HS2 and the Need for Capacity, Not Speed

          The British government has recently taken the decision to invest in a new high speed rail line known as HS2. This will see London linked to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds by a new high speed rail line. This blog will question the value, benefit and wisdom of that investment.

Who would benefit?

           The government says that the benefits include reducing journey times between the north of England and London saving up to an hour on the commute between London and Manchester. Furthermore, it is argued that this will encourage economic growth in the North and free up capacity on nearby routes. However, others would argue that it would encourage more people to commute to London to work and thus, we could end up seeing economic stagnation in the North rather than growth. Furthermore, there is doubt on how many people would choose to use the new high speed line over conventional rail, but this is largely dependent on what the rail fares on this new line will be. These concerns cast significant doubts over the new lines contribution to economic growth in the north and its contribution to freeing up capacity on other lines. Thus the only benefit that is guaranteed is the reduced commuter time between the north and south and many would question whether or not this is value for money.

How can we guarantee the benefits?

          In order to guarantee the benefits that it is claimed HS2 will bring, the government will have to think long and hard about their strategy when they finally bring the new line into operation. In regards to freeing up capacity on other lines, as stated, this will largely be dependent on the fares introduced on the line. If fares are as such that it becomes a rich man's play thing, the generally commuting community will never use it and this new free capacity will never materialise. In regards to encouraging economic growth in the north, this will only happen if the government introduces programmes and schemes that encourage business and enterprise to move north rather than move southwards towards London. This may include investing in other infrastructure to improve the economic benefits of operating in the north or by offering tax breaks to enterprises that decide to operate in the North. As such, the cost of encouraging this economic growth in the north will be more than simply the cost regarding the building of this new high speed rail line. Therefore, the benefits of building this new line are dubious as best.

The alternatives

          So if we decided not to invest in HS2, what could we to choose to invest in instead? At the present time, many routes operate the maximum number of services they are able without breaching health and safety regulations. This is due to the fact that if we have too many trains too close together on rail line, crashes will become more frequent and their consequences more severe. As such, this option will only be available on a few routes across the country.

          An alternative would be to increase the length of current services on the routes by lengthening platforms and increasing the number of carriages in use. This is currently being done on the Great Northern and Thameslink routes. Although needed and welcome, this will only be a short to medium term solution to the need to increase capacity on our most busy routes. If we are to make a fundamental difference in meeting our long term capacity needs, we need to improve the infrastructure on our current routes. This will takes years to plan and deliver and will cause significant disruption if managed poorly and left to the last minute as will likely happen. But in the end, it is needed, so the sooner plans are set in motion, the sooner it will be delivered and the less disruption it will cause.

          But what would this new infrastructure entail. If lengthening or increasing the frequency of our trains are no longer options, we have to take an idea used in other countries and introduce double decker trains. This will require heightening the bridges and tunnels across the network as well as heightening the power lines and lowering rail tracks. In terms of heightening the power lines and introducing the double decker rail stock into everyday operation, the difficulty will depend on how these lines and carriages are designed. If they are designed and introduced smartly, disruption can be kept to a minimum. One option would be to make adjustments to the current rail stock so they will be able to operate using the heightened lines, thus allowing them to introduce the new rail carriages more gradually and easily. The bulk of the disruption will be caused by heightening the bridges and tunnels. This will likely require rail replacement services, likely in the form of buses, to bypass these bridges and tunnels while they're being rebuilt. Furthermore, traffic on the roads will likely have to be diverted to avoid these bridges where appropriate. However, improvement and maintenance work often takes place on the rail network anyway. As such, Network Rail will have experience on how to keep this disruption to a minimum and on having this work completed on a short a time table as possible. But don't get me wrong, each stage of the improvements will take months if not years to complete.

          Rail passengers will have likely read that last paragraph with dread, but if we are to fundamentally increase capacity, this is something that's just going to have to happen.

What's the cost and who will pay for it?

           The total cost of HS2 is currently estimated at £42.6bn at current values, so about the same value of the bulk of these alternative suggestions put together. (Not including the double decker idea that is) This coupled with my belief that these alternatives being more needed and having a much more certain and wider impact means they should be given priority over HS2. These benefits will be both, economic and in helping people go above their everyday lives whether that be their daily commute or a family day out. In terms of who will pay for it, the only way we will ever get the rail companies to pay for these improvements is if the rail franchises provided by government to run the rail lines are made significantly longer. Unless this is done, it will always fall to the government and thus taxpayers to pay for such improvements in infrastructure. This could be funded in part by seeking finance from private investors and this would likely be the source of funding the current British Coalition government would likely use this. Personally, it wouldn't bother either way if this investment was privately or publically funded as this investment would likely repaid by future profits either way when these new improved routes go out to tender. This is assuming that whoever pays for this investment gets a share of the profits earned by the rail companies for running these routes until the investment is repaid, plus interest of course.

Jason Cates