COMMENT


wo decades have passed since a Con- servative Government backed the alternative route for the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. British Rail, furious that their proposed alignment had been exposed as higher-risk, environmentally destructive, and low on the cost-benefit ratio retreated to nurse its wounds.


The alignment designed by engineering consultancy, Arup, became High Speed 1, and is generally acknowledged to be a transport, economic and environmental success.


However, it was never the intention that HS1 should terminate in London. That compromise was a result of political expe- diency. Arup always argued that the UK’s high speed rail network should be extended through London to serve Heathrow and the UK’s regions.


Following the completion of HS1, its de- signers continued to promote this concept against a background of political indiffer- ence. Then, in 2008, a breakthrough; the Conservative Shadow of Transport Secre- tary, Theresa Villiers, seized the initiative, and confirmed: “A Conservative Govern- ment would back the innovative proposal put forward by the engineering firm Arup,


22 | rail technology magazine Dec/Jan 12


T Tony Lodge, chair of the Transport Committee of Conservative aligned think tank The Bow Group, makes the case for


altering the HS2 route.


Above: The current HS2 route


to link Heathrow into the main rail net- work and a high speed link to St Pancras.”


Caught on the back foot, it took then La- bour Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon some months to respond, before announcing on 15 January 2009: “I see a strong case for (high-speed rail) approaching London via a Heathrow international hub station on the Great Western line, to provide a direct four-way interchange between the airport, the new north-south line, existing Great Western rail services and Crossrail.”


A political consensus had emerged, sup- porting a new high speed line connecting Europe, London, Heathrow and the rest of the UK. However, any celebrations that Britain had rediscovered its appetite for ambitious and creative high-speed projects proved premature. When HS2 Ltd’s (the company set up by the Government to de- sign the new line) vision for the alignment emerged, it contained no seamless link to Europe, and it bypassed, by just a few miles, the world’s busiest international, and UK’s only hub airport. It seemed the limited imagination which had produced British Rail’s alignment 20 years back, had returned with a destructive alignment fo- cused on saving every possible minute be- tween London and Birmingham.


As the Bow Group highlighted in its 2010 pamphlet, planners had simply failed to learn the lessons of HS1. Using existing transport corridors,


respecting


environmental sensitivities, offering intermediate stations and regional high speed services – these were the ingredients that made HS1 a success; and an integrated transport solution, not a point-to-point line in isolation.


The new Coalition Government’s revised remit to HS2 Ltd was therefore welcomed, requiring Heathrow and Europe to be properly considered. However, the per- haps understandable response by HS2 Ltd was to protect its alignment, and suggest a number of retrofits, in the hope these would allow a Hybrid Bill to be processed within the lifetime of this Parliament.


It is difficult to think of any other major project where bolting on bits here and there has arrived at a well-designed, cost- effective and elegant solution. If anything, this approach only serves to exacerbate the original flaws of HS2 Ltd’s proposals and the project to deliver Britain’s second high speed railway must be reassessed.


Importantly, Government’s own data makes the right solution obvious.


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