Don't be surprised when high speed rail hits the buffers
Is there a General Election in the offing?
Excuse me for sounding a tad cynical, but just pause to think about the Damascene conversion of Labour and Conservative parties to the cause of high speed rail.
We all like the vision of 250mph bullet trains rocketing through the countryside, cutting journey times between Brimingham and London to 50 minutes. Very sexy.
It's the sort of feel-good policy that politicians love to promote.
Remember John Kennedy's man-on-the-moon ambitions in 1960?
The subsequent space race embraced cutting-edge new technology and made the Americans feel even better about themselves than they normally do.
But back in the real world of 21st century busted-flush Britain, where Government debt is almost as high as one of JFK's rockets, it's a bit of an odd time to be talking about spending ã17 billion on a new rail line from St Pancras to Birmingham, and ã30 billion for a 335-mile network.
No doubt the private sector will be invited to stump up most of the cash, in return for guaranteed profits over a long period of time.
But Transport Secretary Lord Adonis's claim that construction could begin in seven years time sounds incredibly optimistic.
It will of course be a matter for the next government, but you can't imagine that railways will figure prominently on the agenda of whoever ends up in Downing Street after May, particularly not on the agenda of a hung parliament.
Call me a Jeremiah, but if high speed rail survives years of Whitehall cash cuts, I'm Thomas the Tank Engine.
If the next prime minister and transport secretary really are serious about High Speed 2, they will need to force plans for the line through the House of Commons and deal with Nimby Conservative constituencies in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire where opposition to carving up the Chiltern Hills is likely to be intense.
Britain doesn't have a great record when it comes to planning major transport infrastructure.
It's all very well to point to France and the TGV, but French governments don't have to put up with endless time-consuming planning inquiries. And they have much more land to choose from.
And even if the UK government uses parliamentary powers to get approval for the high speed line in record time, there's still that nagging question about the cost.
Virgin Rail recently questioned the need for a high speed service, given that the existing West Coast Main Line, if given additional tracking, could accommodate trains running at speeds in excess of 150mph. That would cut the journey time between Birmingham and London to just over an hour.
Is there really much demand for a high speed service, doubtless eye-wateringly expensive to use, in order to reduce journey times by another 15 minutes?
Another debatable claim about High Speed 2 centres on the supposed economic benefits it will bring to Birmingham and the West Midlands, put at ã1.2 billion and 68,000 new jobs. It's even been suggested by accountants KPMG that high speed rail will increase average salaries in the region by ã700 a year.
Perhaps so, although there is a danger that high speed rail could also help turn much of the countryside around Birmingham into dormitory commuter territory for business people working in London and the South-east. Birmingham City Council thinks high speed trains will lure inward investment to the West Midlands away from the "over heated" economy of the South-east, but is this really any more than wishful thinking by economists?
Gordon Brown made sure he came to Birmingham to launch the high speed rail plan, because there are always votes in grand schemes.
But I'll be prepared to bet that this is one spending project likely to hit the buffers sooner rather than later.
Older/Newer
« Birmingham City Council still in deep denial over Khyra Ishaq tragedy | HS2: "high-speed phallic sleekness" or part of a bigger vision to address the North-South imbalance? »
25 Comments
News authors
Jonathan Walker - The Birmingham Post's political editor
My postings |
My feed
Roshan Doug - Poet and freelance journalist
My postings
Alister Scott - Professor of Spatial Planning and Governance, Birmingham City University
My postings
Latest Birmingham Post Business blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all business matters.
Latest Birmingham Post Lifestyle blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from the midlands give you the lowdown on what's happening in your region and some musings on culture in the UK and beyond.
Latest Birmingham Post Science blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all science matters.
Latest Birmingham Post Sport blog
Birmingham Post staff and guest bloggers from Birmingham and the midlands inform and entertain on all sporting matters.
Nice and positive..........
BCU hold a long lease over some of the site. Anyone asked them for a response?
It's not just nimby Conservatives in Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire who can be expected to raise objections. What about residents in Warwickshire? And what about the impact on the Meriden Gap? The Post would do us a service by analysing the route through our region.
As usual, Paul Dale sets the scene for the City and the region to pull itself to pieces. Now there seems to be some kind of consensus I expect that we will start to hear from the usual tired old suspects (you know who you are)- who can usually be counted on to put a sledge hammer into any goodwill that has been created.
It is about time that the people that really care stand up to these people. If they don't like it here then clear off.
