As a thirty year former railwayman that got fairly well up the ladder, and close to government, I understand that there is only one pot of money that will be spent on the railways. I am very firmly in the camp that wants to see the whole country benefit and come out of this with a more strategic, resilient, diversion and choice capable railway than we have now. HS2 won't provide that except in very narrow areas of the country - very narrow.
The argument that the money to be spent on HS2 is somehow outside the normal economy, or that the country as a whole will benefit as trains dash by to some distant railhead of no concern to anyone within fifty miles is a chimera that somehow seems to appeal to a certain fraction of the population, but not to others just like Brexiteers and Remoaners.
Wouldn't it have been interesting to put HS2 up in front of the voters - I'll bet I would have been on the winning side than too!
OK, first question for you; is HS2 a new stand alone line that couldn't be extended, or is it (like the M1) the first part of a bigger network of new lines (I know that part of the M6 was the first motorway, but then HS1 is the first HS line in the UK)?
The reason for asking is that on its own (Especially if you are only really thinking About phase 1) I can see where you are coming from.
You say that it only benefits a narrow area, however, especially given that XC has fairly limited service frequencies, it is likely that it would be quicker (as well as more services to choice from) to travel using HS2 from places like Southampton and Bournemouth to Birmingham and certainly to places but of there by joining HS2 at Old Oak Common (OOC).
This could be easier and/or faster still once the Southern Approach to Heathrow is built. This would also make Portsmouth/Brighton travel to the Midlands and the North faster. It would also remove some long distance travelers from Waterloo. In fact is probably quick enough that travel between Guildford and somewhere like Nuneaton and Coventry could be quicker using HS2 by doubling back via Birmingham. Even if it's not faster (assuming a zero wait time for your train) it could be quicker if you have just missed a London bound train. There have also been others who have posted that with HS2 their journey from somewhere some distance from HS2 would also benefit.
As such, even if no other parts are added to the HS network there some quite far flung places which will benefit from HS2.
Also by removing the long distance trains (like those who call at nowhere before Crewe) that then frees up paths for more services. Given that HS2 will remove long distance travelers from the existing services is unlikely that you would see more long distance services being added, as such it could be in that one path you then fit a few services. Although London/Liverpool services are likely to be replaced with semi fast services, those going London/Manchester could free up paths for local trains for around London and Manchester (i.e. two different services).
As such it depends on how you phrase the question about HS2 will depend on what answer you get and how easy it is for people to see how it will impact on their journeys.
If there was a HS2 journey planner created which showed likely journeys that:
- could be undertaken which directly benefited from the speed of using HS2
- could see more services by using the paths fed up by HS2
- could see where there was likely to be fewer people using their services (i.e. showing an average of 50 less people using certain given XC services and showing an average of 10 less people using Portsmouth to Waterloo services beyond Woking)
Yes for those traveling Plymouth to Bristol or Newcastle to Leeds there's likely to be little benefit, but then you'd struggle to get the level of benefit from other schemes for the number of people who would benefit.
It's one of the areas where those suggesting the other packages of works to provide the same level of capacity on the WCML didn't grasp. As although their proposals would have benefited some on the WCML it would have eased congestion on XC services, nor (after Phase 2 is open) the ECML. As such other packages of works would have been needed to help those and so you could have easily spent double, triple or more and not received the same level of improvements.
The other area that they failed to understand is by 2035 you may need to double capacity, but what happens after that if growth keeps on going?
HS2 could, by providing a 1 for 1 service provision increase train lengths by about 55% (seating could be higher, especially given that double decker trains and even 2+3 seating could be used). However with score to run more services, this increase in train length could be more. For instance rather than 3tph to Manchester there could be 4tph, that would be an increase in train length of between 207% and 253% depending on if the current services are 9 or 11 coach units.
Even if you split services you could see significant improvements if there were also an increase in frequencies. For instance London to Crewe where the train splits to serve Liverpool and Blackpool could see Liverpool getting 2tph (200m units) which compares with 1tph (211m or 257m), that would be an increase in train length of between 55% and 90%.
Even where rail growth nationally had fallen off late, this has been mostly in the Southeast which makes up something like 2/3 of all rail travel. However the model used for HS2 is based on 2.5% growth per year, which we've far exceeded for most years since 2009 when HS2 was proposed.
In fact between 2007/08 (the year before the announcement and so a likely base year) and 2016/17 passenger numbers grew by 42%. Which is quite a way shirt off the 2032/33 figure of 85%, however isn't that far off the 2025/2026 figure of 56% and we've still got just over 8 years to get there.
One final point, how much will be spent on enhancements to the existing network by 2026 (2033 if you like)? If it is zero or only £2 billion then you may well have a point about it being too be HS2 or the rest of the network. However, just on what was the electrification of the Trans Pennine route there's a budget of £3bn. I'm sure others could list other schemes and their budgets, but I would suggest that the total it's likely to be comparable, of not higher, to the HS2 costs (possibly even if you took 2026 as your date and the full, to the end of Phase 2, costs).
Which leads to the question, could you actually do more to the existing network in that timeframe without significantly impacting on the ability to run trains at weekends?