Posted 14th January 2014 | 11 Comments
New HS2 assessment promised for March
THE incoming chairman of the Government's High Speed rail developer HS2 Ltd has started work formally today, and one of David Higgins' first acts has been to reveal that a new assessment of the scheme will be sent to the transport secretary within two months or so.
It has also been announced that 2,000 apprenticeships will be created at a new college to train HS2 engineers.
David Higgins is now executive chairman of HS2 Ltd, but he also remains chief executive of Network Rail until the end of February, when his successor Mark Carne will take over.
The new HS2 report will re-examine the whole project, and pay particular attention to the timescales to see if construction can be accelerated. The possibility of starting work in the north much earlier is also going to be examined in detail.
David Higgins said he was keen to ensure that there was a close relationship between HS2 Ltd and both Houses of Parliament as the main Hybrid Bill wends its way through the Parliamentary process.
His brief includes a key responsibility to bear down on costs, with the aim of using as little of the contingency budget of £14.4 billion as possible. The official total cost of both phases is still £50 billion, but that includes all the contingency reserve and also some £7 billion for rolling stock.
He told the BBC: "The first thing I want to look at is the overall deliverability. Time: can we make it quicker? Can we get benefits to the north earlier? And then how can we deliver it most effectively? Hopefully that will deliver cost savings."
He also moved to deny the often-heard claims of HS2 opponents that the High Speed rail budget would attract most of the money available for rail investment over the next couple of decades.
"It's not a case of 'we're going to build HS2 so the existing network will suffer'," he said. "There will be around the same amount of money spent every year on the existing network as will be spent on HS2. The most important thing is integrating those plans."
In a related development, it has been announced that there is to be a new college from 2017 with 'cutting-edge technology and state-of-the-art equipment' to train engineers for HS2, although no details have been given of a possible location. The new further education site is expected to provide 2,000 apprenticeships.
Business secretary Vince Cable said investment in HS2 should also come with investment in the skills which will help build it. He explained that the college would "train the next generation of engineers in rail, construction and environmental studies that this country needs to prosper".
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Tony Pearce, Reading
The only profitable bit of our Railway is around London and the South East. Apparently all these lines cover their costs. Its probably because this part is so over-crowded population wise (most dense in the EU) that car transport is not a valid option in many of the areas. You need to build lines that have benefits for that region and provide environmental benefits. I have seen no figures that people north of Manchester want or would use a fast line to London. It would not be profitable and drag the finances of the railway down. Apparently trains on a HS2 would be limited to 90 mph for the tunnel section to north of Aylesbury, and only be running at top speed for around 5 minutes before slowing down for Birmingham. Why not run it at a fairly fast speed and include a couple of stops where 'rich' people live and would pay good money to travel fast and non-stop to London.
Graham, Basingstoke
During evenings and weekends then it would be possible to run classic trains on HS2, however given the WCML is 4 tracked in most places there is probably little benefit from doing this (especially if the WCML gets bi-directional signalling) as the vast majority of people could use a HS2 service anyway.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England
"Its costs are huge compared to the guessed benefits."
The expensive bit isn't making the line high-speed, it's weaving we line through large numbers of urban areas, and all the tunnels, viaducts, cutting and mitigation measures involved. Compare the cost per km of non-HS Crossrail against the new LGV from Tours to Bordaeux (rural, lightly populated, flat ground) to see what a difference that makes.
Either you bite the bullet and fork out for a new line, or you put up with the consequences of trains packed to standing indefinitely. There is no happy medium.
Tony Pearce, Reading
I accept the argument for a bypass for the over-loaded WCML from Birmingham to Euston. That can be achieved with a fast but conventional railway. By conventional I mean that all other services such as Pendolinos can be switched to it if there are problems or maintenance on the other WCML. I still think a High Speed Network in a small island like the UK is irrelevant, - a total Vanity Project. Its costs are huge compared to the guessed benefits. Its as out-of-date as Concorde was to Flying. High Speed rail in China is so different to that of the UK.
dogsauce, Leeds
Has there been any proposal for double-decker trains on the route, as used in France? The line will be to continental gauge so presumably these could be accommodated, which will provide better capacity?
