Posted 10th January 2012 | 15 Comments
High Speed Two plans get broad welcome
THERE HAS been a welcome in many quarters for the High Speed 2 plans announced by transport secretary Justine Greening today, but anti-HS2 campaigners are vowing to continue their opposition to the £32 billion project, which will eventually link London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds with trains travelling at up to 400km/h.
The first section between London and Birmingham is to open in 2026, with the branches of the 'Y', onwards to Manchester and Leeds via the East Midlands, due to follow in 2033. A formal consultation on the second phase routes will begin in early 2014, with a final route chosen by the end of that year.
Although the London-Birmingham route has now been decided, following last year's consultation, it has been revealed that there have been some changes to the plans over the past few months, in a bid to take account of some of the environmentally-based opposition.
The Department for Transport said around 36km of the route will now be in tunnel or green tunnel – compared to 23km at the consultation stage – and another 94km will be in cuttings. A further 64km will be on viaducts or embankments – a reduction of 16km from the consultation route.
ATOC chief executive Michael Roberts said: “HS2 is a vote of confidence in the railways and recognition of the vital role the industry has to play in supporting jobs and driving sustainable economic growth.
“HS2 would help to alleviate the capacity crunch on many of our major rail corridors and offer the prospect of shorter journey times between London and other major English cities. It would also allow for faster and more frequent local services in areas between London and Birmingham, as space is freed up on existing lines.
“By deploying the best of British design and engineering in the construction of the high speed line in Kent we struck the right balance between national and local interest – we can do the same again with HS2.”
The Liberal Democrats said the announcement was 'excellent news'. Julian Huppert, who is co-chair of the Liberal Democrat Parliamentary Party Committee on Transport, said: " It will make life easier for passengers and bring huge benefits to the country as a whole, generating economic growth and creating jobs.
“This project will also improve national capacity for rail freight. Finally rail can be seen as a realistic alternative to the road for moving freight. This has the potential to take heavy goods vehicles off our major routes. This project will also improve connections further north and up to Scotland, so it is important that the Government starts planning for the next phases soon."
Not surprisingly. the announcement was also greeted warmly by groups who have been campaigning in favour of a domestic High Speed network.
Key figures from the regional consortium Go-HS2, which include Birmingham City Council, transport authority Centro, Birmingham Chamber,
NEC Group, Birmingham Airport and Marketing Birmingham, said the go-ahead for the project meant thousands of jobs and a multi-billion pound boost for the West Midlands economy.
Mike Whitby, who is leader of Birmingham City Council, said: “The go-ahead for HS2 provides probably the single most important opportunity for economic growth in this region for generations."
The RMT union sounded a warning about what it feared could be some of the implications, and called for complete public ownership of the new lines.
The union's general secretary Bob Crow said: "No one has fought harder for the investment and modernisation required to drag the UK’s railways out of the slow lane than RMT and development of high speed links must be a key component of our rail plans. However, any attempt by the Government to pay for these developments by cutting jobs, services and investment elsewhere in the system, along the lines set out in the McNulty rail review, will meet with the stiffest resistance from RMT.
"RMT is also demanding that High Speed Two be built, owned and operated in the public sector free from the greed and profiteering of the private rail companies."
The DfT said the business case was still good, despite the effects of the economic crisis, and put the cost of the project at £32.7 billion. It expected the complete 'Y' shaped network to generate benefits of £47billion and fare revenues of up to £34 billion over 60 years.
But opponents are continuing to challenge the government's economic argument, suggesting the costs will be greater while the economic benefits will be lower than forecast, and that the business case for HS2 is too optimistic about future growth in demand for long-dtstance rail travel.
Emma Boon of the TaxPayers' Alliance said: "High Speed Rail will leave generations of ordinary taxpayers paying for a train set that will mostly be used by the rich. We can't afford £32 billion for this project right now. The business case is fundamentally flawed and the Government have vastly inflated the benefits of HSR to the regional economy while hiding the true costs of the project."
Joe Rukin of Stop HS2 agreed. He said: "There is no business case, no environmental case and there is no money to pay for it. It's a white elephant of monumental proportions and you could deliver more benefits to more people more quickly for less money by investing in the current rail infrastructure."
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Miles, Londom
@ Michael
You state having you high speed rail network would be "far too logical". As much as I love planning high speed rail networks on Google Earth, your plan is teetering towards totally insane.
HS1: yup, done.
HS2: ok a HSR running along the south coast seems nice, but these trains won't be able to get very fast considering the short stops between cities. Plus do Portsmouth and Brighton really need H'S connections to the continent?
HS3: would be in excess of over 100 miles, trains travelling from regions to the Tunnel will have a shorter journey going straight through London rather than around it, rendering any HSL ring around London pointless.
