Posted 7th April 2014 | 19 Comments

HS2 'should be slower' -- and may cost more

THE cost of HS2 could rise by almost a quarter by 2019 according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

The forecast has come amid calls for the speed of trains on HS2 to be reduced to 300km/h. At present, trains are scheduled to run up to 350km/h, and the line itself may be 'future-proofed' for speeds of up to 400km/h.

The lower speed could be accompanied by environmental benefits, although journey times would naturally be longer. With 350km/h available on parts of the route, trains between London and Manchester are intended to complete their journeys in 1h08m when phase 2 is open. At present, the best time on the 'classic' West Coast Main Line is two hours, and most trains take 2h08m.

However, a new report from the House of Commons Environmental Audit Select Committee says that "the Government should examine the scope for requiring a reduced maximum speed for the trains until electricity generation has been sufficiently decarbonised".

The Committee has also sounded a warning about the threat to biodiversity along HS2's route, saying that "The 'mitigation hierarchy' lies at the heart of the Government's approach to environmental sustainability. At each successive step down the hierarchy, the degree of environmental protection is diminished. The hierarchy should be followed in developing HS2, but the Government has significant work to do to demonstrate that this approach is being applied, given the environmental damage current plans envisage to ancient woodlands, SSSIs and local wildlife sites, and the possible significant harm for particular species affected."

The report has fuelled the debate about how great the environmental advantages of HS2 will be, by commenting that "there is some debate about whether HS2 will deliver a reduction in emissions by taking travellers off the roads and planes. But at best, the savings are likely to be relatively small. The carbon footprint of the project hinges on emissions from its construction as well as from the operation of the trains, and that raises issues about striking a balance between minimising emissions and minimising disruption to communities and habitats, for example by using cuttings and tunnels which involve greater emissions in construction. Perhaps a bigger issue is the potential effect of the decarbonisation of the generation of the electricity used by the trains; a matter that has been largely absent from the HS2 debate so far."

MPs on the Committee have made it clear that they expect their conclusions to be taken into account as the Hybrid Bill continues its progress through Parliament, by warning that "we hope and expect that the Government will do so. If it, or others in the House, do not, we will seek to ensure that that an appropriate instruction motion is tabled."

Meanwhile the cost of the £50 billion project could be set to rise significantly, according to the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, although the fact that this budget not only includes some £7 billion for trains but also a contingency margin of £14.4 billion suggests that the predicted rise could be contained within the existing contingency allowance. The RICS is predicting that tender prices in civil engineering are set to increase by 24 per cent before the end of the decade, affecting not only HS2 but other rail infrastructure projects.

Joe Rukin of StopHS2 said: "When the committee asked how the environmental impact of HS2 could be minimised, we told them the only thing you could do, besides cancelling the project would be to slow it down. The design speed of HS2 has been plucked out of the air to make the business case work, but that comes at a massive cost to the environment."

Reader Comments:

Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.

  • Lloyd Weaver, Harpswell

    Air travel pays it's own way, is faster and more more flexible (where they can go), and new aero tech will have a higher PMPG than trains can deliver. Also, tains are very disruptive to the environment.

    The UK needs lower cost wind and new IGCC coal power. Combined 50/50 they equal NG in CO2 emissions (if that is important to you). But wind power at $4533/KW is over twice what it should be off shore. Start over with your designs and pricing. LEW USA

  • Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

    Alan Robinson, the High Speed UK proposals are reasonable ones, but I'm afraid you are very naive if you think that will get any less opposition. The opposition to HS2 is mainly coming from four sources: groups like the IEA (who are anti-rail), London journalists (who are anti-spending outside London), people who live along the route (who are anti-development on their own patch) and some greens (who are anti-not sure what but it's something to do with fat cats isn't it?). An alternative HS network will still have the opposition from three of those groups, and will simple replace one group of Nimbys with another.

    A different HS network might have been a workable starting point in 2009, but to switch to that scheme now would set the whole thing back five years. And we don't have five years.

    Tony Pearce: Yes, acceleration is a major factor in energy consumption. That's why HS trains have a similar energy consumption to normal trains - they don't have the speeding up and slowing down that intercities do when juggling their paths with the commuter trains, and this offsets the air resistance from the higher top speeds.

    I'm still calling the bluff of everyone threatening an army of Swampys. If only 200 people could be bothered to turn up to the protest against the First Reading, how many are going to bother to camp for weeks? And even if they do turn up, did they or didn't they stop the construction of the Newbury Bypass?

