Northern failures don’t discourage a case for HS2

Sam Shenton
Jul 24, 2017 · 4 min read

Last week, the Government announced its preferred route for the second phase of the now controversial High Speed Rail project from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Just a few days later, the Department for Transport announced that it would cancel the planned electrification of the Midland Mainline between Kettering and Sheffield, the Great Western Mainline between Cardiff and Swansea, and the Cumbrian Lakes Line in the North West of England — before later also placing the trans-Pennine electrification on ice.

As if to rub salt in the wounds of the Midlands, Wales and the North even more, Transport Secretary Chris Grayling admitted that the Government would look into the case for a second ‘CrossRail’ project, linking the North East and South… of London.

So what do these three sets of projects really have to do with one another? Well, not much, really. The electrification of the Midland Mainline has been a long-held ambition after the route became a poor relation to the electrified West Coast and East Coast Mainlines. The Great Western electrification project was meant to revolutionise train travel in the South West of England, before everyone realised going South of Bristol was a non-starter thanks to the Dawlish Sea Wall and Network Rail underestimated the cost of the project by almost £2bn. The main point is that this underestimation of cost meant the DfT promised too much in one go, and the projects for the other lines had to be cancelled — regardless of what any minister tells you about the “intrusive cables”.

The mood these cancellations have drawn up, however, is one of contempt for the HS2 project. And in fairness, who can blame many people for that? In the same weekend the Government announced a £50bn+ project, they cancelled electrification of lines not directly serving London, and promised CrossRil, another London project. The case goes that the money for HS2 could be spent on these projects instead, and that HS2 simply isn’t needed anyway. Well, not really, and let me tell you why.

The continuing case for HS2

Most people will tell you that the case for HS2 is about cutting journey times into London for passengers from Leeds, Manchester and the Midlands. That, to be frank, is utter rubbish. Yes, the High Speed Line will likely save 20 minutes from a journey to Birmingham compared to conventional trains on the West Coast Mainline — or even longer if you’re someone who prefers to use the Chiltern Mainline (hey, we exist!). But this is a minor point in the broader case for a new rail route connecting London and the Midlands, and it has much more to do with freight, business and capacity than improving journey times for anyone.

The West Coast Mainline presently runs from London Euston to Glasgow Central via Birmingham and the West Midlands/ North West. It is one of the busiest rail corridors in Europe— the equivalent in railway terms to the English Channel freight links. It is the only rail route in the UK that is identified as a ‘Strategic Rail Route’ by European Authorities, largely thanks to it being the main artery for rail freight as well as a highly intensive passenger timetable introduced in the early 2000s by Virgin Trains, among others. Thanks to upgrades and that high frequency timetable, the line is at capacity; it is full — it can not safely hold any more rail traffic.

HS2 therefore offers us something of an opportunity: to move a lot of passenger traffic away from the line and to put them on their own, dedicated high speed line between London and Birmingham, and eventually further north. The proposals to use Euston station mean that, apart from the upgrades, the number of trains and the passenger experience isn’t likely to change that much, but it would allow greater capacity further up the line for more local passenger services, regional investment and — eventually — more freight. Transferring long distance lorry freight services to rail would bring about a huge relief to roads, and offer a less polluting mode of transport for goods.

The line all the way from Glasgow to the Channel Tunnel via CTRL/ HS1 is electrified, meaning electrified freight could run to and from the continent more frequently, offering more trading routes for British and Europen businesses alike.

Those that offer the charge that this technology will be out of date before it’s even open don’t appear to understand that heavy rail has much more to offer long distance travel than any inventions of driverless cars or hyperloop. Longer trains on existing routes are also an option, but again they offer no benefits to the capacity of any routes, nor any benefits to freight. Meanwhile those saying investment in other lines would bring about benefits at a lesser cost also appear to miss the point about capacity. Yes, we need better East — West links, and the cancellations of some of these schemes is a bad move for the passengers on those routes. But electrifying the Manchester to Leeds line is not going to help more freight travel from Dover to Crewe, Carlisle and Glasgow, and that is the bottom line.

We need both HS2 and these projects, and that is why it is regrettable that the DfT has cancelled so many Northern projects. The core case for HS2, however, remains undamaged — and with the lack of other projects, probably means we should speed the second phases up, not slow it down or question its future.

Welcome to a place where words matter. On Medium, smart voices and original ideas take center stage - with no ads in sight. Watch
Follow all the topics you care about, and we’ll deliver the best stories for you to your homepage and inbox. Explore
Get unlimited access to the best stories on Medium — and support writers while you’re at it. Just $5/month. Upgrade