A campaign group has welcomed Staffordshire County Council’s decision to oppose plans for a high speed rail line through parts of Lichfield and the surrounding area.
Councillors voted against the HS2 scheme last week as the battle lines begin to be drawn up around the proposal.
The public consultation is already underway on the issue and protesters from the Whittington & Fisherwick Stop the HS2 Action Group believes the county council’s decision is further evidence that the planned line should be scrapped.
John Heeler from the group said:
“We were pleased to hear of Staffordshire County Council’s decision to oppose the HS2 proposal. This really isn’t just a ‘nimby’ issue as we firmly believe there is no economic case. There are upgrades to existing structures as an alternative. Spending appalling amounts of the tax payers money on something only very few will use, at a time when our country faces such austerity, should be unthinkable.
“We are committed to spreading the word not just along the route which will face an enormous blight but to all those others that will be affected, whether you will be paying more tax or having your own services cut to provide the funds to pay for HS2.
“The Government’s consultation process is now underway and our own Lichfield roadshow will take place on June 8 and 9 when we ask everyone to give their views during this limited time.”
At the vote, county councillors said Hs2 should be opposed on the grounds that:
- The business case is flawed.
- There is no economic benefit for Staffordshire and it would actually damage the county’s economy.
- It would cause significant environmental damage.
- Investment should be made in improving affordable rail and road transport.
Mr Hammond arrived in Birmingham to launch what he called “one of the most extensive consultations in history” – on the proposed new £17 billion high-speed train from the Birmingham to London and he demonstrated clearly that ministers have already made up their minds consultation or no consultation. Over £720 million has already been spent by the Government.
The subtitle to the consultation document was The Fast Track to Prosperity. At the launch, all sorts of claims were made. Mr Hammond said that the new line “could transform Britain’s competitiveness as profoundly as the coming of the railways in the 19th century”. It would “reshape Britain’s economic geography”, delivering “massive improvements in journey times” and “unquantifiable strategic benefits.” About the only thing Mr Hammond didn’t promise was that high-speed rail would find Lord Lucan.
Even as this rhetoric becomes more and more outlandish, the small print of the consultation documents (which are well worth reading) suggest that the case for HS2 is fast disappearing. The main argument against the line has never been that it will carve up the Chilterns or blight thousands of homes. It’s that it simply does not work, in either economic or transport terms.
If one was to take the trouble to examine the rail traffic data and the proposed new service profile, it can be quickly established that the very title and central premise of the scheme is wrong. “High Speed” rail will, in fact almost certainly slow down the journeys of more rail users than it speeds up.
Close examination reveals that up to 750 trains every day to places not on the proposed new high-speed line are likely to be slowed down, or scrapped, according to HS2 documents. Until now, HS2 has been seen as an issue mainly for those who live along the route – but the rail changes will impact on a quarter of the country.
Close to 40 million passenger journeys each year will be affected, with no HS2 alternative available to them – even based on current figures. If rail travel were to increase as the Government expects, the number could grow to 60 million by the time the line opens in 2026.
The services likely to be slowed fall into 3 groups. The first being the existing fast trains from London to the West Midlands and North West, which will “be recast with reduced frequency”.
Annexes to HS2 prospectus published last year, state that the current 120 fast trains per day between London and Birmingham on the existing line (60 each way) will be reduced to about 40. Passengers to Birmingham would at least have a high-speed alternative, albeit at premium fares. But travellers to other destinations on the current line will not.
Coventry, for instance will lose two-thirds of its fast trains to London and those that remain are to be slowed down by 10 minutes. The existing Manchester and Liverpool services will be cut too, by about 50 trains. Stoke-on-Trent will lose half of its London service, which will also be slower. Wolverhampton, Tamworth, Nuneaton and several other places will suffer a similar fate.
According to MOIRA, the rail traffic database, Coventry is the fourth busiest intercity destination from Euston, carrying 976,000 passengers last year. Passengers travelling between the smaller Midlands cities and London total a million per year greater than the number travelling from Birmingham to London.
Cannibalised transport links will almost certainly worsen the serious economic inequalities that already exist between regional hubs such as Birmingham and their less prosperous satellite cities.
The second group affected will be in the London area. Here, the prospectus says, the local stopping service to Watford could be “removed” or diverted to help free up platform space at Euston for high-speed rail. Admittedly not as glamorous as Mr Hammond’s shiny new train set, this line alone runs 130 trains each day and carries five million passengers a year, twice as many as currently travel from Euston to Birmingham.
The largest group affected, however, is in a completely different part of the country. According to HS2 prospectus, trains coming into Paddington will be slowed down to stop at a new HS2 interchange at Old Oak Common, just west of London.
