This House would build High Speed Two

The UK has a north south divide in terms of wealth and income. London and the South East has for the last few decades done much better than the north; while industry and mining in the north has declined financial services in the south have boomed. The result is inequality between regions. High Speed Two will help to solve this inequality by increasing connections between north and south. The government “suggests that HS2 could provide a boost to the Birmingham city region equivalent to between 2.1% and 4.2% of its GDP. For the Manchester city region the figure is 0.8%-1.7%, for the Leeds city region 1.6%”.[1] This is because businesses will be more likely to invest there when there is better infrastructure, companies based in London in particular will be much more likely to see the benefits of investing in, or partnering with businesses in the north when they can easily reach those cities.

[1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf p.99

This makes the strange assumption that Leeds and Manchester, or even Birmingham is the north. In pure geographic terms they are not even half way up the country from London – what about Newcastle and Scotland?

The evidence for the possibility of a high speed railway helping to solve regional inequalities is decidedly mixed. Theoretically if one region has comparative advantage then providing it with better transport infrastructure should mean that region simply expanding its market – in this case London would likely have the comparative advantage so increasing inequality.[1] While this has not happened with all high speed links what will happen is that the regional hubs may grow but it will likely be at the expense of surrounding towns that are not connected and areas further away from the line. The government’s own figures estimate the cost to the North East of Scotland would be £220million per year.[2]

[1] Puga, Diego, ‘Agglomeration and cross border infrastructure’, European Investment Bank Papers, vol.13, no.2, 2008, pp.102-24, https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/44896/1/574950850.pdf p.117

[2] BBC News, ‘HS2 ‘losers’ revealed as report shows potential impact’, 19 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

Capacity on the railways is a big problem in the UK. Due to growth since privatisation Britain’s railways take as many passengers as it is physically possible to do; more than a fifth of rush hour passengers have to stand.[1] Growth is almost certain to continue as the roads too are at capacity and population continues to rise. The result is more railways are needed. Rail freight meanwhile if forecast to double by the 2040s. The West Coast Main Line is a particular bottleneck for freight with 40% of UK freight services using the line; any increase would have to come at the expense of passenger services.[2] Transferring the main rail services to the high speed line would free up the WCML to increased freight and commuter use so HS2 would not just mean an increase in long distance capacity.

[1] BBC News, ‘London-bound train overcrowding: 100,000 have to stand’, 24 July 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23436819

[2] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf, p.50, 54

This is exactly what makes HS2 a bad scheme. Yes there is overcrowding but the worst overcrowding is on peak services travelling into London – commuter services – not on long distance trains. It is notable that the operator that is most over capacity is First Great Western which covers a route – to Reading and on to Bristol, South Wales and the West country - which will be unaffected by HS2 which goes north. 

The United Kingdom has been somewhat of a laggard when it comes to high speed rail. In the first half of the century Britain’s railways were the fastest in the world (still holding the world speed record for steam). But since what we would now consider to be high speed started with the launch of the Shinkansen in 1964 the UK has only marginally upgraded its own railways to 125mph. This means the only high speed line the UK has is the link to the channel tunnel which does not serve a large number of internal passengers. The UK therefore has 113km of high speed rail against 1334 in Germany, 1342 in Italy, 2036 in France and 3100 in Spain. Even much smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium have longer high speed lines.[1]  

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_by_country

The UK is densely populated and concentrated in one part of the country so has less need of high speed connections. Other countries having a large number of high speed route miles should not be considered evidence that the UK needs more or that the UK is somehow ‘behind’ as conditions vary between countries.

Big infrastructure projects often provide a big boost to the economy. HS2 will do this in two ways; the first will be in the economic activity created in building the line and the estimated 3100 jobs staffing the railway. Much more important however are the wider economic benefits. On a cost-benefit basis HS2 is considered to be ‘high value for money’ because it will have a 1:2.3 cost:benefit ratio. This ration however could be considerably better if ridership keeps increasing for longer or faster than expected. The overall benefit to the economy is estimated at £53 billion.[1]

[1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf, p.31

Estimates and guesstimates. We don’t know exactly how much HS2 will benefit the economy and still won’t even if it is built because we will never know how well the alternative spending of the money would have affected the economy.

