HS2 Action Alliance Blog

Rate this post

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  

Professor Begg welcomed ‘A Better Railway for Britain’ with a raft of misrepresentations on his website. He fails to notice that the paper is concerned with wider issues than HSR, realising that this would require going beyond repeating DfT arguments. Instead he deploys the tactic of constant repetition as a substitute for the actual position.

This is hardly surprising as Philip Hammond seems to be hanging his case on the rail alternatives not being able to deliver the required capacity, despite the plain fact that they can.

1 The 51m proposal would not damage reliability.

Begg says that running more trains on the WCML fast lines would damage reliability. But he neglects that running trains with the same speed characteristics (rather than the current mixed traffic) will not worsen reliability. Indeed eliminating pinch points would improve reliability to off set any such tendency slightly more intensive operations might have.

But why believe us? – Well, because that is what the government’s own consultants advising DfT say – ‘even with higher levels of train frequency the rail packages may enhance train performance at network level’!

The real problem is with HS2 not the classic network. HS2 Ltd propose to run services on the Y at a level of intensity yet to be achieved anywhere in the world for HSR – and with junctions and a service pattern that make it particularly difficult. The evidence is that no-one seems to believe it is possible – and if HS2 Ltd’s Chief Engineer, Andrew McNaughton, now has evidence that says it’s possible, then why persistently refuse to make it public?

2 Upgrading existing lines would not create chaos for commuters

Professor Begg should say that the works that HS2 involves on the existing network would create commuter – and long distance passenger – chaos. Rebuilding Euston will reduce services for seven to eight years! It will reduce available platforms during construction from 18 to 14.

HS2 Ltd and DfT seem at odds with each other too over this. In their further submissions to the Transport Select Committee, HS2 Ltd argue that existing services can be run with the fewer platforms in use (despite their earlier statements to the contrary), yet DfT query whether just three more services per hour could be accommodated without more than the 18 platforms!

The works for the rail alterative can have only a minor effect. The southern part of WCML is already cleared for 12-car operation, and the long distance trains already have selective door opening, greatly limiting the platform works required. The Caledonian Sleeper (operated by Scotrail) already runs on the WCML from Euston to Scotland in 16-vehicle formation, so there can’t be too many problems!

3 Alternatives would produce a better service

WCML trains stop at stations (like Birmingham New Street) that are well connected. HS2’s new stations (like Curzon Street) will lack decent connectivity with public transport, and parkway stations say it all in the name!

The acute overcrowding in the peak on the Northampton, Milton Keynes, Euston commuter trains would be relieved perhaps 10 years earlier that with HS2.

The suggestion that the stopping patterns would be worse with the alternative is setting the facts on their head – HS2 trains bypass pretty well everywhere! And while HS2 would release capacity on the classic network, running full services for bypassed cities and towns would require a huge uncosted on-going subsidy, and just won’t happen. Far more likely the spare capacity would be used to run competing services – that would push costs up and fares down increasing the huge subsidy even further.

And in case anyone forgets, it is the affluent who use long distance services – even Philip Hammond reminds us that rail is a rich mans toy. Subsidising them seems the wrong priority when painful cuts to public expenditure are necessary.

It is true that the alternative will not produce such large journey time savings. But they are simply not worth the cost – particularly as the DfT have vastly over-estimated the value of such time savings –because they fail to take notice that the world has changed over the last ten years, and people can now work on trains.

4 Alternatives would deliver sufficient capacity and are a solution for at least the next 35 years

Professor Begg quotes the 215% increase in capacity, but says that most of it comes from already committed government schemes. In fact a 92% increase is available anyway and 127% comes from the proposals. This is much more than HS2 Ltd’s demand forecast of about 102% to 2043. So greatly more capacity can be created than is required for the next 35 years.

There is nothing ’short term’ about the period that this would meet our forecast needs. But the great advantage of the rail alternative is there is no need to waste money creating capacity (unlike with HS2) unless it is actually needed, as it can be done in stages as required.

Professor Begg then implies that some of the Intercity trains on WCML are not long distance, as he has given some new lower figures for the increase in capacity on long-distance services. To be clear the 215% increase in capacity and the 139% increase in peak capacity are exclusively on the Intercity trains – that is excluding commuter trains. Similarly the 151% increase in capacity with RP2 is just on Intercity trains. All the Intercity trains travel between Euston and Birmingham or further.

Begg says that HS2 would run 1,100 seat trains with 18 trains per hour. He implies that Network Rail support this, but they have assumed in their own work that such a line is capable of carrying only 14 trains/hr (like everybody else!). And while 1,100 seat trains may meet the demands of Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, trains travelling onto the classic infrastructure (eg to Scotland) would have half the capacity and less than that of the trains they would replace! HS2’s provision of capacity simply makes no sense against their forecast demand.

Begg refers to Network Rail saying that WCML will be full by the mid 2020s. But if one reads Network Rail’s WCML Route Utilisation Strategy, its pretty clear that – with no further action at all – only about 5% of trains would have standing in 2024 – and that is with the 19:00 price cliff still in place, not using the spare off-peak train path and not lengthening the rest of the Pendolino fleet to 11-car.

5 Alternatives are not costly and bring the required benefits

What is the evidence for saying that infrastructure changes would not be justified for a 1-car train lengthening?

Professor Begg thinks that lengthening most WCML trains to be 12-car would require huge infrastructure works that he says have not been studied. But this is detailed in Rail Package 1 in the Atkins work published by DfT in March 2010. There is also the fact the Caledonian Sleeper operates in 16-car formation on the WCML. Atkins in fact found that there is actually very little work that needs to be done, and much that they do identify could be avoided by minor operational changes.

Professor Begg suggests removing first class carriages would reduce earnings. This misses the point that the WCML Intercity services now have more first class accommodation that is needed – which is now sparsely occupied. The point is that converting one first class carriage to standard class would have no impact on first class revenue but increase standard class accommodation – which is where overcrowding arises.

Professor Begg cautions on the risk of over-runs in the cost of upgrading the existing infrastructure. But the alternative has very little infrastructure work, so again the real risk is with HS2. And there is indeed massive potential for cost over-runs on HS2.

But there is of course no need to consider cost over-runs to demonstrate that HS2 is a waste of over £30bn.