The idea here is to improve the connectivity of the new route – but this alone will slow down the London-bound rail services of around a fifth of the country, including the whole of the Thames Valley, western England and South Wales. Around 500 trains per day currently run in and out of Paddington, carrying more than 29 million passengers per year.
Still, I hear you say, people travelling to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool will benefit, won’t they? Yes – but by nowhere near as much as ministers claim. Almost no one will see “massive improvements in journey times” and claims of “reshaping Britain’s economic geography” are idle.
The biggest journey speed-up will, of course be from Birmingham to London, The consultation document published at the end of February says that high-speed rail will do this in 49 minutes, against what it claims is the existing journey time of 1 hour 24 minutes – a claimed saving of 35 minutes.
However, the fastest journey on the existing line is 1 hour 12 minutes. So the true saving is 23 minutes, not 35. And HS2 will not serve New Street. It will dump passengers at a new-build terminus on the edge of the city centre, 10 to 15 minutes walk away. The total time saving is now down to an almost negligible 10 minutes or so.
In any event, most people won’t be travelling to Birmingham’s centre, but to its suburbs or other parts of the Midlands. These trips will be slower that currently due to there being far poorer interchange with local services, most of which will still use New Street. And about a third of Birmingham passengers will still use the existing London service – perhaps because they will be priced off HS2. Their journeys will be slower too.
Though the Government talks of an “80-minute” journey time to Liverpool and Manchester, this turns out to require 60 or so miles of high-speed track it hasn’t yet decided to build. Under the current plans, HS2 trains for the North West would leave their dedicated line somewhere near Lichfield and continue on the existing tracks. Sadly, the prospectus admits, HS2 trains – unlike the current Virgin Pendolinos and the high-speed rail system in Japan – will not tilt. So when they get on to the curvy, conventional line, they will travel slower than the trains we have now.
Why the Government only looked at the old technology trains beggars belief except that it is this technology that the French and Germans want us to buy.
The HS2 journey time from Manchester to London will, therefore, be 1 hour 40 minutes – just 18 minutes quicker than the fastest existing train. The journey time from Liverpool will be 1 hour 50 – a mere 11 minutes faster than the quickest current service.
HS2’s economic case – which depends on quite heroic assumptions of long-term demand growth – also appears shakier than it was. The document admitted that “rail demand is now forecast to grow more slowly than we forecast last year”.
And as for the claim that HS2 will create thousands of regional jobs, the small print of the documents concedes that 73% of the “regenerative benefit” jobs created will actually be…in London.
Yes, but it will give much needed extra capacity I hear you cry. Yes it does but there are far more economic ways of doing this far cheaper, quicker and with less disruption. Rail Package 2 for instance delivers on all fronts, can be implemented quicker than HS2 and would be supported by the majority.
We can de-classify 2 of the present 4 first class carriages on WCML as they are rarely used due in part to cost savings by the private sector and the changes made to Civil Service travel in May 2010. Available capacity would be increased by 30% which can be further increased by changing the seating arrangements of the de-classified cars to the more dense standard class. In total 51% additional capacity is created for the cost of minor refurbishment.
11 car Pendelinos would give an extra 46% capacity which would require some further infrastructure work.
Unlike HS2, a commercially attractive means of developing additional capacity does not require public subsidy.
Even 12-car Pendelinos could be achieved (except to Liverpool without further infrastructure changes adding a further 65% capacity.
Mr Hammond may have made up his mind, but more and more others are jumping off the train.
TL:DR
Funny how many people who didn’t have a clue about transport six months ago are suddenly experts.
I love the smell of NIMBY panic in the morning…
Bob
To be fair BrownhillsBob, when there is so much information in the public domain, becoming an “expert” in a narrow field like “is HS2 worth it” is not that difficult. All that is needed is a desire to research, and an ability to filter out opinion from fact. Granted, the latter can be a stretch as everything seems to have bias these days.
Sadly, the testimony of experts both professional and armchair will count for very little either way in the final decision, a decision which has almost certainly already been made. When you read “consultation”, replace with “pandering to the masses” and by the time it’s all over and HS2 is built, we’ll already need HS3 to replace it!
How true,DQ…how true! It is a dialogue with the deaf.
@ Cyril Preece
“The biggest journey speed-up will, of course be from Birmingham to London, The consultation document published at the end of February says that high-speed rail will do this in 49 minutes, against what it claims is the existing journey time of 1 hour 24 minutes – a claimed saving of 35 minutes.
However, the fastest journey on the existing line is 1 hour 12 minutes. So the true saving is 23 minutes, not 35. And HS2 will not serve New Street. It will dump passengers at a new-build terminus on the edge of the city centre, 10 to 15 minutes walk away. The total time saving is now down to an almost negligible 10 minutes or so.”
