die belebende Bedenkung

Archive for November 2013

Marshall Muddle on old infrastructure

leave a comment »

Railnews coverage of an upgrade of 170 year old infrastructure - the Great Western Main Line

Railnews coverage of an upgrade of 170 year old infrastructure – the Great Western Main Line

Instead of “nonsensical talk about trying to upgrade the existing 175-year-old railway infrastructure”, would it not be better to follow Baroness Kramer’s advice (wrote Railnews’s editorial director Alan Marshall on the Go HS2 weblog).

[Susan Kramer quoted by Alan Marshall]

“Let us protect the Victorian spirit that built our railroads,” she said, “but let us look for an infrastructure that is not Victorian but modern and 21st-century so that we can build the economy of the future.”

London St Pancras, which was ‘upgraded’ for HS1 trains, is 145 years old, and parts of the Midland route from St Pancras to Derby, are older still. But the Midland is being electrified as part of a multi-billion pound upgrade — which Railnews is apparently in favour of. So what point Mr Marshall was making, or why Ms Kramer used the American term ‘railroad’, is not clear. For some reason, Mr Marshall also mentioned former chancellor Norman Lamont, who is apparently opposed to HS2.

Instead of listening to economists like Dr Richard Wellings of the Institute of Economic Affairs — “who forecast HS2 could cost £80 billion by including the price of building another Crossrail in London and a new line to Liverpool that is not even planned — perhaps we should note that HS2 Ltd has actually reduced the expected cost of building the first stage from London to Lichfield, and the branch line into Birmingham”, claimed Mr Marshall.

[Alan Marshall]

[…]At the close of the recent House of Lords debate Transport Minister Baroness Kramer said HS2 Ltd “now estimates that, without any contingency, it could bring in phase 1 at £15.6 billion.” However, she added, the Transport Secretary had decided to include “a little contingency” — 10 per cent — so the target budget for the first stage, extending over some 150 miles and including more than half the route in tunnels or deep cuttings, is now £17.16 billion. This could be reduced further after Sir David Higgins takes charge of the project next year and, as Lord Heseltine proposed, there is the opportunity to offset perhaps £5 billion of the cost of stage 1 by negotiating a 30-year concession with a private sector infrastructure manager, as has happened with HS1.

The claim that HS2 Ltd have costs under control is not particularly persuasive.

HS2 engineering design work over budget (building_co_uk, 8 Nov 2013)

HS2 engineering design work over budget (building_co_uk, 8 Nov 2013)

But the notion that HS2 could involve total expenditures of around £80 billion, is quite plausible. There is bound to be strong pressure for additional mitigation of various sorts, and add-on funding for developments attached to the HS2 project. For example, schemes such as the recently proposed Birmingham — Bickenhill — Coventry Midland Metro (£800 million at the very least) could have no other purpose than attempt to provide local access to the proposed HS2 ‘parkway’ station. And the costs of additional commuter trains for Milton Keynes (so-called-released-capacity) are not in the October 2013 ‘e-Conomic’ case. Of course, the value of “a 30-year concession” to a private sector infrastructure manager is entirely dependent on the levels of guaranteed track access fees over the concession period. A large proportion, possibly a majority, of those track access fees would be from government subsidies.

Written by beleben

November 29, 2013 at 8:05 pm

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

Tagged with ,

Digesting HS2

leave a comment »

HS2 Digest, an ‘offshoot’ of the Beleben blog, features additional coverage of HS2 issues.

Written by beleben

November 29, 2013 at 5:17 pm

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

Tagged with

Misinformation feeds HS2 misunderstanding, part two

with 2 comments

Even today, parts of the West Coast Mainline are full, and unable to carry any more trains, according to a post on the tumblr blog ‘hs2northsouthrailline’ carrying the name of transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin.

[25 November 2013]

[…] After both the Commons and the Lords gave overwhelming cross party support for the HS2 Paving Act recently, the high speed rail programme has taken another huge step forward today with the publication of the phase one hybrid bill. This is effectively the government’s planning application for HS2, to give us powers to build and run the railway between London and Birmingham. It is a significant milestone for the project, and one which moves the focus of the HS2 debate from ambition to reality, and from concept to delivery.

Once Royal Assent has been given, we expect to start construction in 2017. That date cannot come too soon because we are already in urgent need of the extra capacity that HS2 will provide.
But I also want opponents of HS2 to consider what we would do as an alternative. We face a very real capacity crisis in this country, and any further short term measures to patch up the current railway would only delay the need for a bigger commitment by a few years, costing us even more in the long run.