The most obvious benefit from high speed rail is that journey times will be less. From London the journey to Birmingham will be reduced from 84 to 49 minutes, Leeds from 132 to 82 and Manchester 128 to 68.[1] While faster journeys provide some economic benefit the are as much a social benefit of making more places accessible by allowing individuals to spend less time traveling and more doing what they want to when they get there.

[1] Hs2, ‘facts, figures and journey times’, http://www.hs2.org.uk/phase-two/facts-figures

This is not going to be the case with all cities for example journey times to Scotland could be reached for much less. With using tilting trains on the East Coast and upgrading to 140 mph running the journey time from London to Edinburgh would actually be marginally faster than using HS2.[1] The figures for the journey savings notably exclude the possibility of faster journeys on the existing routes so the savings would not be as big.[2] Because Britain’s big cities are not particularly far apart journey times are already not long by comparison to many countries. Trains from London to the second city of Manchester take just over two hours, because of the much longer distance from Paris to France’s second city even with the TGV the journey time is about the same while from Tokyo to Osaka takes 2hours 25 minutes.

[1] Webb, Jonathan, ‘East Coast Pendolinos could deliver faster journey times than HS2 for Anglo-Scottish services’, Global Rail News, 2 August 2013, http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/08/02/east-coast-pendolinos-could-deliver-faster-journey-times-than-hs2-for-anglo-scottish-services/

[2] Millward, David, ‘HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say’, The Telegraph, 29 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10411885/HS2-time-savings-exaggerated-critics-say.html

The UK has a north south divide in terms of wealth and income. London and the South East has for the last few decades done much better than the north; while industry and mining in the north has declined financial services in the south have boomed. The result is inequality between regions. High Speed Two will help to solve this inequality by increasing connections between north and south. The government “suggests that HS2 could provide a boost to the Birmingham city region equivalent to between 2.1% and 4.2% of its GDP. For the Manchester city region the figure is 0.8%-1.7%, for the Leeds city region 1.6%”.[1] This is because businesses will be more likely to invest there when there is better infrastructure, companies based in London in particular will be much more likely to see the benefits of investing in, or partnering with businesses in the north when they can easily reach those cities.

[1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf p.99

This makes the strange assumption that Leeds and Manchester, or even Birmingham is the north. In pure geographic terms they are not even half way up the country from London – what about Newcastle and Scotland?

The evidence for the possibility of a high speed railway helping to solve regional inequalities is decidedly mixed. Theoretically if one region has comparative advantage then providing it with better transport infrastructure should mean that region simply expanding its market – in this case London would likely have the comparative advantage so increasing inequality.[1] While this has not happened with all high speed links what will happen is that the regional hubs may grow but it will likely be at the expense of surrounding towns that are not connected and areas further away from the line. The government’s own figures estimate the cost to the North East of Scotland would be £220million per year.[2]

[1] Puga, Diego, ‘Agglomeration and cross border infrastructure’, European Investment Bank Papers, vol.13, no.2, 2008, pp.102-24, https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/44896/1/574950850.pdf p.117

[2] BBC News, ‘HS2 ‘losers’ revealed as report shows potential impact’, 19 October 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24589652

Capacity on the railways is a big problem in the UK. Due to growth since privatisation Britain’s railways take as many passengers as it is physically possible to do; more than a fifth of rush hour passengers have to stand.[1] Growth is almost certain to continue as the roads too are at capacity and population continues to rise. The result is more railways are needed. Rail freight meanwhile if forecast to double by the 2040s. The West Coast Main Line is a particular bottleneck for freight with 40% of UK freight services using the line; any increase would have to come at the expense of passenger services.[2] Transferring the main rail services to the high speed line would free up the WCML to increased freight and commuter use so HS2 would not just mean an increase in long distance capacity.