  • Roshan, Leeds

    Peter Storey makes a good point. Future proofing is definitely needed, and the lines and trains should be capable of 350km/h+ speeds. But for the foreseeable future the speed should be limited to 300km/h, until electricity has become decarbonised and rolling stock technology improves so that aerodynamic noise, energy consumption etc. is reduced at higher speeds. If the trains are capacble of slightly higher speeds then making up journey times like how Peter Storey suggests would be necessary. We have to make sure that HS2 is the most advanced transport system in the world in terms of technology.

  • Peter Storey, London

    Reliable short journey times, I would suggest, is paramount for the new network. The quicker the journey the more attractive it will be to more passengers. Reliability is another important factor so a maximum line speed of 350kph is desirable but most trains should not run at that speed except when trying to recover lost time. The ability to recover lost time improves reliability standards. Most Eurostar trains do not need to run at full line speed in order to arrive on time but the possibility of running at up to 300kph when needed makes the service more robust.
    The total cost of building the line is likely to change over the build period but we should not get too hung up about this provided it is not excessive. This new network is likely to be used well into the next century and any overspend now on worthwhile additions will soon be forgotten is time moves on. How many people now are still concerned about how much it cost Brunel to build The GWR?

  • Tim, Devon

    In Devon the GWR is limited to 50mph (for the most part) ;-)

  • Roshan, Leeds

    I'd like to point you to information from these two sources:

    An Evaluation of Maglev Technology and Its Comparison With High Speed Rail - Vuchic and Casello.

    High speed, energy consumption and emissions - UIC, Page 11.

    400km/h speeds will not improve journey times by that much and will increase energy consumption by a lot. One of the beauties of rail travel is that it is electric and does not emit much CO2, but the current HS2 plans will. 400km/h speeds should be out of the question, and even 350 is pushing it. I think 320 is good, with the track designed to withstand 400km.h speeds.

  • Roshan, Leeds

    Of course I believe that the HS2 tracks should be designed to operate very high speeds like 400km/h, but the trains themselves only need to be run at 300 to 320km/h. Higher speeds - think about aerodynamic drag - will surely mean higher costs and much, much higher energy consumption, and for rail to be a sustainable transport this needs to be low. Safety, maintenance and track wear issues will be more prevalent.

    Note also that the UK's cities are quite close together - higher speeds will not reduce journey times by a significant amount. In any case the journey time benefits reduce as speed increases. There is a reason why most countries limit speeds to 320km/h.

  • Alan Robinson, York

    Here we go again. Why is HS2 challenged so much, so often, by so many people? Because it's a very poor solution to the problems it's supposed to solve. There is at least one far better alternative, and it's called High Speed UK.

    Putting HS2 on hold while going back to the strategic consultation phase (which never happened!) need not delay delivery time because HS2 as proposed will far longer to to build than it should.

  • Tony Pearce, Reading

    Most of the trains electricty use is in acceleration - something you can all prove with your own car (providing you have a MPG indictor on your dashboard). Watch how your MPG drops as soon as you put your foot on the accelerator. Energy costs are going to spiral. The Government accepts this and has already signed deals for the new Nuclear Power Stations which assume that in real terms the price will be double todays price. However you haven't really mentioned that the Environmental Nature Assessment is only about 40% complete, and it is a legal requirement under EU law (again I believe). Watch out for legal action if this assessment isn't completed. I am also informed that when the line starts, some of the Protestors will take to camping in the trees and living underground in the path of HS2 - just as they did for the Newbury By-pass.

  • Melvyn Windebank, Canvey Island, Essex

    Imagine of Brunel had restricted his GWR to 50 mph after all no one would ever travel faster than this now will they ...!

    Engineering a line for a speed is not necessarily the speed trains will travel at but it gives leeway if higher speeds become possible or economic without the need to spend a fortune upgrading the line like the money wasted on London DLR which has twice had large sums spent on it to allow longer trains when it should have been built originally with growth allowed for.

    Anyway capacity remains the real reason for HS2 with speed being the bonus prize to spread the distance that rail beats air and road and thus grabs more of the market from these really high pollution modes of travel!

  • Roger, Darlington

    Want to save money?
    Stop all the talking and get on with the job! Phase 1 is in a position to be developed NOW, so DO IT! More money will be wasted by prevarication than slowing the trains down.

  • Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

    "So slower speeds on HS2 should equal cheaper running costs - which should benefit the passenger."

