Letters
Email your letters to:
editor@railpro.co.uk or post to The Editor, Rail Professional, Hallmark House, Downham Road, Ramsden Heath, Essex CM11 1PU. Please note that letters may be edited for length.
Dear Madam, H
S2 – it’s not looking too good! A series of recent amendments and changes to the plans for HS2 together with some worrying official reports about the rapid rate of expenditure to date on legal,
consultancy and other fees should be setting alarm bells ringing about the ultimate viability and value of this project. Not least is the concern over the very long gestation period for the various sections to be developed. If the project commands such a high value in the minds of the great and good that are supporting the scheme, one wonders why it is likely to take so long to develop and implement. If regional links and economies are to be boosted, as claimed for this investment, then the case for speeding it up rather than moving at such a glacial pace seems to be made, but this not fully explained by the proponents. Similar concerns rest around the routing options which seem
to afford priority to parts of the country already well-endowed with good rail links. The configuration planned for the ultimate network falls into the trap of having a core route from London to Birmingham ultimately upon which all high speed traffic, including that to/from areas north of Birmingham, will use the stem of the ‘Y’, with resultant risk to all train services in the event of disruption unless there are realistic and readily links to the existing network as alternatives. Disruption response would need to be tuned to concert pitch to immediately overcome any such difficulties flowing from delays, changed train sequencing and any infrastructure induced problems. The proposed position on links to cities in the North also does not bear close scrutiny. For example the option of using the Meadowhall tram link to service Sheffield is wholly unrealistic compared with the proposals for Manchester and Leeds. Passengers will want to get as close as possible to the city centre by the long haul train and immediate environs without a break of journey or change of mode of transport. Any savings in time on the HS lines will inevitably be diluted if one has to wait for some alternative tram, light rail or regional service to cover the final journey sector. Direct train services from the core new lines linking to existing classic entry points would be a better bet and a more cost-effective option with a wider range of benefits than the impractical measures being proposed. The London end of the route still seems to be a rag bag mix of ideas and aspirations. A major trick is being missed by not linking HS2 to HS1 more closely. The notion of passengers having to transfer between St Pancras and Euston seems to lack any concept of seamless links. Even some cavernous underground walkway is likely to be a turn off for passengers. Better still, trains between the West Midlands, East Midlands, points North and Europe might usefully avoid London altogether to maximise the benefit of train speed and the new infrastructure. The options to serve the regions still look odd with vague
notions as to how the North East and Scotland might ultimately be served. Vague notions on the use of existing lines upgraded to accommodate the higher speeds to service these regions smacks of an ‘end of the queue’ allocation rather than identifying that the Tyne-Tees area and Scotland are significant generators of passenger traffic. As for the rest of the country, one wonders what is in this for Wales, the West Country, and the South away from the London orbit and East Anglia. Precious little in real terms. In terms of the capital estimates (watch these rise and rise as the scheme
proceeds...bets on doubling or tripling on completion?) it would be possible to re-vitalise and electrify most of the rail network in England, Wales and Scotland for something considerably less than the re-estimated cost of HS2. The option of trains travelling at ultra-high speeds over relatively short distances of exclusive track between a few conurbations appears to be a less equable option at a national level. A wider and more tangible
Page 16 September 2013
benefit would flow from system-wide electrification as a national scheme. Ultimate top speed may not be as high as that for the HS lines but potentially would deliver benefits to a wider national population of potential users.
The arguments about lines reaching their capacity limits and
therefore pressing the case for more line investment have a hollow ring. The deletion of inter-city routes linking major cities in the past now looks even more like a case of short-term politically-led economic vandalism now being expensively overcompensated for but at a pedestrian pace. There are alternative infrastructure options between London and Birmingham that could be further developed, and with little by way of infrastructure expenditure, the line from London to Manchester via the Peak District, for example, could be re-commissioned to add capacity and strategic route alternatives. An emergent argument for HS2 is that the capacity released
on classic lines will afford opportunities for rail to capture more freight. This is another flawed argument. Why should road freight suddenly transfer to rail just because more line capacity is available? Unless rail addresses more serious issues on reliability, availability, cost competitiveness, security through the whole transit, 24/7 capability and a more commercially focused approach, the freight argument falls over. More slow lumbering trains delivered on a supply-side basis will not win over a huge modal shift in a logistics world increasingly driven by the need for rapid replenishment on a frequent and precise basis. Possibly rail’s offers in this market are no longer relevant. If not now they will be by 2025.
HS2 is increasingly beginning to look like a ‘me-too’ option
with the UK joining the tail end of high speed train operators for domestic passenger services. If HS2 is destined to become just another very fast orthodox railway then waiting until 2025/2030 for this seems even more disappointing. Sincerely, Philip N. Mortimer Research Associate, New Rail, University of Newcastle upon Tyne
Greater responsibility required when it comes to rail fare increases
U
nderstandably the news that train fares face an average increase of 4.1 per cent has been met with unhappiness by many commuters. Of course it is an emotive issue for a lot of people, yet what isn’t being talked about so
readily is the need for above average fare increases to be balanced by others that rise by less or actually fall. Clearly part of the fare rise is inflationary, but the rest is purely demand driven. If high demand services are not allowed to charge a higher
fare, then it is extremely difficult for a train company to offer off-peak or lower fares elsewhere. To this end, the rail industry is no different from the hotel or airline industry, where customers understand that they will have to pay a higher price if demand is high, but can expect a discount if rooms or seats aren’t selling well. Ultimately rail companies do need to ensure that their
customers find value in the fares they pay. This will mean that train operators make customer service and on time performance a top priority. Only then can they justify any price rises. Equally if rail operators are to be held more accountable to deliver a better service to commuters, they do need to have the ability to set prices that will allow them to deliver said service. Seen in this light, fare rises make sense and are needed. However this needs to be done responsibly and at the right levels of government regulation to ensure we don’t risk the Wild West when it comes to rail fares, which would be to the detriment of all rail passengers. Anand Medepalli, Vice President Industry Strategy, JDA
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 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188