Jonathan Tyler : submission to the Government consultation on High Speed Rail
This question is about the strategy and wider context (Chapter 1 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree that there is a strong case for enhancing the capacity and performance of Britain’s inter-city rail network to support economic growth over the coming decades?
I agree that the capacity and performance of Britain's inter-city rail network should be enhanced. However the need for a sustainable alternative to excessive use of cars and planes should be the prime driver. A direct correlation between rail services and economic growth is tenuous, especially if much of the increase in travel comes from marginal leisure trips. The scale and significance of business travel is exaggerated, and if the fast and generally high-quality services that have been offered for some years now on ECML and WCML have not transformed northern economies it is absurdly optimistic to imagine that a scheme that won't be completed until 2026 will achieve that.
This approach means that while there may be a case for HS2 it is possible - but not properly tested - that enhancements in parts of the network that are presently of much poorer quality than WCML might be better value.
This question is about the case for high speed rail (Chapter 2 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree that a national high speed rail network from London to Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester (the Y network) would provide the best value for money solution (best balance of costs and benefits) for enhancing rail capacity and performance?
This has simply not been proven because there has been no testing of a national model with a range of alternatives. For example, journey times on the West Coast are already fast while those for many inter-urban links not involving London are abysmally slow. Improving them could be better value, especially since rail's market share on such routes is now very low. Moreover the forecast of increasing volumes is flawed because it only relates to one arguable scenario: for so large a project other scenarios should have been tested, including the possibility that short- and medium-distance capacity may need boosting more than long-distance capacity if the price of fuel for cars were to rise substantially, as it may.
Equally, the cost and practicality of incremental (and not difficult) improvements on WCML has not been thoroughly tested, even though they could deliver extra capacity sooner and more flexibly than this all-or-nothing project. It is also difficult to believe the more extravagant claims for economic benefits, given that the major long-distance congestion is caused by leisure demand. Commuting capacity is an issue, but even there questions should be asked about the sustainability, desirability and economic value of promoting ever more commuting into London, while measures such as 125 mile/hour outer-suburban trains and a flyover at Ledburn Junction could do much to provide what is needed.
This question is about how to deliver the Government’s proposed network (Chapter 3 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree with the Government’s proposals for the phased roll-out of a national high speed rail network, and for links to HeathrowAirport and the High Speed 1 line to the Channel Tunnel?
My answers to Questions 1 and 2 indicate that I do not think we can form a proper judgment without a national strategic model for the railway network that tests a variety of scenarios and a variety of options. Planning a huge project on the basis of thin and arguable statistics (has there been any independent evaluation of Network Rail's methodology, or even of the reliability of Virgin's loading data ?) is not sensible. Nor is building a high-speed railway without considering whether radical changes to the way the existing system is operated might deliver some of the benefits at a fraction of the cost.
I am not therefore persuaded of the case for a national network as distinct from incremental schemes - which might for example include London to Birmingham and the WCML but not the Y arms. Moreover the evidence is that demand for HS1 and Heathrow trains is simply not sufficient to justify the frequency that would be necessary in order to make services attractive, which in turn means that the cost of the tunnels would be prohibitive relative to the number of users. In any case, if HS2 is to serve the London market effectively, there will not be the paths for HS1 or Heathrow trains. HS2 Ltd's late assumption of 18 paths/hour is not operationally credible, and the realistic maximum of 16 will easily be absorbed if ECML, MML and WCML are all to be relieved.
Building a tunnelled link between HS1 and HS2 is entirely disproportionate to the problem and risks importing operational instability onto HS2. The flexibility afforded by separately choosing a domestic inter-city service from the frequent offer and a Channel Tunnel service will mean that many travellers will do this, even at the cost of a trek between Euston and St. Pancras International - which is not that far, is not much further than people are used to in large airports and could be made a great deal easier (even with just a shuttle bus). That would leave too few users of through trains.
This question is about the specification for the line between London and the West Midlands (Chapter 4 of the main consultation document)
Do you agree with the principles and specification used by HS2 Ltd to underpin its proposals for new high speed rail lines and the route selection process HS2 Ltd undertook?
The specification should not have assumed 360-400 km/h without equal consideration of the costs and benefits of say 325 or 300 or 250 km/h. It should not have assumed European gauge without testing its incremental costs and benefits. It is odd that the line is to be built for 400m trains and yet most will run as 200m trains: portion-working of 2 x 200m trains should have been examined in depth. The cost and implications of running additional HS2 trains on the WCML north of Lichfield HS Junction should have been fully assessed. The feasibility of stopping services on the Great Western Main and Relief Lines at Old Oak Common should have been addressed. In other words the proposals lack credibility because they are not based on evaluation of all the issues and options, and in particular because no serious timetabling studies have been undertaken, without which no railway can be properly planned.
The route-selection process was extremely thorough (perhaps too much so since other major questions were not addressed - see my other answers), and I am satisfied that it selected the best option, given the assumptions. However, if there were not a preoccupation with serving Heathrow, the arguments would not have been skewed by the concept of the interchange at Old Oak Common and an M1 / WCML route might have been preferred, at a much lower environmental cost.
In respect of terminals I accept (with some reservations) the focus on Euston, but I am appalled by the likelihood that all other HS terminals will be separated from existing city-centre stations. This is inconsistent with the original specification, largely destroys connectivity with regional networks and, in the case of possible 'parkway' stations, will completely undermine any environmental legitimacy that the plans may have. HS2's modelling of connectivity is poor, and a self-contained 'perfect' railway is not what Britain needs.
This question is about the route for the line between London and the West Midlands (Chapter 5 and Annex B of the main consultation document)
Do you agree that the Government’s proposed route, including the approach proposed for mitigating its impacts, is the best option for a new high speed rail line between London and the West Midlands?
I am not persuaded (see previous answer). In particular, I am not convinced that the proportion of users who will be travelling to/from Heathrow justifies the deviation via Old Oak Common. It is true that the link with Crossrail for distribution and collection across London will be important, but it is curious that Crossrail does not seem to have had much involvement in this and that if so many will use this facility the opportunity was not taken to consider dividing trains at Old Oak, with shorter trains running to Euston and hence the prospect of a much smaller reconstruction task there. Once again, HS2 has not obviously examined all the options.
This question is about the Appraisal of Sustainability (Chapter 5 of the main consultation document)
Do you wish to comment on the Appraisal of Sustainability of the Government’s proposed route between London and the West Midlands that has been published to inform this consultation?
The Appraisal of Sustainability is fine as far as it goes, but for me the fundamental questions have not been faced. Economic growth that continues to cause large-scale emissions of climate-damaging gases is unacceptable, while expectations that do not recognise the probability of rapidly-rising prices for raw materials as human material prosperity comes up against the finite limits of our only planet are dangerously misguided. We may have to consider travelling less and forgoing travel at very high speeds (especially when environmental mitigation puts much of the railway in tunnel or cutting and hence deprives travellers of the pleasure of a sense of the country they are passing through). Meanwhile, we need to get large numbers of people out of cars and planes and onto trains, and there may be more scope for this, with real net sustainability gains, on existing poorer-quality, non-London routes, whereas HS2 will squander too much of the potential transfer benefits by its high demand for energy and by its stimulus to additional travel.
This question is about blight and compensation (Annex A of the main consultation document)
Do you agree with the options set out to assist those whose properties lose a significant amount of value as a result of any new high speed line?
No comment since I do not live in the area. In any case this issue only becomes relevant once it has been conclusively demonstrated that a particular high speed line is the best option in the overall national interest. And we are a long way from achieving that.
PTN, York / / 01904 611187 / 29 Jul 11