Posted 8th November 2011 | 10 Comments
Transport Committee backs plans for High Speed Rail
MPs on the House of Commons Transport Select Committee have given their support to the building of a High Speed line between London, the Midlands and the north of England.
In a key report published today, the cross-party group says the government has a 'good case' for building a new line linking London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester.
It does have some reservations. These include the need to provide 'greater clarity' about the proposals, the assessment of alternatives, the financial and economic case, the alleged environmental gains, connections to Heathrow and justification for the route currently proposed.
The Committee is also warning that it would be 'unacceptable and counterproductive if investment in HS2 led to a diminution of investment in other parts of the rail network'.
It is not convinced, however, that upgrades to the existing 'classic' network would provide an acceptable alternative to HS2, as demand for rail travel continues to rise, saying: 'while the alternatives proposed by groups such as 51m offer substantial additional passenger capacity, they are not of the same scale as HS2. The rapid growth in passenger numbers over the past 15 years shows the need to plan on a larger scale and for the long term'.
It continues: 'We do not wish our successors to be faced with a situation in ten years’ time where demand has continued to grow but insufficient time remains to provide the necessary capacity. We call on the Government to set out a clear and comprehensive long-term strategy for transport and the place of high-speed rail within it'.
The Committee also feels that the level of planning for the second phase of the 'Y' network, which consists of two major spurs from a junction just north of Birmingham, with one route continuing to Manchester and the other Leeds via the East Midlands is not enough, saying that 'The case for investing in a high-speed line between London and the West Midlands depends largely on the assumption that the full Y network will be completed.
'While we can see that the benefits of a more extensive high-speed rail network, embracing Manchester and Leeds, are likely to be greater than those of the London–West Midlands line alone, it is disappointing that even basic information on the Y network, such as the number and location of stations, was not available during the public consultation or during our inquiry. We believe that there should be an urgent strategic appraisal of phase II before a final decision on phase I is taken.'
The report from the Committee is doubtful about the environmental gains which have been claimed for HS2.
It says: 'These claims do not stand up to scrutiny. At best, HS2 has the potential to make a small contribution to the government’s carbon-reduction targets. Given the scale of the expenditure and the official assessment, HS2 should not be promoted as a carbon-reduction scheme. However, if the government’s primary aim is to meet and reinforce demand for interurban travel, HS2 will produce less carbon than an expanded motorway network or a reliance on domestic aviation.'
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Angus, Edinburgh and Surrey, UK
Hmm, cost/benefit analysis and CAPACITY. The HS2 spec should be modified to allow the approx 12in/300mm wider body shell loading gauge as used in China (Velaro + CRH), Japan, Russia (Velaro), Taiwan and the USA (Acela). Comfortable first class 2+2 seating and standard class 2+3 seating would then be possible. These countries use such rolling stock for a reason - CAPACITY. Isn’t that why we are building this line? It should be the primary focus, while we also benefit from a high speed product at the same time. Someone at HS2, the civil service or the government has assumed and not thought. Wide body shell units are no less standard or costly a product than the European loading gauge products and made by almost all the same manufactures.
Significant capacity improvements over and above the current HS2 spec can be made at little extra cost, 25% for single deck second class, 33% for single deck first class, and if using the same gain ratios of TGV single deck to duplex, just over 75% (2nd class) and 100% (1st class) if a wide bi-level rolling stock design such as the Shinkansen E4 was used compared with a single deck UK unit. Apart from supply increasing to enable lower ticket prices, it importantly can release train paths, and so intermediate stations are possible to allow stopping trains to accelerate and decelerate into the released train paths. The result could mean that we would effectively have doubled the total north south capacity compared with the capacity offered by both the WCML and ECML. Suffice it to say on 21 Nov 11 I emailed this suggestion to variety of MPs on the Transport Select Committee, local MP and government ministers, and still await a reply; however my local MP has confirmed he sent the letter on to the DfT. European gauge or classic network gauges can still be used, just fit some extending steps (eg Eurostar) or slide out 6 inch platform from the doors of the standard width trains to bridge the 150mm increased gap between the train and the platform. This is simple, simple stuff. We’ll probably have only one go at the building of a north south HS line in a generation, so future proof the design at least to allow the aerodynamic and physical separation of the wider body shell loading gauge.
Although Russia and the USA don’t use the 2+3 seating arrangement in standard class, they still gain the 33% improvement in first class and increased internal comfort in standard class. The UK should be grabbing with both hands any potential design that can increase capacity as we have a population and geographical layout far more like Japan and Taiwan than Europe. We must lock in the extra capacity improvements available via wide body shell designs by designing it in now; otherwise we will make the usual mistake we have always done in this country, not being bold enough. Does anyone really believe we’ll be able to build another brand new HS north south line north from London - ever? So change the spec now and accommodate the needs of those who will be directly affected by the routing of the line appropriately.
