Download document:
HS2 – Strategic Case - .PDF file.
Features editor
The government’s latest salvo in the interminable arguments over HS2 needs to be studied carefully, but at least it shifts the debate onto the real need the line is supposed to address.
So here we are again. Business case for High Speed 2, take five. In some ways this reminds me a little of Lewis Carroll’s the Hunting of the Snark — not a poem in several chapters, according to Carroll, but an Agony, in several Fits. The progress of HS2 is indeed agonising, and the paroxysms of opposition do seem fit-like. And, like much of Carroll’s work, many dismiss it as nonsense.
There are those who think that taking five tries at the business case for such a large project smacks of desperation. Among those is Evan Davies, presenter of Radio 4’s Today programme, who noted that the argument in the new document had shifted from the increased speed of travel to the improvements in carrying capacity. Doesn’t that mean you’ve run out of ideas, he asked transport secretary Patrick McLoughlan yesterday.
But of course capacity has been at the centre of the strategy of HS2 from the start, as readers of our coverage of the project will know. The Engineer has been broadly supportive of HS2 because we’ve always spoken to the engineers involved in planning the project rather than politicians, and they’ve given us arguments that make more sense. Whether they make £50bn-worth of sense is another matter, and that’s an argument worth having (and where our support comes up against serious questions).
It’s the issue of capacity and alternatives which the latest study seeks to answer. This government’s record with statistics is dodgy to say the least, so its conclusions must be subject to scrutiny. But the assertion that upgrading the West Coast Mainline to provide the same capacity benefits as HS2 would lead to 14 years of service disruption and weekend closures should at least inject some more realism into the arguments of HS2 critics.
It’s always seemed that suggesting the approach of upgrading existing lines as an alternative has seemed glib, as though it would be easy, or cheap, or free from any disruption. Whether or not the business case document is correct, there can be little doubt that such a severe upgrade would cause a long period of chaos. Other ‘simple’ fixes would surely also require more complex work than might first appear — can you just replace current rolling stock with double-decker trains without extensive rail replacement, reinforcement, rebuilding of bridges, and station refurbishment to cope with extra passengers?
If the report refocuses the pro and con camps on the actual issues, rather than on rhetoric which doesn’t address the actual engineering, then that has to be a good thing. A project such as this needs to be discussed, and not in the context of political point-scoring and hysteria.
The argument that HS2 will take express trains off the West Coast line and allow it to carry more stopping services seems sound and is familiar to us. It’s also argued that this would allow the West Coast to carry more freight, taking heavy traffic off the road. The arguments are strongly dependent on the demand for rail continuing to rise, and this is something worth debating — with increasing internet capacity and ‘virtual meetings’, do businesspeople really need to travel that much? If not, would non-business travel justify the cost? Would people rather take the train than drive?
We idly wondered whether the arguments over HS2 would have been different if the project were scheduled to start in the North, with phase one connecting Leeds and Manchester to Birmingham and phasetwo completing the link to London. Would there have been less opposition, with the plan more clearly emphasising the connectivity where there is currently none? The cynical view is that of course there wouldn’t – the opponents would just be saying “Why build the line in the North where there aren’t enough people to use it? Put it in the South where the trains are so full that the doors won’t close!”
I think the northern sections will be all that we should consider building. Fewer excuses to travel to London will perhaps make the southern section largely a luxury we can do without. London is well served with transport even now.
Re-opening the Great Central line would increase capacity with virtually no disruption to existing lines and would be much lower cost. Money saved could be used on other projects such as Oxford – Cambridge and bottle necks in the north.
The threats of disruption to WCML and indeed ECML and MM is a equal on both sides of the argument on HS2. (8-10 years at Euston according to HS2 Ltd) The road disruption to motorways and major trunk roads during construction will be considerably worse if HS2 goes ahead.
Well at least HS2 has got engineering in the news.