[1] BBC News, ‘London-bound train overcrowding: 100,000 have to stand’, 24 July 2013, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23436819

[2] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf, p.50, 54

This is exactly what makes HS2 a bad scheme. Yes there is overcrowding but the worst overcrowding is on peak services travelling into London – commuter services – not on long distance trains. It is notable that the operator that is most over capacity is First Great Western which covers a route – to Reading and on to Bristol, South Wales and the West country - which will be unaffected by HS2 which goes north. 

The United Kingdom has been somewhat of a laggard when it comes to high speed rail. In the first half of the century Britain’s railways were the fastest in the world (still holding the world speed record for steam). But since what we would now consider to be high speed started with the launch of the Shinkansen in 1964 the UK has only marginally upgraded its own railways to 125mph. This means the only high speed line the UK has is the link to the channel tunnel which does not serve a large number of internal passengers. The UK therefore has 113km of high speed rail against 1334 in Germany, 1342 in Italy, 2036 in France and 3100 in Spain. Even much smaller countries such as the Netherlands and Belgium have longer high speed lines.[1]  

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_by_country

The UK is densely populated and concentrated in one part of the country so has less need of high speed connections. Other countries having a large number of high speed route miles should not be considered evidence that the UK needs more or that the UK is somehow ‘behind’ as conditions vary between countries.

Big infrastructure projects often provide a big boost to the economy. HS2 will do this in two ways; the first will be in the economic activity created in building the line and the estimated 3100 jobs staffing the railway. Much more important however are the wider economic benefits. On a cost-benefit basis HS2 is considered to be ‘high value for money’ because it will have a 1:2.3 cost:benefit ratio. This ration however could be considerably better if ridership keeps increasing for longer or faster than expected. The overall benefit to the economy is estimated at £53 billion.[1]

[1] Department for Transport, ‘The Strategic case for HS2’, gov.uk, October 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/253996/strategic-case.pdf, p.31

Estimates and guesstimates. We don’t know exactly how much HS2 will benefit the economy and still won’t even if it is built because we will never know how well the alternative spending of the money would have affected the economy.

The most obvious benefit from high speed rail is that journey times will be less. From London the journey to Birmingham will be reduced from 84 to 49 minutes, Leeds from 132 to 82 and Manchester 128 to 68.[1] While faster journeys provide some economic benefit the are as much a social benefit of making more places accessible by allowing individuals to spend less time traveling and more doing what they want to when they get there.

[1] Hs2, ‘facts, figures and journey times’, http://www.hs2.org.uk/phase-two/facts-figures

This is not going to be the case with all cities for example journey times to Scotland could be reached for much less. With using tilting trains on the East Coast and upgrading to 140 mph running the journey time from London to Edinburgh would actually be marginally faster than using HS2.[1] The figures for the journey savings notably exclude the possibility of faster journeys on the existing routes so the savings would not be as big.[2] Because Britain’s big cities are not particularly far apart journey times are already not long by comparison to many countries. Trains from London to the second city of Manchester take just over two hours, because of the much longer distance from Paris to France’s second city even with the TGV the journey time is about the same while from Tokyo to Osaka takes 2hours 25 minutes.

[1] Webb, Jonathan, ‘East Coast Pendolinos could deliver faster journey times than HS2 for Anglo-Scottish services’, Global Rail News, 2 August 2013, http://www.globalrailnews.com/2013/08/02/east-coast-pendolinos-could-deliver-faster-journey-times-than-hs2-for-anglo-scottish-services/

[2] Millward, David, ‘HS2 time savings exaggerated critics say’, The Telegraph, 29 October 2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/10411885/HS2-time-savings-exaggerated-critics-say.html

Railways are supposed to be green – they produce less greenhouse gas emissions than cars or planes. Yet many of those benefits are sacrificed by the desire for high speed which makes these trains much less environmentally friendly than normal trains due to the extra power necessary to reach such speeds. The impact on the British countryside will be immense. The railway will run through four Wildlife Trust reserves, 10 Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs), more than 50 ancient woodlands, and HS2 will run through 13 miles of the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The result will be the fragmentation of populations of insects, bats, birds and mammals. The Wildlife Trusts argue “The very last thing we should be doing is creating new linear barriers to the movement of wildlife.”[1]