HS4: what happend to that one?
HS5: You will probably find the quickest route from London to Dublin would probably be to tunnel from somewhere like Holyhead, not south west Wales. And why make a new tunnel from Kings Cross to Stratford?
HS6: Fair enough, but I assume the tunnel won't go as far as Liverpool
HS7: another Irish Sea tunnel?
HS8: Bloody hell.... Ok, another London to Scotland route but via Reading?
HS9: probably the only one we need, but how many WCML and ECML parallels have you already proposed?
HS10: a third Anglo Scottish route, sub surface all the way?
HS11: couldn't we just electrify the exising route and use class 390s?
HS12: I don't even understand this one...
So we have 3 Anglo Scottish routes, 3 tunnels from Britain to Ireland and two Channel tunnels? I I'm sorry if I'm being overly critical, I do appreciate your proposal, but let's not get our heads stuck in xlouds. We musnt make the same mistakes as France and Spain and build countless HSLs that are grossly under used.
John Gilbert, Cradley, England
The 'Nimby' concept is a British one, not found to any degree outside these shores - except perhaps in Commonwealth countries populated by ex-Britons. In France the citizens of Amiens rioted BECAUSE THE LGV WAS NOT GOING TO COME THEIR WAY; in the UK we do the opposite - moan, whinge, groan. It is surprising we aren't still living in caves and painting ourselves blue.
This railway is to bring to UK closer together, yet the Chilternites are quite prepared to ditch the whole thing to suit their selfishnesses. So much for the south-easterners caring a jot about the rest of their nation. I read references to British Engineering. All well and good - we need jobs in the north especially - , providing the plans are drawn up by the French or Japanese who have experience dating back decades. No more of the UK trying totally unnecessarily to reinvent the wheel.Let's learn from those with the nous.
david c smith, milton keynes, UK
Perhaps the real debate needed is on just what detailed form this project should take, rather than simply "whether or not".
Chris Reynell, Longstock, Hampshire.
"The French TGV High Speed Network requires a subsidy of £500 million a year" sounds good value when compared with the true cost of motoring which appeared in a magazine article.
Apparently, as a motorist I benefit from a £1,000 net subsidy (or investment) per year, or thereabouts.
This study recognises fuel duty and includes all of the costs of UK government and local authority highways and transport departments, police and rescue services, death and medical costs due to motoring accidents and airborne pollution, environmental costs etc.
How many motorists are there in the UK?
Tony Pearce, Reading, UK
Most of the Victorian railways in this country turned out to be hopelessly uneconomic and had to be closed long before Beeching. I believe we need less centralisation on big cities and more development of places such as Worcester or Bristol. This means improving our ordinary Main lines rather than building new High Speed lines. (Just for the record I am a Eurotunnel shareholder and frequently use High Speed trains on the Continent). Britain is a small island with most of its population living in the South. It is wrong to compare the UK with its European neighbours.
Thomas Hampton, London
Get real people, it will never be built. Because? Rising costs, recession causing a dip in passenger numbers wrecking the business case, wider economic crisis derailing the economy, political changes at next election, legal challenges, organised, powerful and affluent opposition in the Home Counties, cost of massive disruption of works at Euston, realisation it will need huge ongoing subsidy to run, need I go on. Its the rail equivalent of third runway. Good lig for surveyors and consultants tho until the axe falls.
Michael Turberville, London, UK, EU
When in a Recession/Global Depression - that is the BEST time that a local, regional, National, or SuperNational governmental organisations should be borrowing money!
Think of it in terms of the Channel Tunnel - Built in Great Economic times 100% financed through government backed business loans with a consortium of Banks, over £10 billion pounds borrowed in the 1980's at over 15% Interest rate on the loans! Oh it was great for the banks and bankers because they are getting in excess of 15% interest.
In a Recession, where money can be borrowed, as much as we could possibly borrow for 2%, or even 3%... but the banks do not want to loan Large amounts at that rate over 30 to 50 years because... It does NOT make them MONEY. So they have the public hoodwinked into thinking that during a recession- Absolutely NO money what so ever should be borrowed for 'Investment' in Infrastructure. When in fact - this is the MOST Ideal time to be borrowing money for everything and anything. And yeah the debts will be left to our grand or great great grand children... SO WHAT. If anyone was actually taught History, the ENTIRE BRITISH EMPIRE was bankrupted in World War Two to the tune of £250 MILLION. It was such a massive amount in 1945, that the IMF, the World Bank and a few other organisations had to be 'Created' to loan that amount of money. So paying the 'Interest only' on that loan - it was 1% if anyone is actually interested... and the principle was paid off today... 250 million pounds is the price is a modest home in central london, a bentley, a large diamond ring, a footballer's salary/transfer fee. To many in the world the debt that bankrupted the UK in WW2, is 'Pocket Change'. So yeah leave it to others to pay in 30 or 40 or 50 years time because even with minimal 2% inflation... that will make no matter how much is borrowed that seems enormous... your great grand childs daily school pocket change!
