A good explanation of the case for HS2

Here is an excellent explanation of the case for HS2. The interesting point made is that the Great Central alignment has a maximum top speed of 110 mph without tilt. But the speaker does not explain whether the whole route is so curvy that it would be limited to 110 mph throughout, or, if there are a few points which are speed-limited, and which could be straightened or by-passed, which would be an obvious thing to do if the route is reinstated. The East Coast Main Line used to have sharp curves at Offord and Selby, but the former was straightened by realignment and the latter by constructing a cut-off route.

The speaker also refers to the need to separate slow and fast trains. However,

• The West Coast Main Line is four track all the way from London to Crewe, apart from the short section between Roade and Rugby, where the slow lines are routed through Northampton.
• The East Coast Main Line is four tracks from London to Peterborough, apart from the Welwyn Garden City bottleneck. 
• The Midland Main Line, which could potentially run all the way to Manchester, used to have two additional tracks for slow train, all the way from London to Trent Junction, near Nottingham. 

The speaker does not explain why a lower operating speed has not been chosen; the cost of building, equipping and operating a railway rises disproportionally once speeds rise above 100 mph. In the UK context, the optimum speed is probably between 125 mph and 140 mph.

High speed does not cost just a little bit more

One of the arguments for HS2 has been that the cost difference between building normal speed and high speed lines is very small. That is not conceivable.

• Minimum permitted curvature limits the choice of route. For a conventional speed railway, old abandoned infrastructure can be used.
• Specification of infrastructure.
• Specification of rolling stock.
• Energy costs.
• Wear and tear.

Summary of points against HS2

• The case on time savings fails on diminishing returns and extra terminal times when the service is only affordable if booking is made in advance for travel on a particular time.
• The case on capacity increase fails on the lower cost of building for 125 mph running. 
• The argument based on the WCML upgrade precedent fails on the grounds that it was a more comprehensive scheme than just the provision of additional tracks. The four-tracking of the Trent Valley line was minimally disruptive. 
• Capacity shortage south of Rugby could be relieved by reinstating the Great Central; additional works may be needed at the approaches to London ie south of Milton Keynes, High Wycombe and Aylesbury. Most of the trackbed between Aylesbury and Rugby is still available.
• The WCML is two-track between Roade and Rugby, as the slow lines are routed via Northampton. There appears to be space for an additional pair of tracks between these points; it would require the construction of an additional tunnel at Kilsby.

In addition

• There is already a second route between London and Birmingham: the GW routes via High Wycombe and via Oxford
• There is a potential second route from London to Manchester: the Midland, which is four-track all the way to Trent. Speed restricted sections with sharp curves have been improved in recent years. Reinstating Ambergate to Buxton completes this, and adds useful local links in the process. 

Which is part of the point. If money is to be spent on the rail system, it is better to invest in schemes which will improve connectivity and journey opportunities, rather than on one big bang project. 

The WCML capacity problem

The capacity shortage is south of Rugby. Going south, at Rugby there converge the two track route from Birmingham and the four tracks of the Trent Valley line which carry trains from Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow. South of Rugby, the West Coast Main Line separates into two routes just two tracks. The fast route goes through Weedon and Kilsby, the slow lines through Northampton. They re-join at Roade and continue as four tracks to Primrose Hill, at the approach to Euston. South of Watford Junction there are, additionally, the two suburban line tracks. From Milton Keynes southwards there is, additionally commuter traffic as well as services which run south of London via Olympia.

The HS2 alternative

This film confirms that the former Great Central alignment southwards from Rugby to Quainton Road, where the route to Aylesbury and London is still intact, remains substantially clear of development and is available for reinstatement as a 125 mph railway. Since, we are told, the reason for HS2 is to increase capacity, and the congestion is mostly south of Rugby, why don't they do the obvious thing and get on with the job? The east-west route can be done at the same time, all for a fraction of the cost of HS2, and in a fraction of the time?

Reinstatement of the connection to the GW main line between Ashendon Junction (north of Princes Risborough) and Grendon Underwood Junction is also feasible, and the connection between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury is still in use. Together with the planned reinstatement of the Oxford to Cambridge line, a useful interchange could be developed at Calvert where the Oxford-Bletchley line passes over the Great Central. When the need is for connectivity, these projects would make a worthwhile and useful package.

The Zombie Train that refuses to die

The Guardian has published a couple more articles against HS2, one by specialist rail commentator Christian Wolmar, and another today by journalist Simon Jenkins.

The main arguments in favour will doubtless be wheeled out by the commentators: the need for capacity and the disruption caused by upgrading existing routes. HST itself will severely disrupt services to Euston during the construction period. Capacity can be increased at a fraction of the cost by a variety of measures, provided that it is accepted that the additional traffic will run at existing speeds.

It is not generally known that the Midland main line is, or was, four track all the way from London to Trent Junction, between Nottingham and Derby. This is because the additional tracks are separate, having been added for coal trains which trundled down to Brent sidings, on the edge of London, from a collection point at Toton in Nottinghamshire, where the Midland Railway build a huge marshalling yard. Beyond Derby, the main line to Manchester was severed between Matlock and Buxton, but the route remains intact and could be reinstated at a relatively modest cost, thereby providing a complete new route to Manchester with connections from the East Midlands.

South of Rugby - ie the most congested part of the West Coast Main Line, an additional route could be created by reinstating the Great Central and its associated connecting lines. There is a need to relieve the very busy section through Rugby, Coventry and Birmingham International, but that could be more usefully provided by constructing some kind of metro system and giving back the main line for the London traffic.

Suppressed HS2 report reveals serious cost concerns

The high-speed rail project may be swept up in the latest railway crisis as a 2012 review released under Freedom of Information shows officials believed it was unaffordable.

Article in Guardian