[1] The Wildlife Trusts, ‘HS2’, http://www.wildlifetrusts.org/HS2

Some of these costs have already been included in the cost:benefit ratio such as the impact of pollution and greenhouse gases. Moreover there have already been changes made to ensure that the high speed line runs in tunnels through areas where the damage would otherwise be significant. More than 50% of the route to Birmingham will be in tunnels or cuttings and much of the remainder will have barriers to prevent noise pollution.[1] Given the number of tunnels it is wrong to consider the railway one long barrier to wildlife. If it is considered a serious problem then solutions would not be immensely costly – tunnels under the tracks could be constructed for example.

[1] Railway-technology.com, ‘High Speed 2 (HS2) Railway, United Kingdom’, http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/high-speed-2-hs2/

There are plenty of other options that don’t have the disadvantages of HS2 (high cost, environmental impacts etc.) but do meet most of the requirements like increased capacity. First because it is capacity on main commuter lines that is mostly needed it makes more sense to lengthen platforms and trains, and if that is not enough raise bridges to allow double deckers on the busiest routes. The government rejected such an option in 2007 due to the cheapest option costing £2.4billion, which seems cheap compared to HS2.[1]

Similarly if the capacity problem is for freight as a chunk of the business case is then reopening the Great Central Railway could be the answer – most of the track bed still exists. It has been proposed as a useful freight corridor that would help take the load off the West Coast.[2]

Finally terms of faster journey times as already noted there is little need for more speed in the UK but even without HS2 journey times will improve as East Coast and Great Western are to be upgraded to 140mph. And in terms of capacity on intercity rail the better option has been suggested as being lengthening trains and reducing first class – which has been estimated as having a benefit of £6.06 for every pound invested, 2.5times that of HS2.[3]

[1] Millward, David, ‘Britons squash plans for double-decker trains’, The Telegraph, 16 September 2007, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1563277/Britons-squash-plans-for-double-decker-trains.html

[2] ‘Great Central is the way to go’, http://beleben.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/great-central-is-the-way-to-go/

[3] Doward, Jamie, ‘HS2 not the best value rail option, says government report’, 14 January 2012, http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jan/14/hs2-value-rail-option-report

None of the alternatives is a comprehensive solution and particularly not to the capacity problem. What happens once the double decker trains are at capacity? Then you are back to thinking of building new lines. Upgrading existing lines would require 14 years of weekend closures to allow the needed capacity increases. This would be “a patch and mend job that would cause 14 years of gridlock, hellish journeys and rail replacement buses. The three main routes to the north would be crippled and the economy would be damaged.”[1]

The difference between HS1 and the upgrade to the West Coast Main Line should also be mentioned. HS1 was a stand alone line that was on time and on budget,[2] WCML on the other hand was £6 billion over budget, four years late and caused immense amounts of disruption to passengers, what’s worse is the proposed upgrade part of the plan to make the line 140mph capable was abandoned.[3]

[1] Syal, Rajeev, ‘HS2 alternatives could require 14 years of weekend rail closures’, The Guardian, 28 October 2013, http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/27/hs2-weekend-rail-closures-cost-backbench-mps

[2] Major Projects Association, ‘Delivering High Speed 1: the successes and the lessons’, 7 February 2008, http://www.majorprojects.org/pdf/seminarsummaries/139summarydeliveringHS1.pdf p.4

[3] All Party Group for Excellence in the Built Environment, ‘A Better Deal For Public Building’, cic.org.uk, September 2012, http://www.majorprojects.org/pdf/seminarsummaries/139summarydeliveringHS1.pdf, p.24

HS2 is already looking very costly. California’s San Francisco to Los Angeles High Speed rail is 520 miles at a cost of $68billion (£42bln),[1] HS2 will only be 33miles but is already expected to cost about the same £42.6billion.[2] The cost has already grown and there are regular claims even by respected economics analysts such as the Institute of Economic Affairs that it will eventually rise to £80 billion.[3] Britain is only just recovering from a long recession and does not yet have its deficit under control, can it really afford such an immense cost? The money could be spent on a great many other things, not just upgrades to the existing network but schools and hospitals too.