The level in fiscal ignorance is beyond stupid in the UK. It is seen as there are only X amount of money (biscuits in the tin) and when they are all gone... there is nothing left. In a financial world, when money is needed, it is simply created. We need to stop allowing small minded people who can not balance a cheque book determine what national budgetary expenditure should be!
Stephen, Warrington
However much the politicians talk they are prisoners to their civil servants and their own vanity and ineptitude. This project has reached such a stage that it cannot be modified. The "changes(?)" are only cosmetic to try to satisfy the concerns of some Tory MPs and their voters affected by the line through their constituencies.
The whole consultation period has been a farce. Nothing of importance (and fundamental cost) has been looked at and solved.
I accept that a new rail line is necessary, at least up to the Midlands but only as part of a wider High Spèed network. This should correct deficiencies in the height and width of the present lines while into the bargain providing more capacity and freeing up paths on the WCML (or MML or ECML).
However, the unnecessary expense of building a useless station at Old Oak Common and running a tunnel into Euston have not been avoided when the line could run directly into Paddington thus saving millions.
The "interchange" station in Birmingham is well away from Birmingham International airport duplicating facilities and necessitating the use of a (God forbid the awful name) "people mover".
The assumption is made that many High Speed trains will finish at Birmingham when ALL of them could continue on to destinations further north, be they Wolverhampton or Glasgow or wherever, running over the conventional(classic) lines until such time a High Speed line is built.
Even the supposed connection to HS1 through the bottleneck of London shows a lack of thinking. I often wonder if any of these MPs get out of their cars and actually use public transport. I very much doubt it.
As has been pointed out elsewhere, if you have to pay a premium for this service the airlines (or VIRGIN TRAINS for that matter) will just dump seats on to the market to sink the project.
This project, in its present form, is exactly the same as the Labour one thrown back at us after being "Max Factorised" by the Tories with no fundamental changes to attack the criticims of it. Let the Tory MPs affected by it throw it back at the government.
George Davidson, Newport, wales
So, does this mean that UK Government policy regarding the railways has been wrong for about the last 30 years and that we should have started to build high speed lines about the same time as the French? Remember how the government said that due to a higher population density and land prices that we would develop tilting trains that could use conventional tracks? Years and millions were spent developing the hopeless Advanced Passenger Train only to see the Italians then successfully bring such a train into service.
All that disruption (& cost) upgrading the West Coast mainline must surely now be regarded as a monumental mistake? The government of the day should surely have started the high speed lines project instead and as each phase was completed, then have done more minor upgrading to the old routes for use by local trains.
I am concerned about the planned use of extensive cuttings and tunnels. Even on conventional trains, when they enter tunnels, there can be a considerable pressure wave. It certainly affects my ears and can even cause pain. Then we have the issue of cuttings with vegetation whizzing by at close range. This can be a bit hard on the eyes compared to crossing a more open landscape. With many tunnels, the lights will surely be left on in these trains - unless they can find a way of them going on/off with automated sensors on the front and rear. I hate it when the lights are left on as it prevents me from seeing the countryside clearly due to reflections from the interior. This is especially bad on Voyagers as some bright spark decided to give them shiny cream coloured seat backs.
As somebody else has remarked, the landscape in the home counties / midlands is by and large man created. It in no way compares to the scenic areas found in much of Wales & Scotland.
Let us hope now that the Government will plan further extensions of the high speed lines and place a block on building houses etc. on any likely routes. For instance, when Birmingham > Leeds is complete, they might consider Birmingham > Bristol with a spur crossing the Severn to Newport & Cardiff.
No wonder Cameron is trying to force the issue over Scots independence. Presumably, if they want to opt out of the UK, he will not want to spend taxpayers money connecting Scotland with the south via high speed rail lines?
Paul Martin, York, England
I'm actually at a loss, so many great comments on other topics about this and yet all I can think about it how £32bn could be spent on the existing network and what it could do.
Tony Pearce, Reading, UK
The French TGV High Speed Network requires a subsidy of £500 million a year. I presume that the British HS2 will require a similar amount. If so where is that money coming from ? The Taxpayer, Network Rail's Budget or Higher Fares ? I still have an awful feeling that this will be bad for the rest of the Network in due course. Politicians will never let the HS2 Line fail because of loss of face. So something else will have to give.