Capacity is of course the real reason for justifying the project. Another supporting one I would add is that the UK suffers from the twin issues of having the world’s oldest network – compounded by the fact that due to an abundance of coal it continued far later in the steam age than was good for it, and the network shows the mark of this from tight rail curvatures, narrow tunnels, arguably difficulties with signaling etc. By preserving old bridges even we cannot take advanteages of new forms of civil engineering (composites anyone?)
HS2 should allow for a demonstration of how a 21st century version of what is disparagingly often called a Victorian technology – can be built – without the drag of the legacy of the past. Of course by allowing the bean counters (of both shades of green) to have undue influence if it does go ahead, we will end up with one that may as well have been designed and built with 1965 technolgies.
£50bn would install enough tidal generation to make new nuclear the more expensive, short-term option, saddled with huge decommissioning costs.
Tidal should be designed, built, paid for and publicly owned by Britain. Neither nuclear nor HS2 look like they’ll deliver such desirable benefits.
£50 billion could also clean up the Fukushima mess. I too listen to Today.
There is one simple way to increase capacity – run the trains closer together !
We see repeated proposals to do this with cars on motorways, it would be much simpler with trains. Smaller stations would need to be modified to allow through trains to bypass them when others are stopped. We could build the new control systems etc. that would be needed then sell them to the rest of the world. We led the world in Victorian times, HS2 is just an extension of that. We should lead the next railway revolution.
I wonder if building the thing won’t increase the number of people who decide to travel rather than catering for an increased demand.
I am inclined to scoff at the speed argument but there is a turning point where some minutes saved make you decide that you can “get there and back” without it being more trouble than it’s worth. i.e. once you get the journey under a maximum acceptable travel time it will trigger people to use it. In such cases, not building it would just make people accept a marginally less desirable situation of having to use the phone.
As an example – the internet is full of traffic from ‘file sharing’ (i.e. piracy) sites, people using youtube, playing games etc. This is all great but are we ready for the transport equivalent?
I am glad you mentioned double decker trains because to me that mirrors the difference between Concorde and the 747. Is speed the cheapest way to increase capacity?
e.g. I can imagine doubling the speed of trains, perhaps tripling it – at what point does it become very difficult to increase capacity by increasing speed? Could you grow more by preparing the kind of track that would eventually allow double-wide, double-height trains rather than ones that go 4x as fast? Presumably you need to build new track in both cases but a 2w2h train could also presumably be made to go a bit faster if you built the track well to start with.
I would like to see options to capacity being discussed since that’s the crux of the issue – even if it’s only to show why they are not the answer.
OK, if it’s just a new route that’s needed then why does it have to be high-speed?
If the speed is just to make the route “suck up” traffic to free the rest of the network then why couldn’t it suck up that traffic with taller trains rather than faster ones?
Chaps, there are some very pertinent points here but I’m starting to get confused. Sticking a bullet train on a track used by normal trains is asking for trouble. OK, I hear you say, it will be on a separate track (will it, when they start the cost cutting measures, are you sure?) 200 miles per hour is OK cross country in the US or Australia but let’s face it, is the UK really big enough when the major cities are less than 200 miles apart. I just don’t get the speed argument and faster is not necessarily better. (Especially the way cars and pedestrians ignore red lights these days. We are talking about 50 BILLION pounds here, forget old hats and excuses, I vote for monorail, or for all those who don’t want an eyesore in their backyard, set the TBM’s boring now, technology can put picture screens where the windows should be (ALA BBC Breakfast News), it works in London and it would work here. Up here in the North we have plenty of disused coal mining tunnels that we could link in to. It’s not cloud cuckoo land, it’s the future and we have the technology. I too watch the Simpsons.
I thought there was a simple capacity increase achievable at very low cost and zero disruption by extending the trains and platforms?
I wonder what mileage of dedicated cycle tracks could be built for 50 billion.