    Fuel costs currently account for about 4% of the costs of running a train service. So any cost savings from running a train at slower speeds will be tiny, and that's before we consider whether you'll need a bigger rolling stock fleet to provide the same level of service.

  • Guy Tallier, Bryanston

    The SNCF had wisely restricted the speed of the TGV to 320 km/hr; their long experience in high seed trains has shown:
    - high wear and tear of the track over 350 km/hr;
    - 40% more energy to ride at 350 km/hr;
    - over 300 km/hr the aerodynamic noise is predominant.

  • John Gilbert, Cradley

    Bravio Mr Porter! Even business people want to look out of the windows sometimes!
    Of course the cost may rise. EVERYTHING rises. More scare tactics by the NIMBYS again. The point is that costs must be rigorously controlled so that the rise is minimal. And this depends on the efficiency of those responsible. Have we really no spine in the UK any longer?

  • Chris Neville-Smith, Durham

    Sadly, StopHS2 have left it at least three years too late to push for a slower line. At the time, they might have made a good case. The DfT claims that a slower line would only costs 10% less, but that claim was never properly scrutinised, nor was any research done to see if a curvier alignment could affect less people. They might have got a few pro-rail allies on board, such as Mark Smith on Man in Seat 61 who supports new lines but questions the need for a 400 km/h alignment.

    Now, however, that's going to be near-impossible to promote. All the slect committee is saying is that speeds should be slowed down UNTIL ELECTRICITY IS DECARBONISED. So that means, at the most, that trains would go a bit slower on the same alignment - and only do that temporarily. Even if you could win the argument that there's no need to keep options open for a faster speed later, and it's better to have a line that avoids more sensitive locations, that would set back building for three years or so whilst the consultation phases are started all over again. And we cannot afford to wait another three years.

  • Michael, London

    WTF??
    HS2 should be built for 500kph capacity - yet again only the UK builds railways for the Victorian ERA instead of Engineering for the 21st Century.
    Crossrail tunnels under London, if they had been built apx 1 metre larger diameter, freight or double decker or night service Eurostar/TGV etc trainsets could have used the tunnels between midnight and 5am.
    When I asked years ago, why the tunnels were built to restrictive loading gauge? The reply was: so in future the rolling stock can be cascaded to other parts of the UK Network! It has to be the stupidest reply I have ever had from a government department!

  • David Cook, Broadstone, Dorset

    Reducing the speed of the trains is pointless if done to save electricity, as more trains will be needed to transport the same number of people within a given time period, more trains means more electricity, and more environmental impact from the production of the extra trains. The amount of rubbish spouted from Stop HS2 that the country has to wade through before getting built is the main reason that costs will increase. The report into future cost increases is not an excuse to slow it down, it is the prime reason to get it finished asap. HS1 is a prime example of the brilliance of our engineers today, whilst Dawlish is an example of the speed of which todays engineers can repair tracks which are not resilient due to problems left over from Victorian railways. If anyone is happy to keep using our existing Victorian network without new railways, they can come down to Southampton over Easter and do the journeys I have planned between here and Portsmouth. A few days on replacement buses will soon instill into them the reasons why it is better to build a complete new railway rather than do some giant patch, upgrade, and mend on the main line from London/Birmingham/Manchester. Of course, once HS2 is complete, then is a prime opportunity to close sections of the old route and divert trains whilst upgrades are done. But what makes sense to any independent observer is not going to wash with any rabid Stop HS2 mob........

  • Tony Pearce, Reading

    The figures I have seen put the current proposed HS2 trains Carbon Footprint very slightly higher than Flybe's Dash Turboprop aircraft which are the backbone of internal flights in the UK. When trains have a bigger footprint than planes you really should be concerned. The so-called timing for HS2 between Birmingham and London is from the second the train starts to stop at the other end. The time of a journey should include realistic loading and un-loading time as well. For those of you who use Eurostar, you must be aware that a journey time also includes the huge walk along the train at either end, before you even get to load luggage and find your seat. Most major hauliers now limit their vehicles to 50 mph. This is because journey time does not decrease very much at 70 mph but it doubles fuel consumption. So slower speeds on HS2 should equal cheaper running costs - which should benefit the passenger.

  • Richard Porter, Maidenhead

    If we want to reduce carbon emissions we should scrap all the unnecessary tunnelling which nly adds drag. In any case we should be proud of our railways - put them on viaducts and embankments; don't bury them.