Dean, st albans, England
Why not have extra stations?
If they make the main corridor 4-track, adding stations at Amersham/Banbury then locals will have full access to it and there will be less opposition. Think of the extra value to be added to the already high prices of chiltern homes when they get a 15 minute link into London?
The "regional HS" services could then run through to Kent when the HS1 link is built (which should be double and not single track)
I agree with the high-speed line in principal but they have to acommodate all the people on the route and future proof services.
The whole world has grown up around it's railways, I don't see HS2 being any different. Make it so that they keep the fast Intercity services but have regional services running on tracks outside the main ones.
This corridor has the potential to be a massive growth area due to commuting possibilities to London and Birmingham and one that everyone should wise up to.
Lutz, London
Two many stations would undermine the proposition if they lead to a lowering of the average speed of the line, and this is a key design parameter of the existing proposals.
Tony Pearce, Reading, UK
The committee raises questions that need answering before this project proceeds. Are we really certain that the costs are as stated ? Are we convinced that this project will have no bad effect on other rail investment schemes ? Business people do not have to travel,- they can use video-conferencing, mobile phones and the Internet to stay in touch with others. Rail travel may not keep on increasing but go into reverse. Firms are cutting huge amounts off advertising - they may then cut huge amounts off their travel bill. None of us sure what the future holds at all. Investment in rail infrastructure during a recession is economic sense, but small scale investments may well be better than huge projects.
nick, welwyn herts
in france shouldnt the people wanting stations be called IMBYS ?
i agree that if people in the chilterns are to be adversely affected by the lines construction that it is quite reasonable that an interchange station be built where it crosses the east west line. This needs to be reopened as a 1OO mph double track electrified railway ASAP. That way passengers from Milton Keynes, Oxford, Bicester etc can transfer to hs2.
I also dont see why flyovers could not be built to connect the kenilworth coventry line and also the birmingham coventry line to hs2 to provide direct links to hs2. an onward connection via nuneaton or tamworth could connect to the midland main line and up to the east coast line at leeds. this would require all lines to be electrified of course.
Steve, Luton, UK
Indeed, the station TGV Haute-Picardie is known as "Gare des Betteraves", i.e. "beetroot station" because it lies in the middle of the countryside, more than 20 miles from the nearest major town (1 bus connection an hour), spartan TGV service, and no local feeder trains either. Parkway stations are useless without good local connections.
What could be achieved to integrate local and through traffic is an HS2 station near Aylesbury that could be connected into the forthcoming East-West rail link between Oxford-Aylesbury-Milton Keynes-Bedford. Not only would the local Chiltern area benefit from a parkway station (and thereby being a little less hostile to HS2 running through their backyard), but also it would emcompass a wider catchment area.
Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
High speed railways are about transporting large numbers of people between large population centres so the comment about building a station in the Chilterns which is basically in the middle of nowhere just repeats the mistakes the French made!!
As Lord Adonis has said many times HS2 needs to be done as a single project so the real question is Cameron deliberately doing this piecemeal as his real intention is to kill off HS2 but has to pretend otherwise to keep his Lib Dem partners on board?
If HS2 was planned as a single project then Network Rail could factor it into its upgrade plans on an on going bases when it comes to bridge `replacements but to do this it needs to know where it will eventually go!!
Jules, Lowestoft formerly Westhoughton, UK
One criticism of TGV and HS2 is that they are not "inclusive" that is they only serve a few areas, and do not bring (quality) rail services, perhaps even new rail services, to areas previously without them. In any event I do not see TGV lines peppered with stations which hold up traffic. The Picardy TGV station, served by very few trains, has decent passenger usage (for France) and yet it is not served by trains to Paris! This was done presumbably to avoid extraction from Amiens and other towns/cities. As it happens I would like to see a station at (say) Brackley because it needs one not for the Nimby compensation argument
Watcherzero, Wigan
In France it got to the point the Nimbys demanded a station in every town it passed near or they would refuse permission. TGV nowadays describe caving to that pressure their greatest mistake.
Jules, lowestoft, uk
The committee do not appear to have considered the "lack of stations" issue. Some have voiced concerns about there being no station in the Chilterns (at Brackley or Calvert) - some wanting a station as some form of compensation for the line going through their area. The debate has not got to the level of France where eventually a TGV station was build in Picardy after local/national pressures. A relatively minor point but I think one which the committee might have mentioned along with the Heathrow issue.