Unsurprisingly enough, the hs2northsouthrailline blogpost didn’t identify which parts of the West Coast Main Line are currently ‘full’. Certainly, the Euston — Milton Keynes section is not full (otherwise the forthcoming London Midland Project 110 path increase could not happen). The idea that HS2 provides rail capacity when and where it is most needed, or avoids ‘patching up’ the current railway, has no basis in reality. According to a spokesman for rail industry body the Rail Delivery Group,

[‘HS2 Bill: Parliament gets first glimpse of high speed rail ‘planning application’ as MPs are warned to keep costs down’, Adam Withnall, The Independent, 25 Nov 2013]

“There are a million more services and half a billion more passengers on the railway this year than there were a decade ago. By 2020, a further 400 million journeys will be made annually.

HS2 cannot enable 400 million more journeys to be accommodated on the rail network by 2020. It wouldn’t open until 2026, and in any case, most of those extra journeys would be short distance, and not on lines supposedly relieved by HS2. The whole project is based on misunderstanding and misinformation, and is being driven forward by special interests.

Written by beleben

November 25, 2013 at 9:36 pm

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

Tagged with

Misinformation feeds HS2 misunderstanding

with 2 comments

One of the most disconcerting aspects of the HS2 rail project is the lack of knowledge of politicians discussing and implementing it. For example, at a recent Birmingham city council committee meeting, Edgbaston councillor Deirdre Alden was dismayed to discover that the proposed HS2 trains from London to Birmingham were not additional to the existing West Coast Main Line services.

(HS2 Ltd’s October 2013 modelled service pattern shows intercity services on West Coast cut from 11 per hour in 2009, to 3 per hour in 2033.)

Another example of misunderstanding was provided by minister of state for transport Susan Kramer’s speech on 21 October 2013.

[speech by Susan Kramer, 21 October 2013]

[…] The overhead wiring on the West Coast line is getting on for 50 years old.

Contrary to the claim by Susan Kramer, the Fast lines overhead wiring on the busiest (southern) section WCML is not 'getting on for 50 years old'; it was replaced as part of the Route Modernisation

Contrary to the claim by Baroness Kramer, the Fast lines overhead wiring on the busiest (southern) section WCML is not ‘getting on for 50 years old’. It was replaced as part of the Route Modernisation

The ’50 years old overhead wires’ claim has also turned up in ‘Railnews‘. HS2 misinformation is being propagated in sections of the railway press (especially Railnews and Rail Magazine), and fed to clueless politicians by staff at HS2 Ltd.

Railnews: 'WCML overhead lines fifty-years-old'

Written by beleben

November 25, 2013 at 1:04 pm

HS2 and business relocation

with 2 comments

According to the government, the HS2 high speed rail project is intended to help “rebalance Britain’s economy” and benefit ‘the regions’ by allowing businesses to locate outside of London. If the £50 billion Y network were built,

  • Manchester would be about as ‘close’ to London as Coventry is today
  • and Leeds would be as close to London, as Birmingham is now

in terms of journey time.

So one might expect the company managing the HS2 project to be based somewhere outside the capital, but with good rail connections to it — Birmingham, or Coventry, for example.

But HS2 Ltd is based at Eland House in central London. And as of 31 October 2013, HS2 Ltd employed 557 people, of whom 550 were based in London and seven in Birmingham, said transport minister Robert Goodwill.

Written by beleben

November 25, 2013 at 12:12 pm

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

Tagged with ,

The dirty face of HS2

with one comment

On the basis of cost-benefit analysis, HS2 doesn’t wash its face, as the cost is too high and the benefits, in many cases, are spurious (wrote Larry Elliott, The Guardian’s economics editor). It is a gravy train for the construction sector, lawyers, transport consultants, bureaucrats and the rich people who will be able to afford it; and the misery line for just about everybody else.

[‘HS2 will be more London gravy train than locomotive of regional growth’, The Guardian, 24 Nov 2013]

[…] Supporters of HS2 say that cost-benefit analysis is too narrow a way of looking at the project because it does not capture the need to build more capacity on the rail network.

HS2 will help cope with the threat of overcrowding. But so too would alternative solutions, including upgrading existing lines. Economists use a concept called “opportunity cost” in these circumstances. This takes into account alternative uses of the £40bn-plus cost of HS2 to see whether it could be better spent.