Paul
I deeply respect your incisive analysis, but I take another viewpoint - as well as declaring a vested interest as I am a member of the Airport team.
It will, of course, become fashionable for some to knock HS2.
Your analogy from the 1960's could be extended - your comments remind me of the telephone salesmen or IBM engineers that thought one day every town might have a telephone or a computer - but that they would never catch on.
Thirty years ago I was in this City - 16, unemployed and hopeless (ok, so I am still hopeless!)fortunately I managed to find a semi-skilled job and eventually get my career on track (no pun intended).
We all know that since that time our regional output has declined despite (or because of?) the best efforts of those who have gone before us. God help anyone who today finds themself in the position that I did in 1979.
My justification for the Airport, to all of those with their own political and environmental agendas, is that we can and will generate jobs - both at a high-level of skill and also semi-skilled. For every extra million passengers that we get through the Airport, there will be around a thousand jobs created across the region. If HS2 brings the Airport a couple of million more passengers, then we all benefit - and maybe there is a glimmer of hope for those unemployed who thought that the light had been extinguished.
Whilst as a journalist you have a specific job to do, elsewhere something is clearly wrong and I'm afraid that for some of us it is our outlook. It is not good enough for the 'usual suspects' (as another blogger describes them) to sit on the sidelines and lob in grenades from the comfort of their leafy suburbs or their plush pads in the surrounding Countryside.
My view is that we need a new approach which ditches the cynicism and political clap-trap that has plagued this region whilst others have forged ahead. If HS2 is not the answer, then what is it, and where are those jobs going to come from?
What I'd like to see from 'the usual suspects' with their wealth of experience, and their unrivalled contacts, is an action plan for what they would do to reverse the fortunes of the region. And if they are that good, why have they not done it already?
It would, I'm sure, make excellent reading.
Regards
John Morris
Birmingham Airport
Well done Mr Morris! have you ever thought about being the elected Mayor? You would scare them to death with common sense.
I completely agree with Bill. You should be John's deputy.
John,
Several points.
1) Just because economists say HS2 will create x-thousands jobs and generate y-billions of pounds in wealth, don't necessarily mean it is so.
2) My main point is to suggest that further improvements to the West Coast Main Line, including upgrading Birmingham International, and maybe a link to Heathrow, could be achieved more quickly and at less cost and disturbance than HS2.
3) The case for high speed rail in this rather small country has not been made, other than by politicians touting vanity projects for votes. Cutting 15, 20 or 25 mins off the Brum to London journey time? So What? It's already possible to go from BIA to the centre of London in under 90 mins. That's something we should celebrate.
The case for/against HS2 cannot be made in isolation from the rest of the UK transport infrastructure requirements.
There is a need to consider both external (International) transport requirements which realistically can only be provided via airports (with the relatively minor exception of Eurostar), and internal domestic requirements.
The need to increase international capacity is a given - both business and leisure travel will continue to increase, whatever the environmental impacts may be, albeit perhaps at a reduced rate due to additional taxation. The vast majority of UK-International flights currently originate from Heathrow and other London airports, but to further expand Heathrow, Gatwick or Stansted would be pushing the domestic support infrastructure and the environmental issue to the limit and perhaps beyond.
For this reason, bringing in additional currently under-utilised capacity at the nearest suitable regional airport (Birmingham) makes complete sense and this can become a reality with a high-speed rail link.
Thus, from the point of view of international (London originated) travel, HS2 to Birmingham airport makes sense both commercially and environmentally.
However, the argument that HS2 is an essential domestic transport infrastructure is less well founded. The reason being that as Christian Woolmar pointed out yesterday, ã30bn is a huge amount of money and this will have to come from somewhere - most likely a sizeable part will come from the existing transport budget, the implication being that something else will get cut to fund it.
My own view is that from a domestic point of view, the ã30bn would be far better invested improving the entire rail network and thus making public transport a more viable option for the tens of millions of journeys made by car within the UK every day.
Thus we have a proposal that really only makes sense for international travel, and essentially makes Birmingham London's 4th airport - if this is the case then the cost of building HS2 should be born by the users of the airport and not the taxpayer.
Gary
The existing rail network will be full in 10 years that is why HS2 is needed. It has been demonstrated with HS1 that mile for mile it is cheaper to build new railway instead of fiddling with the Victorian legacy. If anyone had known how much the west coast upgrade was gonna be then they would have gons straight to HS2 instead.
