Christian Wolmar in the TSSA Journal 8th March:
'Towards the end of this month, we will get the governments White
Paper based on the work by the HS2 team which will set out a route
between London and Birmingham down to the last few inches. Everyone
apparently wants a high speed line. The Tories, the Libdems and
belatedly Labour have all embraced the idea. Environmentalists say it
will be green, the CBI says it will be good for the economy and the
unions reckon it will create jobs.
There is much excitement among the media stimulated by squabbling
between various towns in the Midlands and the North about where a line
should go. The Sunday Times even ran a story complaining that the
Tories had not funded the line north of Leeds and therefore it might
not even go to Scotland.
It looks, therefore, like a no-brainer. Given the political consensus
and the universal approval, what can stop it? Well, actually, lots and
the idea that the line could be built without serious damaging effects
on the rest of the rail network is fanciful.
The whole project is being caught up in its own hype and a reality
check is urgently needed. Lets first put the overblown story in the
Sunday Times to rest. The story is about a line which will not even
start to be built until 2015, with a completely unquantified cost and-
except you can be sure it will be more than any number so far quoted -
and a purpose which has never been properly specified. The line, at
best, would not reach Scotland till 2025. Yet, here they are getting
up a head of steam over the details of something that may or may not
happen in fifteen years time. That is like much of the coverage of
HS2, quite literally much ado about nothing.
The Tories are partly to blame. They claim that their proposal is
fully funded and worked out. It is, wait for it, a line that will go
from London, probably via Heathrow, to Birmingham, Manchester and then
through the Pennines to Leeds. That is complete madness. If the line
had an L shape, and stopped in the intermediary cities, it would
hardly be faster than the existing two hour service between Leeds and
London. Its a typical politicians plan, trying to include everyone
but unable to stand up to rigorous analysis.
Moreover, the Tories plan to fund the line partly through the private
sector which will only make the scheme more expensive since it has no
hope of being commercially viable. But even they admit that £15bn out
of the supposed £20bn cost will have to come from the public sector,
or £1.3bn per year during the 12 year construction period.
Even if assuming that these figures are not underestimates, this
shows the real danger of a high speed line. There is no way that it
would be built without demands being made on the existing rail budget.
During a 12 year period, there is almost bound to be an economic
downturn and halfway through construction it would be impossible to
cut back on the construction costs as the contracts would be let. This
is not a zero sum game. The money for investing in the high speed line
would ultimately come out of the budget for the maintenance and
improvement of existing lines, especially in hard times.
HS2 therefore represents a significant threat to the existing
railway. You only have to go to France to see that while the TGV
services are undoubtedly wonderful and far better than any services on
this side of the Channel, their lignes classiques are characterised in
many places by old trains, irregular services and rundown stations.
Frances investment in high speed lines has been at the cost of the
old railway.
There are plenty of other reasons why a high speed line is unlikely
to be built, Its environmental credentials are dubious, the state of
the economy is unlikely to warrant it, rising energy prices will
impact on the railway and new technology may well reduce the need for
business travel.
The focus of the investment programme should, therefore, be on
improving and adapting the existing railway. Given that load factors
on the railways are still load, except at peak times, there is plenty
of spare capacity. You only have to look at the vast empty spaces in
first class at most times of the day to realise that.
Indeed, abolishing first class would create a vast amount of extra
capacity, far more cheaply than building a new line. If capacity is
the main problem, then investment needs to be targeted at bottlenecks.
The priorities for the investment programme beyond 2014 has just been
examined by the Commons Transport Committee in a report published on
February 15.
The report highlights the fact that investment in
railways is currently at a historic high and most of that is
untouchable because it is committed in Network Rails current five
year plan. Rightly, the committee warns that the next five year
period, starting in 2014 is likely to be much tighter and says that
this requires prioritisation.
That is undoubtedly right and my instinct is that the railway must
focus on modest but significant schemes - infilling electrification,
reopening lines on the cheap through the use of development money,
boosting capacity by clever pathing and maximising use of existing
track, reducing costs of running branch lines through flexible
arrangements and so on.
This may sound unexciting and modest but it isnt. Quite the
opposite. The railways could be operated far more efficiently than at
the moment, and spending money on bottlenecks and small scale schemes
could lead to radical improvements.
There must, though, be room for some major schemes. By 2014, London
will have benefitted from a huge proportion of the investment in the
railways - Thameslink, Crossrail, HS1 commuter services, East London
Line, the PPP on the Underground and so on. So rightly, the MPs - who
of course have vested interests but never mind that - are seeking to
see major schemes such as electrifying the Midland Main Line and
improving the Manchester hub which has become a major bottlenecks.
The railway is going through a fantastic period of investment which
is bound to be cut back once these large schemes start to come on
stream. After such a bonanza, it would be unrealistic to expect that a
north south high speed line could be built without detracting from
much-needed investment programmes. Sure there is a potential capacity
problem, but it is not big enough to justify a scheme costing upwards
of £30 billion. Lets focus on Britains lignes classiques and forget
the pipedream.'