Mr Elliott’s use of the term “misery line” is apposite. Spending £50 billion on a passenger-only rail line between London and three provincial cities is bound to mean more crowding on Britain’s most-used commuter railways (in south and east London). And the capacity released from HS2 on existing lines for cargo is pitiful. So there are big carbon opportunity costs from sacrificing higher capacity railfreight options for HS2, such as the ‘Eastern Freight Corridor’ concept (using the GN/GE Joint Line), and dual-purpose Great Central reactivation from Ashendon to Leicester.

Many intermodal freight trains are routed over the West Coast Main Line

Because of limitations in the rail system, many intermodal freight trains are routed over busy passenger routes such as the North London and West Coast Main Lines, thereby reducing capacity

Written by beleben

November 24, 2013 at 5:51 pm

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

Seeing through the HS2 ruse

with 2 comments

According to HS2 Ltd spokesman Ben Ruse, “we must be clear that HS2 will yield hugely significant benefits while addressing the cripplingly strained transport network. Those that oppose HS2 are risking the very future of the country.”

The idea that people that oppose HS2 ‘are risking the very future of the country’ is nonsense. HS2 is a political project that benefits special interests, not the national interest. There is no transport need for HS2, and in cost benefit terms, far better investment options are available.

On other intercity routes, faster journeys and more seats are being provided by modernisation based around the existing infrastructure. On 18 July 2013 transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin confirmed a £1.2 billion order for 270 “state of the art” IEP intercity carriages for the East Coast Main Line, to be “manufactured in Britain” by Hitachi Rail Europe.

Even though the IEP design is not particularly ‘state of the art’, it provides a fairly large seating increase. Most of the capacity increase comes from not having engines above floor level (as in the Class 43 InterCity125) and using longer carriages (reducing the total vestibule area).

On journeys such as Edinburgh — London, the journey time improvement with IEP is lower than would have been the case with tilting trains. The press release gave figures for the predicted average reductions in ‘typical’ journey times (in minutes) on East Coast and Great Western delivered by a combination of “revised timetabling and increased performance” of the IEP (‘Class 800’) trains.

East Coast,
from / to Kings Cross
Year 2013 With IEP Saving
Peterborough 45 43 2
Doncaster 96 92 4
Leeds 132 126 6
York 113 104 9
Newcastle 172 155 17
Edinburgh 263 245 18
Great Western, from / to Paddington
Reading 25 23 2
Oxford 58 53 5
Worcester Shrub Hill 139 120 19
Cheltenham Spa 135 112 23
Bristol Parkway 81 71 10
Bath Spa 87 79 8
Bristol Temple Meads 105 83 22
Cardiff 121 104 17
Swansea 178 159 19

The IEP journey time reduction to Bristol (the busiest non-London destination on Great Western) of 22 minutes, is about the same as that from the destructive and very costly (£20 billion) HS2 from London to Birmingham. The Curzon Street HS2 station is at least ten minutes further away from Birmingham’s civic quarter (Victoria Square) than New Street station.

Even with the non-tilting IEPs, the London — Edinburgh train time is shown as reduced by 18 minutes, to 4 hours 5 minutes. The gains from further reducing the journey time by spending £50,000,000,000 on the Y network, cannot be justified, because of the low demand.

Written by beleben

November 24, 2013 at 4:12 pm

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

Tagged with

HS2 and bad design

with one comment

HS2 bog standard off-white concrete viaduct designUnder its chief executive Shaun Spiers, the Campaign to Protect Rural England has been a cheerleader for the HS2 rail project, and as a result, the ‘Right Lines Charter’ had no impact on government policy (the Right Lines Charter’s twitter has been inactive since 7 February 2012). On 22 November 2013, the CPRE issued a press release expressing ‘concern’ that the Government appears to be back-tracking on commitments to secure any environmental gains from HS2.

[‘CPRE comments in advance of HS2 hybrid bill’, 22 November 2013]

[…] To maximise the positive impact of HS2 the Government must shift travel from road to rail, regenerate brownfield sites in northern cities, reduce carbon emissions, and offset landscape impacts, for instance by burying pylons along the route.


CPRE believes the case for a new north-south railway has been made, but we are yet to be convinced by the Government’s plans for HS2. Some of the main questions for CPRE are:

1. Are there any significant changes to the route to protect the countryside?

Recent changes to the route, such as increased tunnelling, have either been in urban areas or to facilitate major new developments. No major changes to the route of phase 1 are expected. There may be additional mitigation announced in some places, for example to reduce the impact on the habitats of protected species that have been discovered as part of environmental surveys.

