Stop HS2 campaigners have said that electrification plans outlined by the government further undermine the business case for high-speed rail.
Yesterday, David Cameron and Nick Clegg officially announced an additional £4.2 billion programme of investment in Britain’s rail network between 2014-2019.
Projects will include electrifying lines between Bedford and Sheffield and Cardiff and Swansea.
Stop HS2 campaign coordinator Joe Rukin said: “Even proponents of HS2 have admitted that Midland Main Line electrification diminishes a great deal of the point of having HS2 and further wrecks the business case.
“Incremental improvements like addressing the massive gaps in electrification are more beneficial to more people than HS2, can be provided more quickly at a far lower cost and unlike HS2, have environmental benefits.
“Investing in the existing infrastructure is simply a far better option, as this can deliver real benefits to more parts of the country.
“If HS2 is going to go ahead, today’s announcement pretty much signals the last chance saloon for other rail projects to get the go ahead in the next 20 years, as if the spending on the construction of HS2 gets the go-ahead, nothing else will get a look in.”
And just how does this diminish the case for HS2????
Electrification of the Midland Mainline improves capacity a touch whilst we await HS2 and makes it easier for HS2 trains to use “classic” lines to reach city centres – but will not solve the massive capacity problem that we have.
Only a new line does that. Making it a fast line does not cost a vast sum more but gets it paid for faster – by attracting rather more of the large air markets from to Scotland and from the North West, Yorkshire and Midlands to Paris, Germany, Amsterdam, other parts of France and Switzerland.
Hopefully the Western link from Iver to Heathrow T5 will also be shared by Eurostars off the end of the HS2 spur – which should be advanced to phase 1, as twice the potential market for that spur is for Eurostar traffic to Europe rather than HS2 traffic to Scotland.
It was always said that HS2 was in ADDITION to other work which would not stop!
The reason it diminishes the case for HS2 is a factor of the Governments own making. The business case was based mainly on time saved and -stupidly – was made under the assumption that nothing else would be done to the existing infrastructure. The DFT will now have to re-visit the business case and as electrification means shorter journey times this reduces the benefit of HS2. It will probably means that benefits will fall below 1:1 and will give the Govt the excuse to kick it into the long grass. They won’t have the b***s to cancel it before the next election but they will be able to say that they have done enough to rail infrastructure and at a better cost and they will review HS2 at a later date.
Unfortunately John, they will also point to the fact that there isn’t a capacity problem at Euston – only 60% usage at peak morning times – and that budget is being used an lines where there is greater problems.
This was the death knell for HS2 but the corpse will swing in the wind for the next few years before it’s quietly cut down.
‘60% usage at peak times’ – what is this statistic based on ? Where have you got this ?
Irrespective of the capacity usage at Euston the problem is actually the WCML south of Rugby which will be at capacity in the next few years. You simply cannot run many more trains into Euston regardless of what platform space you may have available. And the RP2 package proposed by stop-HS2 has been proven to be the sticking plaster sham it is.
Also for the self-interested stop HS2 lobby to claim that HS2 will prevet expenditure else is simply a propagandist lie. I can tell you the DfT are already working up plans for CP6 & CP7, aside from HS2.
Captain
It’s Network Rail’s own statistic. “Network Rail’s London and South Eastern Rail Utilisation Strategy, July 2011, Table 4.2 page 55” available off the website if you google it.
You may well be correct on your further points – however within Westminster the political will is falling away – it isn’t the vote winner they thought it would be – so hence the “big beast” announcement this week so that when the Y route doesn’t get announced in the Autumn they can claim they are doing enough and re-thinking priorities.
Well your comments @Jon, have to take the prize for this month’s entry into the “Biggest case of wishful thinking about HS2” contest?
You accuse HS2Ltd /DfT of stupidity and then make just about the most stupid claim I’ve seen in a long time about the demand modelling used within the HS2 business case, implying that no account has been taken of future development in the existing infrastructure – even a five year old can see the nonsense inherent within your claim.
Thirty seconds on the World Wide Web turned up the following report on the DfT website
http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/hsr-strategic-alternative.pdf
Section 3; Strategic Interventions in the aforesaid report, lists numerous references to assumptions about future capacity upgrades on the West Coast Mainline, East Coast Mainline and Midland Mainline networks. Now who’s looking pretty stupid?
This kind of selective amnesia pervades the anti-HS2 brigade’s campaign tactics. Why bother with something as inconvenient as facts when half-truths, gross distortions and downright porkies will suffice in supplying ammunition for a remorseless strategy aimed at poisoning public opinion in pursuit of a narrow self-interest driven agenda – care to inform readers here just how close to the approved ROUTE3 pathway you live @Jon?
You couldn’t make this stuff up if you tried!Â
Padav
Don’t understand why you have to be so insulting particularly when you clearly haven’t bothered to read the Post. What makes you think I’m against HS2? Think its a great idea and the Post was simply pointing out that the big charade this week was a sign that the Govt. has lost/or is losing the Political will on this project. The link u sent through was not to the base case for HS2 which will be revisited and will lower the BCR or do you disagree? Wasn’t it Mcnaughton himself who advised that interim improvements would undermine the overall business case. Not sure what the Porkies or half truths are in the Post – perhaps you can point them out with your usual eloquence.