The problem with this claim and that is that only one scheduled weekday train, the 7.30am from Brum to Euston, takes 1hr 12min, whilst the other 108 daily trains all take longer.
Re brownhills Bob.
I have been in the transport business for the last 30 years so do have a valid input. Who mentioned NIMBYISM in my first message?? The route is immaterial.
Cost however is material. I have just costed a trip to Prague which by rail from St Pancras has an outward journey time of over 19 hours and a return journey of over 16 hours – 36hrs 43mins in total – hell of a journey for a short city break holiday. For 2 people in standard premier / premier and sleeper (yes its overnight) costs £1034 – more if you want a shower and has 2 changes – have you ever moved luggage around on a train journey?
To fly from Machester takes 3 hours and, including taxes costs £346.96. No prizes for guessing which one I will choose.
Is Cyril Preece really Andrew Gilligan? The overwhelming bulk of his comment is a copy of the article in the Sunday Telegraph “High-speed rail: running rapidly right off the rails”, Andrew Gilligan 8:45AM GMT 06 Mar 2011.
There are some changes – surprising as they don’t change the meaning: Shergar becoming Lord Lucan is the best example.
For example: Gilligan>
Still, at least people travelling to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool will benefit, won’t they? Yes – but by nothing like as much as ministers claim. Almost no one will see “massive improvements in journey times” and claims of “reshaping Britain’s economic geography” are idle.
Preece>
Still, I hear you say, people travelling to Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool will benefit, won’t they? Yes – but by nowhere near as much as ministers claim. Almost no one will see “massive improvements in journey times” and claims of “reshaping Britain’s economic geography” are idle.
This is naked plagiarism to put it politely – to what purpose?
Ok there will be a time benefit to people needing to use this line, wow 35 mins, then again maybe not with extra congestion and security? But also how does this create extra income? Surly it is the same people who pay train fares now for this line just end up paying for a different train.
Maybe the idea is to charge those more to bring in the extra revenue. Or maybe it’s not about making money the government is just spending our money to show off because they can.
I would invest some of the money in the latest video conferencing technology, giving easy access to several professional conference/private meeting rooms around the country which are open for the general public/business to use at a small cost. This would cut the journey time down to seconds to anywhere around the world. But then again I do work in IT!
@ Andrew
Looks like more remarks to frighten people off HS2.
What security problems are there going to be with with a purely domestic HS2 rail service? And HS1 already has better check in times than many airports.
A.G. Bell claims to have invented the telephone in 1875 and this has had no influence on the number of business or family rail trips; nor has telephone conferencing. So why should video conferencing have an effect; this sounds like NIMBYs clutching at straws to me??
As for rail ticket costs we all know that peak time travel preferred by comuters and businessmen is charged at a premium; however this only makes up 30% of WCML traffic. The other 70% is liesure travel enjoyed by the public at large at discounted off-peak rates.
I attended a meeting this morning in Birmingham where local businesses agreed that HS2 may bring additional benefits to Birmingham however they also accepted that there was a risk that this may not happen and the West Midlands could become a lower cost housing alternative (commuter belt) for businesses already based in London or that people could be tempted towards “The City” for employment. What a risk to take!
@Windsorian Hi just like to add im not a NIMby as I live no where near the track. Sorry im a business man and I always think about how projects are going to get a good return. With billions being spend it worries me that mine and everyone else’s money is going down the pan, I work for the county council so I see a lot of cuts and staff made redundant so I thought I would put my 2 pence worth in.
I also think you underestimate the possibility of IT. I work in a school and we video conference full lessons and show presentations and use document readers to foreign language students around the world. By the time your train track is built who knows what technologies will be available.
Isn’t it marvelous how some folk welcome the new technology of high speed rail yet dismiss the fast moving mobile technology and video conferencing? Mobile phones were never going to catch on and small computers like laptops and tablets must be the work of the devil. ! OK some dickension companies may never embrace technology and perhaps just perhaps certain people do like to claim expenses for unnecessary and unproductive meetings. Constant meetings to arrange meetings and management by email has never workd and will never work.
Why spend billions on unnecessary travel and expense accounts rather than new technology?
“It would cause significant environmental damage.” Proof? Have they been able to quantify “significant environmental damage”?
Environmental damage is pretty much a given on any large infrastructure project – I don’t think anyone needs to prove that as a concept! However normally you would expect that the overall benefits of such a project will considerably outweigh the environmental costs, but as HS2 fundamentally fails to have a workable business case it becomes something of a moot point how much exactly the environmental stuff worsens an already failed case.