'Towards the end of this month, we will get the governments White
Paper based on the work by the HS2 team which will set out a route
between London and Birmingham down to the last few inches. Everyone
apparently wants a high speed line. The Tories, the Libdems and
belatedly Labour have all embraced the idea. Environmentalists say it
will be green, the CBI says it will be good for the economy and the
unions reckon it will create jobs.
There is much excitement among the media stimulated by squabbling
between various towns in the Midlands and the North about where a line
should go. The Sunday Times even ran a story complaining that the
Tories had not funded the line north of Leeds and therefore it might
not even go to Scotland.
It looks, therefore, like a no-brainer. Given the political consensus
and the universal approval, what can stop it? Well, actually, lots and
the idea that the line could be built without serious damaging effects
on the rest of the rail network is fanciful.
The whole project is being caught up in its own hype and a reality
check is urgently needed. Lets first put the overblown story in the
Sunday Times to rest. The story is about a line which will not even
start to be built until 2015, with a completely unquantified cost and-
except you can be sure it will be more than any number so far quoted -
and a purpose which has never been properly specified. The line, at
best, would not reach Scotland till 2025. Yet, here they are getting
up a head of steam over the details of something that may or may not
happen in fifteen years time. That is like much of the coverage of
HS2, quite literally much ado about nothing.
The Tories are partly to blame. They claim that their proposal is
fully funded and worked out. It is, wait for it, a line that will go
from London, probably via Heathrow, to Birmingham, Manchester and then
through the Pennines to Leeds. That is complete madness. If the line
had an L shape, and stopped in the intermediary cities, it would
hardly be faster than the existing two hour service between Leeds and
London. Its a typical politicians plan, trying to include everyone
but unable to stand up to rigorous analysis.
Moreover, the Tories plan to fund the line partly through the private
sector which will only make the scheme more expensive since it has no
hope of being commercially viable. But even they admit that £15bn out
of the supposed £20bn cost will have to come from the public sector,
or £1.3bn per year during the 12 year construction period.
Even if assuming that these figures are not underestimates, this
shows the real danger of a high speed line. There is no way that it
would be built without demands being made on the existing rail budget.
During a 12 year period, there is almost bound to be an economic
downturn and halfway through construction it would be impossible to
cut back on the construction costs as the contracts would be let. This
is not a zero sum game. The money for investing in the high speed line
would ultimately come out of the budget for the maintenance and
improvement of existing lines, especially in hard times.
HS2 therefore represents a significant threat to the existing
railway. You only have to go to France to see that while the TGV
services are undoubtedly wonderful and far better than any services on
this side of the Channel, their lignes classiques are characterised in
many places by old trains, irregular services and rundown stations.
Frances investment in high speed lines has been at the cost of the
old railway.
There are plenty of other reasons why a high speed line is unlikely
to be built, Its environmental credentials are dubious, the state of
the economy is unlikely to warrant it, rising energy prices will
impact on the railway and new technology may well reduce the need for
business travel.
The focus of the investment programme should, therefore, be on
improving and adapting the existing railway. Given that load factors
on the railways are still load, except at peak times, there is plenty
of spare capacity. You only have to look at the vast empty spaces in
first class at most times of the day to realise that.
Indeed, abolishing first class would create a vast amount of extra
capacity, far more cheaply than building a new line. If capacity is
the main problem, then investment needs to be targeted at bottlenecks.
The priorities for the investment programme beyond 2014 has just been
examined by the Commons Transport Committee in a report published on
February 15.
The report highlights the fact that investment in
railways is currently at a historic high and most of that is
untouchable because it is committed in Network Rails current five
year plan. Rightly, the committee warns that the next five year
period, starting in 2014 is likely to be much tighter and says that
this requires prioritisation.
That is undoubtedly right and my instinct is that the railway must
focus on modest but significant schemes - infilling electrification,
reopening lines on the cheap through the use of development money,
boosting capacity by clever pathing and maximising use of existing
track, reducing costs of running branch lines through flexible
arrangements and so on.
This may sound unexciting and modest but it isnt. Quite the
opposite. The railways could be operated far more efficiently than at
the moment, and spending money on bottlenecks and small scale schemes
could lead to radical improvements.
There must, though, be room for some major schemes. By 2014, London
will have benefitted from a huge proportion of the investment in the
railways - Thameslink, Crossrail, HS1 commuter services, East London
Line, the PPP on the Underground and so on. So rightly, the MPs - who
of course have vested interests but never mind that - are seeking to
see major schemes such as electrifying the Midland Main Line and
improving the Manchester hub which has become a major bottlenecks.
The railway is going through a fantastic period of investment which
is bound to be cut back once these large schemes start to come on
stream. After such a bonanza, it would be unrealistic to expect that a
north south high speed line could be built without detracting from
much-needed investment programmes. Sure there is a potential capacity
problem, but it is not big enough to justify a scheme costing upwards
of £30 billion. Lets focus on Britains lignes classiques and forget
the pipedream.'