Paul, London, England
Emma Boon 'a train set mostly used by the rich'. When was the last time she travelled on a train ? Yes there are the well healed but i see many families and students.
We can't afford this right now, she says but I am sure Ms Boon would take the money a tax cut...
And all this smokscreen about no business case. The future cost of not building HS2 alone is worth teh investment.
These people are stuck in the dark ages (or perhaps stuck in their cars on a motorway somwhere), and object to any change or progress, or optimism !
Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex, England
No doubt the No brigade said the same when Brunel and Stephenson started thir railways with tails of people being shaken to pieces if they travelled at the excessive speeds of 8 MPH!!!
As for affordability well fact is we cant afford not to build HS2 as our railways are already almost full and with oil likely to keep on doubling as it becomes scarcer then rail will be the only option.
First step needs to be to get on with the upgrade of Euston Station and its tube links ahead of HS2 given how antiquated the station is compared to nearby Kings Cross/St Pancras and soon Blackfriars and London Bridge stations.
Richard Davidson, Swindon, UK
This is fantastic,
A (mostly) Tory led government actually building a new railway line rather than getting rid of them. Is this actually happening?
This is long overdue, and we need more High Speed to Scotland, the West Country, Cross Country Routes avoiding London!!
May this herald a new railway revolution.
HS1 is Superb. All the arguments sadly are hot air, as the existing railways will become full as the cost of fuel increases.
All we need now are the jobs on HS2 to start trickling down to us engineers!
Michael Turberville, London, UK, EU
All the NIMBY's who do not want HS2 because it would blight their 'area of outstanding natural beauty' - fact is when I look at the region of land I could not tell you a single aspect that makes it 'outstanding, or natural - it is a man made landscape' - FACT.
Additionally, anyone who has watched the hogwarts express steam train going over the viaduct (the one in Scotland on the Ft William Line) - has the distinction of being the MOST ICONIC image of British Railway Engineering of the entire Victorian Era. But in it's day, it had NIMBY's who did not want it built saying it would ruin the glen's and hill's etc etc etc.
IF the NIMBY's really wanted to made a difference, they would say, add some portland stone or granite facade's to the viaduct and over passes and anywhere else it is visible so that it fits in with their puriticanical view of what sort of 'Man Made Scenery' they find acceptable.
The point of the transition to PDL's is because like it or not - Fossil Fuel's are running out and more and more alternative need to be put into place.
To put in simple terms for simple minds, if we have HS2 approved, where is HS3, HS4, .... to HS12? Because with 12 HS PDL's - we could totally eliminate all internal UK Flights!
Would people rather have a Proper High Speed Train Network where Nowhere in the UK or Ireland is more than THREE hours from central London, or Five hours from Paris?
WHY are we limiting our nation to just TWO high speed lines???
We have HS1 - tick. done
We could do with
HS2, portsmouth, southamption, brighton, ashford, and onto the tunnel under the channel.
HS3 - the airport interconnector, a loop, LHR, LGW, a station in what will be the thames gateway int airport, stanstead, luton, and LHR. This can spur off with other HS's it crosses to go to Birmingham international, Manchester int and bradford leeds and up to edinburgh or glasgow.
HS5 - Belfast, dublin, under sea cut/cover tunnel, swansea, cardiff, bristol, swindon, reading, LHR, and a new subsurface tunnel with station under st panc/kings cross and carrying on to join HS1 at stratford
HS6 - Dublin, liverpool, manchester, york the a Y to onward destinations.
HS7 - Dublin, Belfast, Glasgow, Edinburgh
HS8, the stratford, (new tunnel to st pan/kings cross station), LHR, Reading, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Glasgow/Edinburgh
HS9, old ECML, WCML and great midlands built in parallel.
HS10 - the new subsurface from west to east - stratford, standstead, cambridge, nottingham, manchester, blackpool, scotland
HS11 - plymouth, bristol, cheltenham, birmingham, liverpool, manchester, leeds/york?, new castle, scotland - pushing all the way to inverness
HS12 - the east / west under london that goes to LHR, st pan/kings cross, stratford, thames est new airport, to be carried on to another set of chunnels to be build as the current ones are at capacity. there are 2 main bores and there should be at least 6, 2 for freight, 2 for le shuttle/eurostar, 2 for eurostar.
This is a proper world class HS PDL network! Fit for the 21st and 22nd Century with trains running at 500kph so that even Inverness to London is under 3 hours!
Tickets would be charged on a logical basis - purchased on the day 15p per km, advanced purchase 10p per km, with discount (student, oap etc) 10p per km - and a return is 5p extra.
OH this is probably far too logical as to have such a network even contemplated we would have to live on the planet Vulcan with 65million Mr Spocks to get Logic in Transport!