Notes from the WCML upgrade

In its discussion of generated journeys, HS2 Ltd’s document ‘Demand for Long Distance Travel‘ mentions some of the economic effects of the long “upgrade” of the West Coast Main Line.

The quotes

Why would there be new trips as a result of HS2?
6.18
Quicker journey times and increased frequencies enable passengers to make trips that would otherwise have been impractical or unattractive. With the reductions in journey time anticipated from HS2, passengers would be able to get to more places within reasonable travel times than they could before. Overall, we estimate that these new opportunities would lead to an extra 33,000 trips a day being made on HS2 by 2043. Of these new trips 59% would be for leisure and 37% for business.

6.19
This increase in demand can be compared with the increase experienced when the WCML was upgraded.

Case Study: West Coast Main Line Upgrade

The WCML runs from London to Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow. The first stage of the upgraded line opened in September 2004 and the upgrade of the whole line was completed in December 2008. This included signalling, track and rolling stock improvements to allow higher speed trains and more trains to be run. This reduced journey times along the route by an average of 34 minutes. ^{Note 1}

As a result of the upgrade, an increase in the number of passengers on the route was experienced compared to other routes which had not been upgraded in the same period. For example, between 2006 and 2009 this resulted in 36% more passenger journeys (relative to 13% across the East Coast Mainline between London, Leeds, Newcastle and Edinburgh) and 38% more passenger‐kilometres (relative to 15% across East Coast Mainline services).^{Note 2}

The notes

(1) The 34 minute average journey time saving reported from the WCML upgrade is similar to that claimed for a future HS2 phase one and ‘classic compatible’ service between the capital and provincial conurbations (e.g. Birmingham, Manchester, and Liverpool). For example, HS2 is claimed to speed up journeys to the West Midlands by 33 minutes. This opens up the possibility of looking into whether speeding up intercity train journeys to the capital has had the effect of increasing aggregate productivity and economic activity in those cities. No-one appears to have done this, but the results from such an evaluation could make for some interesting reading.

(2) Upgrading the West Coast Main Line resulted in travel volume rising faster than on lines not upgraded during the same period. So as with new-build lines, the process of upgrading lines has the potential to bring about generated journeys, which depending on the circumstances, may not be a desirable outcome in sustainability terms. This has implications for decision-making in the domains of type and scale of transport investment.

Reshaping rolling stock procurement, part two

Following the award of the Thameslink trains contract to Siemens and (the embarrassing press coverage of) Bombardier‘s announcement of downsizing at its Derby plant, Prime Minister David Cameron said he would

“look carefully” at the situation in Derby after he heard that Bombardier had pledged to open a centre of excellence in the city if it had won the Thameslink contract.
[…]
On Tuesday, Francis Paonessa, Bombardier’s UK president of the passengers division, revealed the firm would have established a worldwide centre of excellence for aluminium carriage body design at Litchurch Lane if it had won the £1.4 billion Thameslink deal.

The Department for Transport (DfT) had claimed that Siemens’ bid offered best value for the British taxpayer, but later had to concede that it had not considered factors such as the economic impact of job losses in Derby. Transport secretary Philip Hammond admitted that these could have been taken into account, if the Department had written them into the original tender process.

In June, Mr Hammond told Rail Professional that EU procurement laws have driven up costs:

‘I have my own not-so-very-private views about how helpful they are in driving the construction of properly collaborative supply chains and the best long-term value-for-money for the industry. But we will do what we can within the constraints of European law.’

The European Union’s public procurement rules are supposed to provide “a regime to facilitate competitive, transparent and non-discriminatory purchasing and tendering procedures by public sector and utility bodies”. But it’s painfully obvious that these objectives are not being met. In the Thameslink contract, there is no public information about the prices offered by Bombardier or Siemens, no supporting data on comparative labour costs or productivity, and no disclosure of the technical scoring of the rolling stock designs.

The farcical Intercity Express Programme (IEP) was, and is, another transparency blackout zone. It’s accepted that both of the final bidders for the IEP were not compliant with the “essential” requirements set by DfT, but virtually nothing is known about the details, or the costs. Mr Hammond decided to continue with the Programme, but the product to be supplied by ‘preferred bidder’ Hitachi is completely different to what was originally offered.