High speed rail
proposals. While it was a piece of work that had to be done, for both past and present incumbents of the top job at the DfT, the presence of the report has proved something of a nightmare for ministers. Objectors to HS2 have been using the Atkins report as ammunition in the fight against high speed from London to the West Midlands. The document, produced by Atkins, has the catchy, but pretty
direct, title of High Speed 2 Strategic Alternatives Study. According to its authors, the document is primarily concerned with identifying potential rail ‘interventions’ only. The report was designed to build on a previous report, HS2 Strategic Alternatives Study – Baseline Report, which detailed improvement projects already planned up to 2031. The latter report mainly deals with what it terms ‘additional interventions required to improve the rail offering, as an alternative to constructing a high speed rail line’. Authors concentrated on rail schemes that focused on existing routes between London and Birmingham, the West Coast Main Line and the Chiltern Line. Interestingly, a more radical alternative, which involved the construction of a new conventional rail line, was omitted from the study, because, at the time, it was being considered directly by HS2 Ltd. From the start, the report’s authors maintain that few of the
proposed interventions, on their own, would bring significant gains in terms of end-to-end capacity. Instead, they suggest that any interventions would tend to reduce or eliminate local capacity bottlenecks. Some schemes however, according to the report, would improve end-to-end journey times. It’s part of the reason that the improvements suggested were broken down into ‘packages’, which were tested and analysed fully as part of the study. Indeed, it was at this stage that ‘Rail Package 2’, or RP2, was born. It assumes a service frequency of 16 trains per hour over the busiest section of the West Coast Main Line, between Euston and Ledburn Junction. The perceived benefits, says the report, are that ‘generalised journey times’ are reduced through enhanced frequencies and improved line speeds in some places. The package would require new rolling stock for both fast and slow lines and infrastructure improvements in several places. Originally costed at around £3.6bn, earlier this year the government revised the estimate upwards to just under £9bn. However, even with an increased estimate, critics of HS2 still
point out that RP2 would cost a lot less than high speed rail. Rail consultant Chris Stokes says: ‘RP2 can be delivered faster, has a much better benefit:cost ratio and provides for 15 to 16 InterCity trains an hour from Euston. This is clearly effectively the limit on what can be achieved on the existing route, but at present there are only nine to 10 trains an hour from Euston, so it does represent a major increase.’ Stokes has written much on high speed rail, some of which has
been published by the Taxpayers’ Alliance, a group that is against HS2. One its recent documents, also written by Stokes, maintains that for key flows, HS2 provides less capacity than now and that there are better alternatives, including RP2. However, others argue that RP2 simply can’t match the capacity enhancements that would be delivered by HS2. In a recent article published in a Midlands business magazine, rail commentator Alan Marshall says: ‘The trouble is that RP2 just does not stack up in providing sufficient extra capacity on the southern section of the West Coast Main Line, which is forecast to be full during the next decade.’ He adds: ‘It would enable only three or four extra trains to run to and from London Euston every hour, compared with up to 14 on HS2 serving the West Midlands, North West England and Glasgow and later the East Midlands.’ He also points out the WCML infrastructure limitations preclude trains longer than 250 metres, compared with 400 metres on HS2.
Some have suggested that 12-car trains and fewer first class seats would greatly enhance seating capacity. But the Atkins report appears to back Marshall’s view, stating that ‘lengthening trains to 12 carriages is not a viable alternative as a stand-alone option to capacity benefits likely to be generated by HS2’. Although it’s remained silent throughout much of the debate,
even the DfT has waded in to rebut some of what’s being said about RP2. A recent statement said: ‘Rail Package 2 would not be a viable alternative to a new high speed rail network. It would create far less new capacity than HS2 and would cause significant disruption for travellers on the West Coast Main Line.’ And in a strongly worded critique of material published by
those opposing HS2, the DfT statement went on, under the banner ‘Why Rail Package 2 isn’t a viable option’, to say that: ‘The disruption for existing travellers from taking forward works of this scale on a running line would be immense.’ Like some others, the DfT also maintains that RP2 wouldn’t release additional capacity that would benefit local commuters or freight traffic. As the consultation exercise into the HS2 proposals continues,
the arguments for and against the concept are still being played. Rail Package 2, and indeed other alternatives, are the topic of conversation at many meetings being held up and down the route of the proposed line. The consultation is due to be completed in July and the government has committed to making a final decision on whether or not to press ahead with HS2 sometime towards the end of the year.
PETER PLISNER is the BBC’s Midlands transport correspondent:
peter.plisner@
railpro.co.uk
‘‘
500 transport
practitioners and researchers from more than 30 countries are set to attend this year’s European Transport Conference
For further information contact Christine Carr Tel: +44 (0) 20 7348 1970 Email:
christinec@aetransport.org
JUNE 2011 PAGE 25
‘‘
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36