2. Will HS2’s environmental case have improved?

HS2 must rebalance our transport system away from roads and the economy away from the south east to the north. Yet the Government’s deregulation of the planning system and plans for a major return to road-building have weakened the potential for HS2 to lead to environmental benefits, whether its carbon savings or reducing pressure on the countryside.

3. Is HS2 aiming for world beating or just bog standard design?

Other countries have aimed for iconic design in their new railways but we are concerned that photomontages of HS2 have shown ugly, concrete viaducts striding brutishly across the countryside. At CPRE’s annual lecture in November 2012, the Secretary of State announced he would set up a design panel for HS2 but nothing has been heard publicly since. The High Speed Rail (Preparation) Act 2013 permits the letting of design contracts so CPRE is concerned that if the panel is not set up at the start of 2014, it will be too late to embed exemplary design in the project.

4. Has the cost of rejected route alterations been provided?

HS2 Ltd has faced criticism for rejecting proposals to reduce HS2’s impact as too costly, without stating how much more expensive alternatives would be compared to its own proposals. CPRE believes greater transparency is essential if the process of deciding on mitigation is to be credible, particularly with the communities directly affected.

Written by beleben

November 24, 2013 at 11:53 am

Posted in High speed rail, HS2

When trains get shorter, part two

with 4 comments

Part one

The “shock revelation” that full length HS2 trains would not fit into Lime Street station was among a list of problems with the current HS2 plans “identified by Liverpool local authority chiefs”, the Liverpool Echo reported (23 November 2013).

[‘New high-speed trains will be ‘too long’ to fit into Lime Street station’, Joshua Taylor, 23 Nov 2013]

[…] The 250mph trains – due to run on the country’s railway tracks under the High Speed 2 scheme – will be more than 1,300ft (400m) in length.

But Lime Street Station’s platforms are only long enough for 850ft (260m) trains.

The shock revelation was among a list of problems with the current HS2 plans identified by local authority chiefs.
This means rail bosses would potentially have to consider making Lime Street’s platforms longer, creating a smaller HS2 train for Liverpool routes or asking passengers in rear carriages to walk to the front of the train to get out once it arrives in Lime Street.

HS2 was discussed at the latest meeting of the Liverpool city region cabinet, made up of Merseyside council chiefs.

A document from the meeting, seen by the ECHO, said: “HS2 full-length trains are likely to be 400m long but, since Liverpool Lime Street Station cannot at present handle trains longer than 260m, half-length trains would inevitably result in substantially reduced on-train capacity.”

Lower capacity intercity trains to destinations off the captive network have been part of the HS2 proposition since it started.

At one point, HS2 Ltd were considering having a subfleet of 260-metre trains, to serve York and Newcastle-upon-Tyne — but as of October 2013 all trainsets were deemed to be 200 metres long for planning purposes. It’s curious that a £50 billion scheme touted as solving ‘capacity shortages’ should be based around running trains with fewer seats.

Written by beleben

November 23, 2013 at 8:10 pm

Very serious Geoff

with 2 comments

In December 2012 the Birmingham Mail reported that walkways between the major rail stations in Birmingham would be upgraded in time for the opening of the revamped New Street ‘Gateway’ in 2015. Transport authority Centro are also looking to how to provide suitable public transport to the site of the proposed HS2 station at Curzon Street.

[‘Cable cars set to link Birmingham city centre transport hubs’, by Neil Elkes, 6 Dec 2012]

[…] Centro chief executive Geoff Inskip said: “Our goal is to ensure New Street, Moor Street and the high speed rail, HS2, terminal serve as ‘one station’ for passengers and we are already working with architects Glenn Howells on improving the pedestrian route between the two sites.

“But in the longer term we know passengers will want a high quality connection similar to the way major airports link their various terminals together, often with innovative forms of transport.

“We are therefore looking at all types of ideas and one option we are considering very seriously is a cable car link similar to the one built across the Thames in London.

‘‘This would operate on a continuous loop so would provide a true ‘turn up and go’ system linking New Street Station, the Bull Ring and the Moor Street/HS2 terminal.

“We think it is a potentially exciting proposal worth exploring and the consultants who worked on the Emirates cable car in London have agreed to come and give us a presentation on the idea.

Evening Standard, 12 Nov 2013: 'Boris Johnson's cable car used by just four regular commuters'

Written by beleben

November 22, 2013 at 12:16 pm

Posted in Centro

Tagged with