Clearing up after the massacre
When Sir Jon Thompson, executive chairman of HS2 Ltd, appeared before the House of Commons Transport Committee last month (January 2024), he advised that HS2 Ltd had not been involved in developing the Government’s revised plans for HS2 and expressed the opinion that the level of detail that had been examined by the civil servants working on the proposals “lacked some specificity”[1].
Judging by the limited information given in CP 946[2], the command paper published by the Government in support of the decision to cancel HS2 north of Birmingham, Sir Jon may have a point.
Paragraph 23 on page 18 says:
“So we will complete Phase 1 of HS2 between London and the West Midlands as planned. There will be two branches: one to central Birmingham; and one to Handsacre, near Lichfield, meaning passengers will be able to travel on HS2 trains through to Manchester, Liverpool and Scotland, joining the West Coast Main Line for the rest of their journeys.”
Paragraph 24 on the same page adds that there will be “an upgrade of Handsacre Junction which will allow more trains to reach key destinations north of Birmingham”.
And that is it!
On the basis of this simple description, it should be a reasonably straightforward task to complete Phase 1 and then operate services to stations north of the West Midlands in the way described in CP 946. After all, it was always envisaged that, even when all phases had been completed, some HS2 services would operate, in part, over the conventional rail network, and all the rolling stock that has been ordered for Phase 1 is ‘conventional compatible’ and has this capability[3]. Also, the Handsacre Interchange, joining HS2 Phase 1 to the West Coast Main Line, is being constructed as a part of Phase 1.
However, as is invariably the case with proposals that “lack specificity”, the devil is in the details and, in an attempt to flesh these out, last November the Commons Transport Committee invited a panel of experts to take part in an oral evidence session[4]. I have based my comments below on observations made during that session, the views of HS2 Ltd, as expressed by Sir Jon Thompson during his evidence to the Transport Committee at the above-mentioned session in January this year and articles in the press.
The Government mantra in recent years has been that HS2 is about capacity not speed, but nevertheless the impact that the cancellation of Phase 2 has on the London-Manchester travel time is significant. The current fastest travel times on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) from London Euston are 76 mins to Birmingham and 126 mins to Manchester. With Phase 2 fully completed the predicted times would have reduced to 49 mins and 68 mins, saving 27 mins to Birmingham and 58 mins to Manchester[5].
With HS2 as currently envisaged the need to travel on the WCML tracks north of the West Midlands, rather than on dedicated high-speed tracks, obviously cuts down the time saving to Manchester considerably. This is further exacerbated since the HS2 train specification does not require the trains to tilt when going around bends. This feature of the Class 390 Pendolinos operated by Avanti West Coast allows them to operate at 125 mph on the WCML, whereas the HS2 classic compatible trains will have to slow down to 110 mph to negotiate bends and so will be slower overall than the current services[6].
In paragraph 24 on page 18, CP 946 quotes a journey time on HS2 to Manchester using the WCML north of the West Midlands of 100 mins, shaving 26 mins off the current best time. Whilst this saving is approximately the same at for the journey to Birmingham, the time lost due to the speed limitation of the HS2 trains on the WCML is hidden by the journey on the HS2 Phase 1 tracks being routed directly to the junction with the WCML at Handsacre. For a journey where the destination is beyond Manchester the time saving can be expected to be less.
In his oral evidence to the Transport Committee, Sir Jon Thompson was unable to advise the estimated journey time for London to Glasgow without phase 2 of HS2 being built[7].
Richard Bowker told the Transport Committee that he thought that “we probably can put in place 125 mph non-tilt paths [on the WCML]”[8]. This may be so, but it would likely require extensive civil works and cause severe disruption to services. It was one of the principal selling points that was advanced in favour of the HS2 project that these disadvantages of upgrading the WCML would be avoided.
In order to understand the impact that the cancellation will have on capacity it should be appreciated that the passenger capacity of a rail link is calculated by the product of the maximum number of passenger train paths that can be run in each direction in any hour and the average seating capacity of each of the trains.
Regarding the first of these two factors, Richard Bowker told the Transport Committee that there was currently train path congestion on the WCML and that this is “particularly bad” on the section from Handsacre to Stafford. He identified thirteen hourly train paths currently in use, of which three accommodate London-Manchester services. He said that thirteen was “pretty much what it can do” meaning that HS2 services would be accommodated by taking over paths currently used by Pendolino trains[9]. This would allow up to three HS2 services an hour to serve London-Manchester, replacing up to three Pendolino services.
The HS2 trains currently on order are eight coach units, 200 metres long, with the ability to combine two units into one sixteen-coach train and the new HS2 stations in London and Birmingham are being built with platforms that accommodate a 400-metre train. The plans for HS2 Phase 2 included the provision of new 400-metre platforms at Manchester Piccadily and Crewe, as well as promoting Manchester Airport as a new main-line station, also with 400-metre capability.
Now that Phase 2 will not be built, the stations north of Birmingham will only be able to accommodate trains up to 250 metres in length, ruling out running sixteen-coach trains to Manchester. Each 200-metre HS2 train will have a seating capacity of 550, so three trains an hour will accommodate up to 1,650 seated passengers. The Pendolinos currently running are 10-coach units with 589 seats, accommodating 1,767 seated passengers per hour. So, the replacement HS2 service now proposed will mean the seating capacity is decreased by 117 seats per hour, equivalent to a 7% reduction in capacity.
When this fact was put to Sir Jon Thompson by a member of the Transport Committee he agreed, saying “unless you extend [Manchester] Piccadilly station or you do something at Crewe as well, my understanding is that there would be a reduction in the number seats from London to Manchester”[10].
This is clearly a very undesirable outcome of the cancellation of Phase 2 in view of the stated principal reason that the aim of the project was to increase the capacity of the WCML. Two ways to improve the situation suggest themselves, but they would both involve changing the train supply contracts, presumably a move that would have cost implications. The first would be to add a 10-coach configuration to the specification and order a mix of these and 8-coach train sets. This would raise the seating capacity London-Manchester to 2,061 per hour, an increase of 17% over the current service. The second, which the Financial Times has claimed, based upon having sight of an internal government document, is under consideration by the Department for Transport, is to scrap first-class seats, which form about one seat in five on the trains[11]. I am unable to locate any information on how many extra standard-class seats could be fitted if this suggestion was adopted.
[1] Transport Committee, Oral Evidence, 10 January 2024, House of Commons, Q395 (https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14053/pdf)
[2] Network North: Transforming British Transport, CP 946, Department for Transport, 4 October 2023 (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65290f86697260000dccf78b/network-north-transforming-british-transport-print-version.pdf)
[3] Apart from the maximum train speed that is accommodated, the principal difference between the HS2 track and the conventional rail network in the UK is the loading gauge catered for. HS2 has been built to accommodate the larger European-type trains that are not compatible with the smaller gauge specified for the UK’s heritage railway network.
[4] Transport Committee, Oral Evidence, 8 November 2023, House of Commons (https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/13783/pdf)
[5] Virtually every document that I have consulted quotes slightly different journey times, but I am confident that the figures that I have quoted are in the right ballpark.
[6] Transport Committee 10 January, op cit, Q414.
[7] Transport Committee 10 January, op cit, Q422.
[8] Transport Committee 8 November, op cit, Q293. Mr Bowker is the former chair and chief executive of the Strategic Rail Authority and a former co-chairman of the Virgin Rail Group.
[9] Transport Committee 8 November, op cit, Q267
[10] Transport Committee 10 January, op cit, Q413
[10] This suggestion has been denied by the Department.