Let’s just stop for a moment and consider the new arguments about capacity rather than speed. If we set out with this extra capacity as a design specification you would not design for 400kph. A slower design speed would give more routing options by allowing tighter bends. It would allow more stops and enable the new trains to serve more people and would mean lower energy cost per km. The only way HS can claim low(ish) energy/km is by having very few stops and that’s a pretty twisted argument. The only reason I can see for the high speed is that it sounds “sexy” and “modern” and keeps up with other countries. Personally, I am not convinced by projections of massive increases in rail use. I foresee a need for less business travel rather than more. HS2 is designed around 14-18 trains per hour in each direction – you can not be serious! (in the words of John McEnroe). It is time to stop the whole project and re-assess future infrastructure needs without deciding on the solution first and building the case afterwards.
Why not simply commission current trains/rolling stock to carry more seats (as opposed to standing space). You will need to re-build a few bridges but a lot of seats can be engineered between the bogies, but accept this is only a 30% or so solution. Bullet train in Japan is great and Japan is much the size of UK. Love the idea of a sub-terrain railway.
It’s difficult to understand how the estimated cost of this project can be so much higher than, for instance, Spanish high speed rail projects. Apparently the nearly 1000km line from Madrid to Levante has an estimated cost of less than £10bn. So, scaling this to the 150km between London and Birmingham would give a cost of £1.5bn. If we could complete this project for this cost then the decision to build the line would be a “no brainer” and all the above arguments would be irrelevant.
I suspect that the estimated costs for HS2 have been hugely inflated by management overheads and contingency provision. Get rid of the accountants and let engineers plan this project and we have a chance of it getting off the ground.
It seems to me that we’re spending 50bn on victorian technollogy. Steel wheels carrying mega tonnes on steel rails will take 2-3 miles to stop. Wouldn’t it be better to run a competition for new ideas.
Consider the options.
If you want a higher capacity network, you can:
(1) Lengthen trains. But sacrifice speed, train efficiency and require upgrading of certain track sections and bridges and all platforms.
(2) Add double decks to trains. But require new platforms, rails, bridges and tunnels.
(3) Increase train frequency, which means quicker trains, which needs new track…. or run more concurrently, which needs new track.
(4) A mix of the above.
In all cases, new sections of track (be it bridges, tunnels or wherever), will need upgrading. Doing this on lines that are in use would be extremely disruptive and would limit the new track (and stock) to retain compatibility with the old [which essentially, dates back to Victorian era requirements].
So, if your building new infrastructure – why not make it high speed capable? If its HS capable – why not take advantage of that?
Editor,
I am referring to silly civil engineering projects, like building nuclear reactors in earthquake zones, and upgrading railway lines that may never be used much in the future.
It is said that when any war breaks out the generals, to their nation’s cost, always try to fight the previous war again. The same can be said for one generation building a railway line, going from city to city, for another generation that has spent its youth communicating with cities all over the world, from the comfort of their bedroom. I have seen no mention of freight use on this line, so the only thing using it is people – who might not care for rail travel at any speed.
Have we not learned from Concorde that speed is not always the best thing for future travel projects?
Dear Stuart,
“the real need the line is supposed to address.”
How sound is that underlying premise? As far as freight is concerned, HGVs will always, logistically and on cost, do a better job than rail. That’s why the railways declined. A rational infrastructure strategy would invest in decarbonising road transport.
“The arguments are strongly dependent on the demand for rail continuing to rise.” Why would it?
Many would dispute the cost/benefit analyses offered to justify HS2. Given the cost of repaying the debt, it would be wise to invest limited state funds in projects that guarantee a return, AND benefit the WHOLE UK economy, not just the already prosperous regions.
Why are developments in energy infrastructure (even nuclear) subject to EU state aid rules, while building roads, bridges, flood defences and railways aren’t?
The core issue of HS2 is should it be financed by tax payers money ?
So by what criteria do we make that judgement.
1. National security
2. An essential service
Having failed the 1st 2 two key reasons for using public money we then should look at private financing.
3. Is the provision in the nation’s interest.
4. Will the provision be detrimental to existing services.
If this is such a good project, why are the cash rich global companies not rushing to support it ?
Do we really want to waste Billions of public money purchasing at inflated prices, parcels of disconnected land to the benefit of existing rich Earldoms ?
Examples to compare are the
M6 midland expressway
Every bye pass yet to be built where the purchased land remains neglected for years.
The private business failures like the banks and Rolls Royce, where the public move in.
Public business successes, which are sold off for a pittance, to private companies.
Its time all this sloppy thinking stopped.
Since 1980 the GBUK wealth creation has fallen and continues to be drained by the failed policies which are exemplified by the above.
If we want to drift back to a 3rd world status, where our shires will be neglected the expense of world status London capitol.
Then we are already on the way.
I would suggest that there are no voters for such a future.
That is why we must focus taxes on the essentials, and leave private finance to provide the luxuries.
Hospitals and Power stations are essential and the recent PFI’s and external investments push us further into 3rd world dependency rather than fair trade.
HS2 – YES to private finance, NO to tax payer finance
Hinkley Point 3, YES to tax payer finance and control, NO to foreign finance
The core issue of HS2, is should it be financed by tax payers money?
And if so, by what criteria do we make that judgement.
1. National security
2. An essential service
Having failed the 1st 2 two key reasons for using public money, we then should look at private financing.
3. Is the provision in the nation’s interest.
4. Will the provision be detrimental to existing services.
If this is such a good project, why are the cash rich global companies, not rushing to support it ?
Do we really want to waste Billions of public money, purchasing at inflated prices, parcels of disconnected land, to the benefit of existing rich Earldoms ?
Examples to compare are the,
M6 midland expressway
Every bypass yet to be built, where the purchased land, remains neglected for years.
The private business failures like the Banks and Rolls Royce, where public financed move in to prevent the disaster caused by private enterprise.
Public business success, which are later sold off for a pittance, to private companies.
Its time all this sloppy thinking stopped.
Since 1980 the GBUK wealth creation has falle,n and continues to be drained by the failed policies, which are exemplified by the above.
If we want to drift back, to a 3rd world status, where our shires are neglected at the expense of a world status London capitol, then we are already on the way.
I would suggest that there are no voters for such a future.
That is why we must focus taxes on the essentials, and leave private finance to provide the non essential.
Hospitals and Power stations are essential and the recent PFI’s and external investments push us further into 3rd world dependency rather than fair trade.
HS2 – YES to private finance, NO to tax payer finance
Hinkley Point 3, YES to tax payer finance and control, NO to foreign finance
Our Government won’t come clean over the real reason they want this project to go ahead. It has little to do with improving UK transport and everything to do with European Union infrastructure policy compliance. They are obliged to push it through. All hail our EU masters. And TEN-T.
UK & HIGH-SPEED RAIL: “GO BIG OR GO HOME!!”
Proper cost/benefit analysis of the current HS2 proposal requires taking a broad, and in-depth look at the long-term consequences of Britain empty-headedly adopting another country’s inventions and technologies for an integral— and extremely high-profile— component of the nation’s transportation system!!
If Britain wants to resign itself to being a third-rate country, and seen world-wide to be following the technological and innovation lead of countries like France and Germany… then HS2 in its current lazy, ambitionless and dangerously short-sighted format would be a good way to achieve this…
Because of the science fiction-like aspects of today’s high-speed train systems- and the resulting extensive international interest and scrutiny of high-speed rail- and because of the “global display window” that high-speed rail projects provide their respective designers/manufacturers… the UK, and UK plc generally, should be at the forefront- not in the back seat- of high-speed rail projects in the UK…
High-speed rail in the United Kingdom should be part of a much, much bigger agenda that explicitly addresses the need for a substantial increase in UK-designed public and commercial transportation products (and services) such as high-speed and urban rail, trams, high-technology buses, etc…
… products and services whose main purpose is the export market…
The only way that HS2 should go ahead is if there is a UK-wide plebiscite indicating support for the project and if the HS2’s parameters are expanded so as to make the project one that would command substantial ongoing global attention and one that would showcase the United Kingdom’s best high-technology firms
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
(Comment #2)
HS2 AS CURRENTLY PLANNED WILL IRREPARABLY DAMAGE UK AND UK plc!!
The only way that HS2 should go ahead is if there is a UK-wide plebiscite indicating support for the project and if the HS2’s parameters are expanded so as to make the project one that would command substantial ongoing global attention and one that would showcase the United Kingdom’s best high-technology firms:
A) the entire HS2 project should be expanded so that the route would be from Folkestone to northern England/Manchester/Leeds and to at lest 2 major cities in Scotland and to Northern Ireland/Belfast via a world-beating undersea tunnel;
B) A substantially expanded HS2 project should be built on a timetable designed to impress and to generate international confidence in the UK’s industrial capabilities and economic potential- no less than 9-years!!;
C) The rail gage of HS2 should be 25%- 40% bigger than that used by the Continent’s high-speed rail systems and that used between Folkestone and Brussels…
Broader gage track would enable the design and use within the UK of much better, bigger high-speed trains that, because of the wider track that they would run on, would be capable of being designed for significantly higher speeds than France’s TGV and Germany’s ICE high-speed rail systems…
Having high-speed trains in use in the UK that are substantially more spacious, better equipped and faster than Continental firms’ high-speed trains (Alstom, Siemens)… could only increase the likelihood of countries that are considering building high-speed (and other types of rail systems)- such as India, Brazil, US, Canada, etc- choosing bigger, better, faster ‘UK high-speed train model(s)’ over competitors’ products…
…. which would do far more to generate UK jobs with UK-exports-as-their-primary-purpose than would the UK going with HS2 in its current un-ambitious, slavish format… a format that will end up functioning as a defacto country-wide-advertisement for foreign countries’ high-technology and transportation expertise…. and implicitly ridiculing British companies’ capabilities…
D) HS2 should be built as a partnership and/or joint-venture between the UK’s best and most capable high-tech firms (BAE, Rolls-Royce, GKN…) with proven-as-competent overseas transportation industry companies such as Hitachi, Kawasaki, Hyundai/Rotem, Bombardier…
E) UK Voters should be enabled to vote via plebiscite on the HS2 project as to:
– whether it goes ahead;
– the entire HS2 route, IE: should HS2 run throughout the UK- to Scotland and N Ireland?;
– HS2’s rail gage- IE: should HS2’s track width and passenger cars be bigger. better and faster than existing high-speed systems world-wide?;
– time-for-construction for the entire HS2 project, IE: should HS2 be built in a foreseeable time-frame… less than 9-years??
______________
Roderick V. Louis,
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Okay…we DO need new infrastructure and HS2 could well provide some of it.
What IS desperately needed, should it go ahead, is an experienced group of contract negotiators and overseers to take the project forward and not the usual bunch who award PFI contracts. The big 4 management consultants that advise government are notoriously wrong with their calculations so lets then set the budget at £50bn, get the design work settled and then hold contractors to the agreement with suitable penalties for over runs.
Appoint independent civil engineers to control the quality of work to ensure the tax payers get some reasonable value for money for once.
Past experience has shown that Government is way too close to its consultant advisers for comfort and politics gets in the way usually at a huge cost to the taxpayer.
We need to completely overhaul transport and communications in this country from top to bottom to bring us into the 20th century let alone the 21st.
Lets make a start but keep a firm financial and quality control over the whole project.
FraserWilson. Do what I did on bigger jobs. Employ Procurement and Contract specialists, Break it down into a number of smaller projects, Do it again and you have ‘bite-sized’ pieces that can be auctioned to the various Consultants, Engineers, Builders and Engine/Coach makers. All it needs is a set of ‘performance parameters’ governing the various ‘fixed’ elements. Max speed, rail guage, train length, power used and delivery et al.
And for heavens sake, fix the goalposts and keep the politics out of it. If necessary make it all governed by an ‘Act of Parliament’ .
No need to go as far as “anonymous” suggests, and to build only the northern bit of HS2.
Build the whole thing, but start “oop north”. After all, they don’t vote Tory that much, so you can ignore the peasants’ objections. But as they are more sensible north of Watford, the NIMBYs won’t be so shouty.