(Yes, there has, but no rolling stock decisions have been taken yet. Incidentally, there is no such thing as 'continental gauge', but a set of them. The French loading gauge was traditionally the smallest in Europe, apart from ours, which is why you have to step down into a TGV duplex, while the floor is more or less level with the platform in Belgian and Dutch double deckers. HS2 will be built to UIC GC gauge, which is more generous than the prevailing French standard.--Editor.)
Joe Grey, Folkestone
The costs of building a new station are huge - with the intensive line usage long loops would need to be added to get the stopping trains out of the way as they slow down, stop and accelerate back up to line-speed. I had assumed that there'd be a case for an intermediate station at Brackley with sufficient trains stopping there for it to be worthwhile - the town is not currently rail-served (so no good for connecting onto local trains but would be very useful for the local populace) and it has good road links to the M1 and M42. But I suspect that the problem there would be it would abstract traffic off existing parallel routes, and fill up expensive high-speed long distance train seats with short distance commuters, and thus reducing long distance capacity and reducing ticket revenue. And even with platform loops, it would reduce the operational performance on a line that is trying to squirt 1,000 person capacity trains from the north to London every 3 minutes.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham
For what's it's worth, if it was up to me, I would build an interchange between HS2 and East-West rail. With 18tph and double track, stations on the trunk route are only an option if all trains stop there. There aren't enough people in Aylesbury alone to justify a stop, but an EW-interchange would put the entire Aylesbury line one change away from the HS2 network, plus all the places served by EW-rail, like Oxford and Reading, and possibly a use as a parkway station too. Between them, that's a large catchment area.
However, that's largely in the hands of Bucks County Council. At the moment, it seems they would rather maximise woe and misery to their own county and rubbish the idea that people want to go on trains rather than make any attempt to extract benefits out of Hs2. If they'd pushed for a station in Bucks when Cheryl Gillan was in government, they would probably have got it. They didn't, and their chances are slipping away. They only have themselves to blame if it doesn't happen.
James Pritchard, Southampton
Building stations for "two fast trains a day" doesn't make any sense. The development costs would be huge, and unless they were constructed with fast through lines, I would imagine that even those trains which didn't stop would have to slow right down, adding to journey time, if not energy and emissions as well.
les burge, leicester
It really is about time we got started on this project ,Starting at both ends at the same time.Cut the red tape and get on with it.
Tony Pearce, Reading
If I could influence the re-think I would ask for a more environmentally friendly top speed, say of 160 mph. This would add maybe a couple of minutes to the overall time. I would also ask for a few more stations, - say at Aylesbury and Kenilworth. I can't see why those 2 towns for example couldn't have 2 fast trains a day to London. At the moment those communities are getting nothing out of the new line except hastle. The stations would also provide many more passengers from a London Commuting area. I await the rethink report with interest.
Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex
What are the odds that the Antis won't read beyond the first paragraph and make up their own nonsense to fit this paragraph !
While calls to build from the north first are just delaying tactics by those against HS2 .
The reality is we now have to continue with two stage legislation with stage 1 in this parliament and stage 2 in the next but Sir David Higgins should be given the option of work starting on stage 1 by 2017 as planned but for work on stage 2 to begin soon after legislation is passed in 2020 with perhaps the route from Manchester taking priority as it will free up local lines with which long distance trains have to share in the Manchester area.
Sir David Higgins also has to bring together HS2 and Network Rail investment so when both projects meet construction can happen on both at the same time even if bridge installed won't be used for another decade or more at least users of live railway won't suffer more engineering closures to put in said bridge at a future date.
Finally , looking at a report on Sky News today about how they have build High Speed lines in barely 5 years with trains that seem to have seats that reassemble armchairs and which can be reversed direction at end of line like old trams then we need to seriously consider if building HS2 to a faster timetable would reduce overall cost of the project ?