[1] AP, ‘No One Knows Where The Money Will Come From For California's $68 Billion High Speed Rail Plan’, Business Insider, 3 April 2012, http://www.businessinsider.com/california-relaunches-high-speed-rail-plan-2012-4#ixzz2jJgiLL5j

[2] Hs2, ‘Route, Trains & Cost’, http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/facts-figures/route-trains-cost

[3] Leftly, Mark, ‘The wrong side of the tracks: Lobbyists for HS2 rail line funded by the taxpayer’, The Independent, 25 August 2013, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-wrong-side-of-the-tracks-lobbyists-for-hs2-rail-line-funded-by-the-taxpayer-8783673.html

The spending for HS2 would not contribute to the deficit as it is investment that will pay back the money over time and will also be creating assets that can in extremis be sold. The high cost by comparison to other high speed networks is almost entirely due to high land prices; this means that any big transport project is going to cost a similar premium. 

The UK already knows that it is difficult to make rail services pay their way, currently fares from passengers despite regular criticism of them being too high, only cover 65% of operating costs.[1] High speed rail is no different in this regard; most of China’s high speed lines make a loss[2] indeed the only lines to have made a profit are Tokyo-Osaka and Paris Lyon.[3]

[1] ‘Rail ridership hits new highs as will regulated rail fares from January 2014’, Rail.co.uk, 19 August 2013, http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2013/rail-ridership-hits-new-highs-as-will-regulated-rail-fares-from-january-2014/

[2] Wan, Zhang, ‘High Speed Train Too Expensive’, Chienglish.com, 1 April 2013, http://english.cri.cn/7146/2013/01/04/2361s742015.htm

[3] Feigenbaum, Baruch, ‘High-Speed Rail in Europe and Asia: Lessons for the United States’, Reason Foundation, 2013, http://reason.org/files/high_speed_rail_lessons.pdf

We should not just be considering fares as the be all and end all. Successful rail companies elsewhere don’t tend to make a profit on ticket sales but instead through diversification. Tokyu, one of Japan’s private railways, has revenue of $2.63 billion and profits of $587millio but only a third of the revenue comes from rail fares with real estate bringing in about the same amount and much of the rest from retail.[1] Franchises make this difficult to operate in the UK but HS2 might have tracks/land/stations and operating trains integrated so providing an opportunity. Moreover it is wrong to suggest that only a couple of lines have made a profit as this is only a couple of lines have made a profit including the immense construction cost on the loss side of the balance sheet. Most high speed lines at least break even without subsidies after a few years of operation, as has been the case in Taiwan[2] – which is better than Britain’s other railways.

[1] Jaffe, Eric, ‘The Secret to Tokyo’s Rail Success’, The Atlantic, 18 May 2012, http://www.theatlanticcities.com/commute/2012/05/secret-tokyos-rail-success/2044/

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan_High_Speed_Rail#Revenue_and_Cost

Would it not be nice to be able to travel from Edinburgh straight through to Paris without having to stop in London? This was part of the initial dream of the Channel Tunnel with proposals for regional Eurostar services.[1] Unfortunately HS2 will not provide this option. There is a proposed link but it is currently single track and unlikely to be enough even to meet demand for domestic services running around London let alone international services from Birmingham and Manchester.[2] The much more sensible option of not having a terminal station, or at least some through platforms, has been ignored.

[1] BBC News, ‘Regions ‘cheated’ over Eurostar’, 27 January 1999, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/263836.stm

[2] Railnews, ‘Rethink urged over 'absurd' HS2-HS1 link’, 1 June 2013, http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/2013/06/01-rethink-urged-over-absurd-hs2hs1.html

This is not a particularly big problem for the project and could easily be fixed by doubling the track later if there proves to be sufficient demand to justify it.