1) Just an idea but maybe it will create x-thousands of jobs and generate y-billions of pounds in wealth. Economic modelling is complex and can be flawed but there IS something in this for our region. I have spoken with a number of businesses who believe there are very real wins for them and make a direct link between HSR and future jobs. This includes SMEs, lawyers and manufacturers as well as obvious winners like the Airport and the NEC. Surely if this recession has taught us anything, it is that we need to plan for the future.
2) HSR is quick and thatâÂÂs great! But the real problem it solves is capacity. The WCML (which incidentally Network Rail will continue to invest in and upgrade concurrently with the development of HS2) will be FULL by 2022. Maybe earlier. We need something in additional to classic rail to solve that problem. We arenâÂÂt in a âÂÂmake do and mendâ situation. We need a step-change else we risk stifling our economy. HS2 is that solution.
3) Time savings make a difference. London attracts huge amounts of inward investment into the UK. The link will allow us a piece of the pie before the rest of the UK. It is a massive opportunity which we need to grasp.
4) Congratulations to Birmingham and the region for winning the argument and convincing HS2 to support two stations in the West Midlands. This will mean we can all derive some benefit and easy access as well as support the airport-which is a massive asset- to flourish.
Sofie
You know your material. Ive read the suff above and i think people need to try something instead of slagging it off
Gerard
Gary mentions the great guru and self-appointed transport expert, Christian Wolmar. Unfortunately Gary falls into a trap of taking his word as gospel. Christian is not (i think) a professionally qualified transport or economic analyst. he is a worthy commentator with a point of view that suits trainspotters and soundbite journalists. But he probably not qualified to undertake macroeconomic assessments as has HS2 already. Read the HS2 Report Gary and you will be better informed. Dont become a victim of the armchair expertswho would slag the thing off and see the midlands go down the tubes.
Andre
That's fine if you want to travel between London and Birmingham. What proportion of total rail passenger KM does that represent across the network?
My point was that if it's a choice between HS2 and maintaining/improving the network then I'd chose the latter. Obviously if we can have both then it's a no brainer - but we won't get both.
Oh and if the existing West Coast route London-Birmingham is full there are several obvious ways to increase capacity at a fraction of the ã30bn cost of HS2 - the first costs nothing and would simply involve a better management of the network so that freight trains avoid running during the busy periods (i.e. as BR ran the network), the second is to further develop the alternative routes to London, starting with the under-used Chilterns route and possibly re-opening elements of the Great Central Leicester-Rugby-Aylesbury-London.
Mr Carter should read the news.
Lord Adonis showed the plan for funding. ã2 billion a year goes to CrossRail and once that is done the ã2 billion rolls on to the next project which is HS2. Even the Tories won't kibosh that revenue stream. They have said so. The money will not rob the existing network which again if he looks at network rail plans has a costed infrastructure plan as a result of route utilisation strategies.
Hi Norman
Given the state the Treasury is in, I would say all bets are off after May 6th. I heard from a Dean of a University only last week that Higher Education will face cuts of 25% whoever wins the election.
Transport is unlikely to escape from cuts of that magnitude.
Hi Norman
Given the state the Treasury is in, I would say all bets are off after May 6th. I heard from a Dean of a University only last week that Higher Education will face cuts of 25% whoever wins the election.
Transport is unlikely to escape from cuts of that magnitude.
Gary Carter talks absolute sense in that there are some very obvious ways that alternative routes could be developed between Birmingham and London. ItâÂÂs also a question of whether the current West Coast Main Line is full of passengers or just full of trains. In my experience during many recent journeys on Virgin services, other than at peak times the trains are often very lightly loaded. That experience also extends to Chiltern services.
Gary is also correct in that HS2 canâÂÂt be allowed to take funds away from other transport projects. It would be very naïve not to think this would happen if the HS2 project moved forward. As a country we need to work towards a national, cheap, clean and efficient transport system not just a small number of high profile schemes which are mostly of little use to the wider public and prohibitively expensive to build and use.
