Readers letters
With respect to your comments contained in the August issue of your magazine, I have no doubt whatsoever that the vast percentage of your readers, especially those in the railway industry, will welcome the proposed construction of this major capital project. However, I would council them to exert some caution for the project as it currently stands and for the benefit to this country as a whole at this time of economic constraint.
There is great debate about the politically-chosen route. Indeed the government's own consultant for HS2 referred to it as being “deeply flawed”. Various options have been proposed by consultants that include direct access to our national airport hub at Heathrow (however difficult to construct) and along the already-blighted M40 corridor. In March 2010 Theresa Villiers, then Shadow Minister of Transport, stated “The idea that some kind of Wormwood Scrubs International (Old Oak Common) station is the best rail solution for Heathrow is just not credible”. Now that there is a Tory-led coalition and following Lord Mawhinney's report, they have done a U-turn on all these issues that were their policy whilst in Opposition and have decided on the previous Labour government's policy of the 'straight' point-to-point line across Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, Sites of Special Scientific Interest, Grade 2 Listed Buildings and Heritage Sites without having done an Environment Impact Assessment or having a substantive Business Case. In November 2010, Philip Hammond stated that government support for HS2 did not require it to be financially viable. The proposed double-track connection to HS1 to provide a direct connection to Europe was an afterthought to the original proposal. It is now proposed to be an impractical 6-mile single-track tunnel which limits the traffic through it. Birmingham Curzon Street is proposed to be a terminal station with direct routes to London and the North, thereby increasing journey times to the North for trains calling at Birmingham.
It is true that much of the old BR railway network has been underinvested by successive governments since the 1950s who have all operated a stop-go policy on capital investment. Together with the shorter trains run by the present train-operating companies, mainly due to underinvestment by successive government of new trains, the result has been that many routes into London are overcrowded for the best part of the day and particularly during rush hours. This situation is not by any means limited to the West Coast Main Line but to all routes in to the capital. However, with respect to the current high-speed proposal to Birmingham, the RP2 proposal recommends longer trains and elimination of pinch-points along the route. From BR days, many principal stations are already capable of accommodating 12-car trains and the quadrupling of the line from Rugby to Birmingham would permit more trains. Indeed, your article on the upgrading of the freight line through Nuneaton to Peterborough will thereby permit many more passenger trans on the Rugby to London section. The completion of the latest Evergreen project on the Chiltern Lines to London will speed up the journey from Birmingham to London to 94 minutes compared with 84 minumtes on WCML and the projected 49 minutes with HS2. Further capacity would be available if the Chiltern Line trains ran as 8-car unites instead of the present 4-car units. Capacity and journey times would also be improved by electrification of this route and by the provision of additional platforms at Marylebone, Moor Street and/or Snow Hill. All of these improvements will increase the size of your “pint pot” and be well within the current £37B estimate for the HS2 project.
The cost of the HS2 project is unlikely to include the millions of pounds that will require to be spent by Network Rail and Transport for London to review and ensure that their infrastructure within 2kms of the new line is immune from the effects of the electrification of HS2. In recent times, this has been a very expensive exercise but in this case, a lot of the work will already have been done as a part of the electrification of the North London Line and for the Heathrow Express.
Whilst I like the idea of travelling non-stop from Birmingham to Amsterdam or Frankfurt, or a sleeper to Rome, the expenditure of such a large amount of money cannot be justified at this time. It is amoral to propose such a large project for the benefit of a few when every citizen in the country is directly affected by the massively reduced County Council budgets such that there is little money for the provision of new schools, repairs to school buildings, maintenance of libraries and the repair of the disgracefully poor condition of county-maintained roads. This decision could be political suicide at this time. I'm sure that the political spin will be that the actual cash will not be expended for 5-10 years when the economy will have improved and the project will then be the responsibility of the next government. It should be pointed out that this expenditure will be to the detriment of other national rail projects like electrification of the Midland Main Line and a line bypassing the Dawlish sea wall, as well as national road projects, all of which will be to the benefit of a great many people.
The eventual benefit of HS2 will mainly be along its length to the North of England and Scotland where journey times will be significantly reduced. Many will regret the politically-motivated closure of the Great Central line with its minimum gradients, large radius curves and European loading gauge. With a high-speed railway, there should be a reduction in the number of short-haul flights to the capital and therefore a reduction in carbon emissions. However, as long-haul flights will take up these flight paths, the resultant emissions are likely to be greater.
The line through the Chilterns may well have the support of some well-heeled people with vested interests but that is the way British society works, whether it is for a village by-pass or for a housing development. I would suggest that every one of your readers however affluent, including yourself, have the potential to object to a development in their back yard. At least with a by-pass or motorway, there is access to it for local communities at relatively short intervals unlike the proposed HS2 route through Buckinghamshire, Northamptonshire and Warwickshire where there is no access at all.
In conclusion, before British engineers get to euphoric about the project and with respect to the benefits to Britain, I would speculate on the probable main country of origin of the design and supply of the following various component parts which i'm sure your readers, the Transport Secretary and the Business Secretary will endeavour to repudiate. These may be either directly or in a consortium with British companies:
- Route planning - England
- Specifications - EU and Britain
- Ground work, formation and ballast (track bed) - Britain
- Tunnelling - Austria, Spain and/or Germany
- Sleepers - France
- Rail and points - Germany
- Overhead line equipment (catenary) - France
- Traction Supply equipment - France, Germany or Britain
- Rolling stock - France, Germany or Japan
- Train command & control (ERTMS) - France or Germany
With such a range of countries involved, a very strong Project Team will be required to oversee the effective cohesion of the project by the various international suppliers to achieve a successful outcome. Unlike many projects in the past, this team should remain active throughout the installation, commissioning and warranty periods. I hesitate to think of the millions of pounds that have had to be spent due to the failure of foreign suppliers to comply with local specifications resulting in costs, in both delays and money, to both the supplier and to the existing infrastructure owners.
Peter H Deeley, South Northampton Action Group
Next letter: Air capture dreams