebone - probably a billion or two.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andrew | 9 Nov 2011 3:05 pm
I live on the route just to be clear.
But looking at the costs of the scheme we are upto £30bn to get to Birmingham say another £30bn to get to Leeds and Manchester and another £30bn to get to Edinburgh or Glasgow. £90bn minimum.
Let's spend £20-30bn upgrading existing lines and debottlenecking which would be ready sooner and invest the rest in industry.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Stephen Mosley | 9 Nov 2011 3:21 pm
There is an important point that always seems to get missed. The British rail network is controlled through the "block" system. A block is a length of line where the entry into it is controlled (by signals at the start), ensuring that trains don't run into the back of each other. Put simply, if the block you are entering is clear with the next block also clear you can proceed at speed, if the next block is occupied by a train you can proceed at caution as the next signal (at the start of the next block) may be red and of course if this block is occupied then the signal will be at red and you have to stop. Due to the age of our system the block lengths are quite short, limiting train lengths with a relatively restrictive loading gauge also limiting the number of passengers per carriage. Therefore if you wish to raise line capacity you need to decrease the time to clear a block, allowing a greater frequency of trains. So, I would contend, the benefits of HS2 should actually be given as the increased frequency of trains or possibly pax per hour rather then reduced journey time.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
S. Martin | 9 Nov 2011 3:45 pm
The business case presented to the public is all about cutting journey times, but for how many people? and at what cost.
Should we even be spending this amount of money during such times, or should we look to doing this when times are better. When we look at the business case we see it does not stack up as capacity appears to be the major issue, not speed. There appears to be more logic in increasing capacity and lowering prices.
In a recent case i looked at the option of going by train, the cost was excessive, it took longer than the car, so i went by car. Fuel costs were less than 10% of the train ticket, and it was quicker, therefore more business efficient, such issues deter users of trains. If we account for additional taxi fees from the station to my meeting, then back, financially it does not stack up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment