HS2 - Government proposals, alternative routes and general discussion

[whole diary]

[Lee]

Network Rail and Passenger Focus have published a joint report entitled "Future priorities for the West Coast Main Line", in the wake of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) - http://www.networkrail.co.uk/hs2-wcml.aspx

[Lee]

From Railnews:

Report confirms benefits of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) for West Coast line

PASSENGERS on the West Coast Main Line, one of the busiest rail routes in Europe, could benefit from faster, more frequent trains, less crowding and better connections if the first phase of the proposed High Speed line between London and Birmingham goes ahead as planned, according to a new report from Network Rail and watchdog Passenger Focus (see post above - Lee).
 
The report says one of the biggest groups to benefit would be commuters travelling between Northampton, Milton Keynes, Watford and London, where the worst overcrowding is forecast in the coming years as demand for rail continues to grow. Initial analysis suggests up twelve trains an hour could operate on this important outer suburban route.
 
Other key beneficiaries would be passengers travelling between the major towns and cities of the West Midlands, and also between London and destinations in the Trent Valley. There are also likely to be opportunities to improve connectivity between the south end of the route and towns and cities further the north as well as more room for goods to be moved by rail.
 
Passenger Focus surveyed more than 5,000 current passengers and almost 1,000 potential new rail users, highlighting the key priorities for the capacity which would be released if HS2 is built.
 
PF^▸ (Penalty Fare) chief executive Anthony Smith said, "Passengers know that with more people using the West Coast Main Line it is only a matter of time before capacity runs out. If a new line was to free up this much-needed route passengers, especially commuters, have signalled they want to be able to get seat as well as more direct services."
 
Passenger Focus added that passengers clearly stated first and foremost they want to be able get a seat. Direct services were also high up the list of priorities for both current passenger and potential users.
 
Network Rail group strategy director Paul Plummer said: "The West Coast Main Line is Britain^s busiest and most economically vital rail artery ^ but by 2024 it will be full, with no more space to accommodate the continued predicted growth in demand."
 
The conclusions of the report have been welcomed by the Association of Train Operating Companies.
 
ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)'s chief executive Michael Roberts commented: "HS2 would not only help solve a looming capacity crunch for people travelling between our major cities. By freeing up space on the existing West Coast Main Line, passengers in towns such as Rugby, Milton Keynes and Northampton could benefit from improved local services and better, more frequent connections."

[JayMac]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Stop HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) group 'to pursue judicial review'

Campaigners against the ^33bn high-speed rail project (HS2) are to seek a judicial review of the government's decision to approve the scheme.

The first phase of HS2, between London and Birmingham, is scheduled to be running by 2026 and be extended later to northern England.

The government said last month it would create jobs and growth but campaigners said it would damage the environment.

Stop HS2 said it was seeking evidence that the decision was flawed.

The line will first connect London to Birmingham, passing through rural parts of Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire. It will then go on to Manchester and Leeds and include stops in the East Midlands and South Yorkshire.

Passengers will be able to commute from Birmingham to London in 49 minutes, reducing the journey time by almost half from one hour and 24 minutes.

Joe Rukin, from Stop HS2, said it had until April to lodge the challenge and estimated costs would be about ^100,000. The group represented more than 70 other smaller action groups based in areas stretching from north of Euston up to south Staffordshire, Mr Rukin said.

Various organisations, including councils, environmental groups and action groups, would be involved in challenging the decision, he added.

"There will definitely be a judicial review, it just depends who leads it," he said. "The intention is to make the legal challenge as co-ordinated as possible. We have a few months to lodge it and we estimate the cost will be around ^100,000."

'Great consideration'

"Of course, it [the review] will take as long as it takes and cost as much at it will cost."

He said they were also now speaking to other groups and councils further north and wanted any evidence from all groups and residents that they felt demonstrated the decision was flawed.

Confirming the rail route would go ahead last month, Transport Secretary Justine Greening described the line as "the most significant transport infrastructure project since the building of the motorways".

A spokesman for the Department for Transport (DfT^» (Department for Transport - about)) said the new network would provide passengers with more seats and connections as well as jobs and prosperity "for the entire country".

"This is not a decision that we have taken lightly or without great consideration of the impact on those who are affected by the route from London to Birmingham," the DfT said in a statement.

It said the route struck "the right balance between the reasonable concerns of people living on or near the line, who will be offered a generous compensation package, and the need to keep Britain moving".

[paul7575]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

Stop HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) group 'to pursue judicial review'

Stop HS2 said it was seeking evidence that the decision was flawed.

I predict they'll get absolutely nowhere with that ^^. 

DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) will have met all the requirements for consultation, that's why they employ so many staff, and take so long to make any decisions...   

Paul

[EBrown]

From BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)

HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) rail alternatives no solution, MPs^▸ (Member of Parliament) say
Alternatives to the High Speed Two (HS2) rail link would not solve the capacity problems on Britain's railways, MPs say.


The 90-mile first-phase of HS2 would be built between 2016 and 2026


A report by the Parliamentary Inquiry into Britain's rail capacity says only the high-speed rail network can create the extra capacity needed.

The MPs found that alternatives, such as incremental upgrades to the existing network, would not be sufficient.

Opponents of HS2 say the report looked at a "limited" set of alternatives.

In January, the first phase of HS2 was given the go-ahead by the government, despite strong opposition from campaigners opposed to the environmental damage they say it will cause.

Phase one, between London and Birmingham, should be running by 2026, with the rail link later extending to northern England.

The report is the culmination of a four-month inquiry by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for High Speed Rail, with representatives from all three of the main political parties.

The group saw submissions from 60 stakeholders within and outside of the rail industry.

A panel of MPs took evidence from 11 witnesses during two inquiry sessions.

The report concludes that:

^ The rail network is close to being full as passenger numbers predicted for a decade's time are currently being reached

^ Railways are seeing growth at over 5% despite the recession.

^ Alternatives to HS2 would not meet peak demand, and would do little to help local services or freight

^ The risk of under-providing capacity are severe and are much more serious than the risks of over-providing

Graham Stringer, co-chairman of the parliamentary group, said that claims that "piecemeal upgrades" of existing lines can create sufficient capacity have been proved wrong.

He added: "All of the available evidence makes clear that the very running of our railways is under threat as we fast approach total saturation on some of the major trunk lines.

"HS2 remains the only proper and practicable solution to creating sufficient long-term capacity for Britain's railways."

Penny Gaines, chairwoman of campaign group Stop HS2, said: "The writers of the report appear to have looked at the issue through... a very narrow set of filters, and compared a very limited number of alternatives."

She added that the growth in "telepresence videoconferencing", which she said was reducing the number of long-distance journeys over all modes of transport, had not been taken into account.

Chris Howe, director of HS2 Northwest, said that the group agreed with all the findings presented by the report.

"The alternatives fail the northwest on capacity grounds. HS2 is a crucial lifeline for the north-west and midlands."

[JayMac]

Tonight's (12/04/2013) BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) Newsnight had an in-depth report largely from the point of view of those that will be directly affected by the building of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)).

Worth a watch on BBC iPlayer http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01rw1j9/Newsnight_12_04_2013/ where it'll be available to view shortly and for the next 7 days.

My personal take. I've probably got one foot in the anti- camp. Although neither side of the argument has me fully convinced. Is the capacity needed? Can the country afford it? Should the money be spent countrywide on existing infrastructure? Flip side. Building for the future. Prestige project. Economic benefits.

And for those directly affected, losing one's home matters, as does having your property blighted even if you don't have to move. NIMBYism or not. In the Newsnight piece the point is also made that, unlike other such large infrastructure projects, many of the communities through which the line runs will not directly benefit from it. There won't be a station in the area for them to use.

[John R]

And for those directly affected, losing one's home matters, as does having your property blighted even if you don't have to move. NIMBYism or not. In the Newsnight piece the point is also made that, unlike other such large infrastructure projects, many of the communities through which the line runs will not directly benefit from it. There won't be a station in the area for them to use.

But if you take that view, the M4 would never have been built, nor would the railways that we already rely on today. It's inevitable that any major infrastructure change like this will result in people being displaced and homes blighted. The question should be "Is this the right thing to do, for the country?" and if it is then the answer is to ensure that those impacted are adequately compensated. Though I would agree that the current plans have so few stations that it does result in whole regions feeling that they have all the pain and none of the gain, and that probably is tactically unwise.

I noticed that Have I Got News For You tonight has a new opening sequence, including HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) ripping through the countryside but then avoiding a stately home that I suspect is in Cheshire. Proof if it were needed that HS2 is clearly a mainstream public issue, and is likely to be so for many years.

[ellendune]

Is the capacity needed?

In short yes - not perhaps tomorrow, but if you look at the growth figures on rail use there will become a time when it is needed. And since it is going to take such a long time to build then we must start now. Remember this is not all new travellers, but a modal switch from road to rail.

Can the country afford it?

There are several answers to this question:

1) Somehow cross rail at half the price for one city is affordable (as well as another crossrail 2), but HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) at twice the cost to benefit the whole of the North and Scotland is according to the opponents not affordable.  Is this equitable?

2) Even right wing economists accept that money spent on infrastructure does benefit the wider economy because:
  a) It reduces public expenditure from those no longer on the dole.
  b) The workers have money to spend some of which pays for service jobs (who in turn spend some of their money etc.)
  c) If improved transport encourages less movement to the south it will reduce the increase in house prices in the South, benefiting our economy which has to pay higher wages than other countries to support our very high housing costs.

Should the money be spent countrywide on existing infrastructure?

Spending money on existing infrastructure can only achieve some of the benefit. 
1) Taking out pinch points can only achieve so much. This will probably need to be done anyway before the line is completed (e.g. the new junction at Stafford)
2) The WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) is really two railways (i.e. 4 tracks). On this trains run at three speeds (non stop express trains, semi fasts and local stopping trains - goods trains can largely fit at the same speed as one of these). To get the maximum capacity you therefore need three railways so all trains aon a railway run at the same speed.
3) If the existing lines had to be widened through the towns and cities (to build a third railway) on the way there would be hundreds more houses needing demolition.
4) The non stop trains do not need to go through the towns (as the semi fasts and local trains do in order to serve the stations there) so the logic is to build a new fast line.

Building for the future. Prestige project. Economic benefits.

If oil gets too expensive transport will start to shift mode at a much greater rate and we will need more capacity or our economy will nose dive (even by present standrads).

And for those directly affected, losing one's home matters, as does having your property blighted even if you don't have to move. NIMBYism or not. In the Newsnight piece the point is also made that, unlike other such large infrastructure projects, many of the communities through which the line runs will not directly benefit from it. There won't be a station in the area for them to use.

Loosing your home clearly does matter. However relatively few people are actually loosing their homes.

I have less sympathy for those who are running themselves up into a frenzy about noise from trains some distance away making their houses unsaleable. Sounds too much like the arguments when railways first came and from HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel).  Honestly is living near a high speed line that bad.  I use to live right next to a commuter line and sometimes not remember whether I had heard a train that morning. I much rather that than live next to a Motorway.  PS I do live no more than a mile from a Motorway.

[JayMac]

I take all those well made points on board ellendune. As I said, I'm slightly in the anti- camp, perhaps because of where I live. HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will only ever be an alternative way for me to head to the Midlands and later to the north. The rail enthusiast in me will of course enjoy the opportunity to travel at 200mph plus in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).

Regarding oil. Electrification on a much wider scale than already promised/budgeted for also has to happen. I just worry that the cost of HS2 will swallow up so much of the available funding that further electrification of the existing network will be a low priority. Not because it's not needed, but because the money isn't there. The danger is that the peripheries of the network will become even more peripheral, relying on Diesel rolling stock for far longer than is economically sensible.

Hand in hand with much greater electrification than already planned/promised is of course the generation. We need those new build nuclear power stations. Another political hot potato subject to NIMBYism. Although I'd have no problem with the Oldbury site being used for a new build. Can see the old nuclear power station from my front door.

[ellendune]

I take all those well made points on board ellendune. As I said, I'm slightly in the anti- camp, perhaps because of where I live. HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will only ever be an alternative way for me to head to the Midlands and later to the north. The rail enthusiast in me will of course enjoy the opportunity to travel at 200mph plus in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom).

Regarding oil. Electrification on a much wider scale than already promised/budgeted for also has to happen. I just worry that the cost of HS2 will swallow up so much of the available funding that further electrification of the existing network will be a low priority. Not because it's not needed, but because the money isn't there. The danger is that the peripheries of the network will become even more peripheral, relying on Diesel rolling stock for far longer than is economically sensible.

Hand in hand with much greater electrification than already planned/promised is of course the generation. We need those new build nuclear power stations. Another political hot potato subject to NIMBYism. Although I'd have no problem with the Oldbury site being used for a new build. Can see the old nuclear power station from my front door.

As rolling stock comes up for renewal the economics of electrification bend further in its favour - after all the HST^▸ (High Speed Train) renewal coinciding with signalling renewals is what put GW^▸ (Great Western) to the top of the list.  In short electric trains are cheaper to buy and operate and therefore above a certain train frequency it is cheaper to electrify.  The price of oil will be another factor determining the economic frequency.

Glad to see someone supporting carbon free generation in their back yard we have to build it somewhere or the lights will go out!

[Southern Stag]

I just worry that the cost of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will swallow up so much of the available funding that further electrification of the existing network will be a low priority. Not because it's not needed, but because the money isn't there.

At the moment though it isn't a choice between HS2 and further investment in the classic network, it's HS2 or nothing. If there were alternative proposals for WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) capacity relief being considered then I might well be swayed by them, but at the moment the only WCML, and also with HS2 phase 2 ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), capacity relief proposal is HS2, so I'm in favour of it.

[ellendune]

I just worry that the cost of HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) will swallow up so much of the available funding that further electrification of the existing network will be a low priority. Not because it's not needed, but because the money isn't there.

At the moment though it isn't a choice between HS2 and further investment in the classic network, it's HS2 or nothing. If there were alternative proposals for WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) capacity relief being considered then I might well be swayed by them, but at the moment the only WCML, and also with HS2 phase 2 ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), capacity relief proposal is HS2, so I'm in favour of it.

The problem is that alternative proposals for capacity relief on WCML all seem to be on line and would therefore impact on far more people. Also we all remember how much disruption the last WCML upgrade caused do we really want that over again - but disrupting even more people!

In the Newsnight piece the point is also made that, unlike other such large infrastructure projects, many of the communities through which the line runs will not directly benefit from it.

"not directly benefit" is the key. We need to remember that one way of increasing capacity is to remove stops on local and semi fast trains. So more people will benefit from HS2 than realise it. (e.g. Rugby, Milton Keynes etc.).  Of course those in the Chilterns still do not benefit but we need to remember we are country not just a collection of villages.

[Electric train]

One thing we have been very poor at doing in the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is thinking strategically when it comes to transport, the canal were a hotchpotch and the railways that followed were the same, even the road system followed Roman roads, granted there was some thought to the motorways but only some thought.  HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) is strategic there is no getting away from that the UK will need it in 15 to 20 years time

[johoare]

Loosing your home clearly does matter. However relatively few people are actually loosing their homes.

I have less sympathy for those who are running themselves up into a frenzy about noise from trains some distance away making their houses unsaleable. Sounds too much like the arguments when railways first came and from HS1^▸ (High Speed line 1 - St Pancras to Channel Tunnel).  Honestly is living near a high speed line that bad.  I use to live right next to a commuter line and sometimes not remember whether I had heard a train that morning. I much rather that than live next to a Motorway.  PS I do live no more than a mile from a Motorway.

Living in Maidenhead we have both a High Speed rail line and a motorway running through the town... In my experience it doesn't make houses unsaleable and in fact means that some people can buy bigger houses than they could otherwise afford if it backs onto the railway/motorway... I imagine these houses are harder to sell, but not unsaleable...and yes the price will go down, so some compensation could be due to the people likely to be affected similarly by HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) because of that..

I guess there must be some houses near where the railway/motorway cross each other in Maidenhead that have the benefit of both motorway and railway noise too 

[paul7575]

... If there were alternative proposals for WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) capacity relief being considered then I might well be swayed by them, but at the moment the only WCML, and also with HS2^▸ (The next High Speed line(s)) phase 2 ECML^▸ (East Coast Main Line) and MML^» (Midland Main Line. - about), capacity relief proposal is HS2, so I'm in favour of it.

Indeed a number of alternative capacity relief proposals were considered in the lead up to the original decision.  One of the documents issued with the original HS2 plans under Adonis was all to do with possible improvements to the existing route, or the Chiltern route, and IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) they even considered increasing capacity to Brum via Oxford.

As far as DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) are concerned, alternatives have definitely been considered and decided against.  Also, wasn't it one of the many objector's claims ruled against in the recent judicial review decision?

Paul