But as an open question – to anyone still reading – who believes that the Govt is full square behind HS2 or was hedging its bets to give itself an exit strategy.
My guess is that I live about 100miles away from HS2 or however far Halifax is from Birmingham.
@Jon – I read your post very carefully – you are giving a very good impression of someone viscerally opposed to the scheme – you asked What makes you think I’m against HS2?
errrr…..you could try words such as “This was the death knell for HS2 but the corpse will swing in the wind for the next few years before it’s quietly cut down.” that sort of give it away? – or did I just imagine them?
In short your remarks were a confusing mish-mash and highly misleading – hence my negative response.
As for my link – you claimed that HS2 Ltd had not taken into account any future development/upgrading of the existing infrastructure – clearly you are wrong on that score
Padav, really! Stupidly the DFT builds a business case on time saved, not on regeneration, not on capacity not on real measurable benefits . It uses a notional cost of lost productivity. If upgrades to other routes – particularly Midland main line save more time than the dft had accounted for then this brings the cost benefit lower – not sure why you are arguing black is white on this. The link you sent was not to the base case but to a further re-evaluation of the business case after which….. they downgraded the CBR!  So clearly you have failed to understand what is behind the constant downgrading of the business case and why this improvement in other routes through shorter journey times will lead to a further down grade.
My comments are on the Govts current attitude – not my personal view on the project. Do you see them standing full square behind the project, pushing ahead with full speed? On the contrary the project is beset with delays and the impression is that they are hedging their bets on this. They thought it would be a vote winner, but instead they are in danger of losing seats olong the route and not gaining any in the Midlands and further North. Be honest, when was the last time we heard anything rousing to get people to man the barricades from HS2 Ltd? They have been so quite as to be non-existent leaving the field open to the anti campaign and not even challenging it effectively.
The Govt has been even more mealy-mouthed. My view is they are trying to back out without losing too much face.
You may see it as a mish mash but which bit is misleading?Â
How many tracks does a high speed and larger gauge freight route along the length of England and the Scottish Borders require. Four from the convergence of east and west sections. Where will that converegence be is one key issue and Birmingham does not become the better location when assessed against other locations to the East between Peterborough and Bletchley. What traction power will be used for freight is not addressed by the proposed electrification because there are constraints on existing routes for bridge lifting and track dropping. Track bed improvements are also required. HS2 is a narrow concept which can be changed to meet John Armett’s big ambition with a better planned configuration.
The electrification of the East West rail link will actually make it a little cheaper to build HS2, as it was always planned to be used during the construction of HS2.
Also by providing a much better “classic” rail network makes it more likely that people will want to travel by train, so expect passenger growth of well above the 2% used as a basis for HS2.Â
This is may mean that HS2 can be delayed by a few years because of the schemes announced, but if the passenger numbers on the network are higherearlier than the predictions used then the case for building it gets stronger not weaker.
Just to check, were the anti HS2 groupings saying that by building HS2 it would stave “classic” rail investment and that would be bad for the railways, but now the government appears to be doing both they are saying that we don’t need both.
I think we can safely categorise these STOPHS2 claims one under a “clutching at straws” heading.
The long overdue announcements made yesterday only serve to underscore the growing realisation of a profound long term shift in travel patterns; away from private car to rail.
However, this is hardly likely to obstruct anti-HS2 campaigners in pursuit of their malign goals. For example, yesterday STOPHS2 campaigners were once again in Westminster lobbying MPs before the Summer recess – Penny Gaines was quoted on behalf of STOPHS2 “The business case [for HS2] is appalling. It relies on a huge growth in long distance travel at a time when demand for it is falling.”
She’s correct about overall demand for long distance falling (largely due to economic pressures) but what she conveniently forgot to mention that whilst overall demand is falling, rail passenger numbers are relentlessly increasing. Short haul (intra-UK) air has now passed its boom period and the transfer back to rail is well established and ever increasing numbers of young people don’t even bother to learn to drive – just how are these passengers going to make their journeys in the coming decades – yup, you’ve got it in one – BY RAIL!!!
This selective editing and sleight of hand pervades the anti-HS2 brigade as they seek to distort public opinion in support of their narrow self-interest driven agenda with a toxic cocktail of half-truths and downright porkies!
Penny Gaines of course also forgot to mention to her interviewer that she resides in Quainton – bang next door to the approved Route3 pathway for phase1 of HS2 – so definitely no self-interest to pursue there then?
We need HS2 to expand passenger and freight capacity, removing lorries from roads, and reducing overcrowding on passenger trains. Electrification of existing lines does not undermine the need for HS2, it is complementary, and the fact that opponents to HS2 are spouting this type of unsubstantiated rubbish shows how poor their argument is.
I am not sure about the increasing freight traffic bit. Moving things by rail is so expensive that even rolling stock is moved by road to save money. Problem is HS2 will just encourage more people to become commuters & travel South chasing the fatter salaries.People will not leave highly paid jobs in London to work in Birmingham they may move to west Mids for cheaper housing & then commute. Perhaps spend money in creating more jobs outside the fat underbelly of South East ?