HS2 is not just about relieving pressure on WCML - it's about a statement of intent by UK plc. For decades as a nation we've been content to sit back and let our closest competitors develop their infrastructure and economies at a pace that often far outpaces our own. We now know that the economic 'miracle' of the 2000s (like its 80s predecessor) was nothing but a financial bubble, generated by lax regulation and uncontrolled house price inflation. The UK needs to take a long hard look at itself and start a)investing in research and transport infrastructure and b) working its socks off. The question is not whether the UK can afford to build HS2, it's whether it can afford not to build it? Every decade that passes without the necessary investment in a proper modern transport system sees us slip further behind in terms of competetiveness and productivity. And yes, speed and time and reliability do matter. They're what make an economy dynamic, responsive and productive. We are no longer in the 19th century, when our competitors on the global scene could be counted on one hand. We need to open our eyes, take a deep breath and get on with making up the lost time we've wasted during our post-imperial hangover. We cannot afford to procrastinate and navel gaze any longer.
All in favour of HS2 - but question the maths behind the proposals and the environmental impacts? Turning green space into electric train tracks may improve movement of people but is this really the kind of environmental legacy we want to leave future generations? I am not a tree hugging lefty - just appreciative of green open spaces. Solution: Invest and upgrade existing lines, create a dedicated 'high speed line' within existing tracks....improve quality and reliability of all trains, improve cleanliness at stations and parking facilities, promote the benefits of train travel better,encourage train patronage by incentivising car loving commuters to 'make the change'...ie. If you take X number of train journeys a year you will get X% off your road tax? Intelligent taxation for intelligent travellers....against much opposition the Highways Agency has invested in its current asset meaning 'hard shoulder running' (HSR?) is the future :)
Hey, that Susan knows what she is talking about - A simple solution that makes sense - why can't politicians come up with such ideas?
Thanks Susan ! There is too much focus on 'what can I get out of it ' and not enough questioning the golden promises and the cost to others and the countryside. I don't believe that Hs2 have done a 'macro-economic study', they have had less than one year to assess the route and have not even assessed whether thay can move the pylons in my area. Their brief was to find a route and thats all they have done, the costings ignore 'collateral damage' to the countryside. It would be great to create jobs and revive the economy in the West Midlands, but this is just moving people, not manufactured goods.
The (to me) obvious way to get a high-speed rail network at minimal cost is to build the bulk of the track along the fast lanes of existing motorways. The advantages of this are numerous: -
There would be no environmental damage. (The centre of a motorway can, surely, not be damaged.)
The motorways follow routes where there is a demand to travel. Therefore no need for expensive inquiries as to the best routes. (Cost reduction)
The surveying has already been done. (Cost reduction)
The bulk of the groundwork has been done. (Cost reduction)
Planning permission would not be needed, as there would be no change of use, giving a huge reduction in time taken.
(Cost reduction)
One of the governmentâÂÂs requirements of the network is that it should encourage motorists to switch to rail travel. (Being overtaken by a train travelling at over 200mph should do this.)
If the track were to be built 1.5-2 metres above the road it would render accidents involving lorries crossing the centre reservation a thing of the past.
With the switch over of goods and passengers to the new high-speed rail network the rail track would make good use of the land released by the under used motorways.
I have offered this suggestion to Lord Adonis, and received a reply but it was turned down on the grounds that some of the bends would require the trains to slow down a little. A small price to pay compared to the advantages.
The (to me) obvious way to get a high-speed rail network at minimal cost is to build the bulk of the track along the fast lanes of existing motorways. The advantages of this are numerous: -
There would be no environmental damage. (The centre of a motorway can, surely, not be damaged.)
The motorways follow routes where there is a demand to travel. Therefore no need for expensive inquiries as to the best routes. (Cost reduction)
The surveying has already been done. (Cost reduction)
The bulk of the groundwork has been done. (Cost reduction)
Planning permission would not be needed, as there would be no change of use, giving a huge reduction in time taken.
(Cost reduction)
One of the governmentâÂÂs requirements of the network is that it should encourage motorists to switch to rail travel. (Being overtaken by a train travelling at over 200mph should do this.)
If the track were to be built 1.5-2 metres above the road it would render accidents involving lorries crossing the centre reservation a thing of the past.
With the switch over of goods and passengers to the new high-speed rail network the rail track would make good use of the land released by the under used motorways.
I have offered this suggestion to Lord Adonis, and received a reply but it was turned down on the grounds that some of the bends would require the trains to slow down a little. A small price to pay compared to the advantages.
Thank god College high or whatever it is now called is not to be demolished it is a beautiful building I have worked in for a long time, library and large swimming facilities. What a waste of money if rebuilt-only needs a lick of paint and the litter picking up more frequently. Only built in 1966 and designed for 125 year something wrong with the whole idea of rebuild as rolls rapidly falling anyway.