HS2, potentially the most controversial project in the UK? It would definitely be a strong contender for the top prize, if it wasn’t for the ongoing Brexit process. For supporters of the project, HS2 is a sleek project designed to dramatically revolutionise transportation within the United Kingdom. For its opponents it is a white elephant, which is spiralling out of control. This article attempts to provide an overview of HS2 and the arguments surrounding the project.
What is HS2
So down to the basics, what is HS2? HS2 (short for High Speed 2), is a project to build a high-speed railway in the United Kingdom. The first phase aims to link London and Birmingham. The second phase will run from Birmingham to Crewe and on to Manchester. The second phase will also link Birmingham to Leeds, with connections to Sheffield and the East Midlands. This forms what looks like a Y shaped network (see map below). The aim to is to dramatically reduce journey times, with trains designed to run at 360kmph, (225mph for those who prefer imperial measurement). The railway will also dramatically improve the capacity of the UK’s rail network, with an anticipated 18 trains per hour running on the new network. Additionally, the railway will allow competitive journey times compared with air travel, on long distance trips. This all sounds rather promising. High Speed rail has already been built across large swathes of Europe and Asia. Surely it is time that the UK caught up?
(The above map published by Transport for Scotland shows the extent of the project. It also shows how the HS2 project splits after Birmingham into a ‘y’ shaped network).
Why aren’t we getting on with the project?
From a first glance, HS2 appears to be very impressive. However, look a bit more closely and the picture isn’t quite as rosy as first thought. Many critics point to the price, which seems to be continuously rising and well outstripping its initial estimate. The most recent estimate puts the cost of the project at £55.7 billion. This price tag can be partly be accounted for by land prices. Due to the UK’s dense population, land prices are higher compared to many other countries, who have already built high speed rail lines. These high land prices account for a high proportion of the project. The high costs can also be partially attributed to high consultancy fees. Some critics would go as far as citing poor management as a major contributor to costs.
Part of the problem with the project, actually regards the existing rail network in the UK. Despite the general grumbling about the UK railways, they are reasonably fast. Many inter-city routes allow trains to run at 125mph, not exactly a snail’s pace by any means. This means that people may potentially prefer to stick to a reasonably fast service, rather than pay extra for a high-speed service. Consideration must also be made for the advance of technology. Technology influences how people value journey times. Improved technology allows people to work on the move and to work more flexibly. Today, there is less of a need to get to destinations as quickly as possible, in comparison to 20 or even 10 years ago. In fact this has led to HS2 having to readjust how it values benefits, resulting from journey time savings. However, that’s not to say that people don’t consider journey times, it’s just that they are not as important as they once were. This has forced the UK government to shift the debate around HS2 towards capacity, rather than focussing mainly on the speed aspects of the project.
The current rail network
There are currently three main north-south routes, the West Coast, Midland and East Coast Main Lines. It is also worth mentioning the Cross-country route north of Birmingham, which at the present time provides similar journeys, to the proposed eastern branch of HS2. Firstly, it is worth asking, can we upgrade these conventional lines to allow faster trains? Unfortunately, it is actually very difficult to dramatically improve speeds on these lines. All 3 main north-south lines and the Cross-country route, accommodate high speed trains, commuter trains and freight trains. This limits the speed of the high-speed trains. However, with improved signalling technology they are capable of reaching 140mph on the traditional routes. Not bad you might say. Unfortunalty, there appears to be a fundamental problem with this solution, curves. Trains must slowdown in order to navigate these curves. This is a problem on both the West Coast and Midland Main Lines. Both lines have many curves, thus limiting how often they can run at 140mph.
On the other hand, the East Coast Main Line contains lots of straight track and thus there is scope for running trains at 140mph for longer distances. Upgrading this line for 140mph could yield reasonable journey time savings. There is also the potential to tackle speed restricted areas of the line. With a reasonable amount of investment, a London- Edinburgh journey of four hours is achievable. Additionally, the fastest journey times from Newcastle to London could be brought under 2 and a half hours and Leeds to London in well under 2 hours. Most people would consider these journey times to be pretty quick and competitive compared to other modes of transport. Importantly, it also means that competitive journey times to challenge domestic flights, are possible without needing HS2. The East Coast Main Line also has a number of improvements which could be made to improve the capacity of the line. Some of which are currently being implemented, such as separating the track which freight and passenger trains use, or reorganising the approaches to stations.
There are also a number of notable improvements which can be made to the Midland Main Line, such as electrifying the whole line and enabling upgrades to tackle bottlenecks and speed restrictions. Electrification allows for faster, longer, more environmentally friendly and reliable trains. Residents in the East Midlands may also feel aggrieved at recent cutbacks to investment for the Midland Main Line. Many improvements, such as the electrification of the whole line, have been cut. Because the line has not been fully electrified, bi-mode trains are now planned to run on the Midland Main Line. These trains are slower, cause more track damage and are less energy efficient than electric trains. Some cynics would argue that this cut in investment is due to money being prioritised for HS2. Finally, the Cross-country route could also achieve significant improvements through schemes such as electrification and other infrastructure upgrades. Hence, providing more capacity and quicker journeys on east-west intercity routes.
It is also been shown that upgrading existing lines can deliver significant benefits. Take the case of the significant investment in the West Coast Main Line, a decade ago. This successful upgrade provided a shift to rail transport from other modes of transportation, reduced journey times and provided a dramatic increase in capacity and reliability. Before the upgrade planes were often used to facilitate Manchester- London journeys. Since the upgrade, the improved rail service has dramatically reduced the air market’s share of journeys. Hence the upgrade has had a large impact on reducing carbon emissions. On the other hand, it is worth noting that upgrading this line did lead to significant disruption and at £9 billion pounds cannot be considered cheap.
Additionally, one of the main reasons for building HS2, is that the West Coast Main Line is now nearing full capacity. This is especially problematic towards the southern end of the line between London and Birmingham, where capacity is most constrained. Furthermore, the West Coast Main Line is also the busiest mixed line (the line carries both passenger and freight trains), in the United Kingdom. Thus, the line is of vital importance to the United Kingdom’s transport network. Unfortunately, there is no additional room for extra train paths. Hence it can be argued that action is desperately needed.
Proponents of HS2 argue that the project offers a solution to these capacity constraints, without having to upgrade traditional lines. Consequently, this will have the added benefit of avoiding major disruption. However, a recent parliamentary publication has found that intercity trains on the West Coast Main Line are generally running below capacity. In comparison commuter trains which use the line, are the most congested. Furthermore, only at certain times (e.g. Friday peaks), are the intercity trains crowded. These intercity trips are precisely the journeys that HS2 will provide more capacity for. Consequently, HS2 does not make huge strives to resolve capacity issues for those using commuter trains on the West Coast Main Line.
Overview of journey time savings and environmental considerations
So far, this article has highlighted that improvements can be made on the East Coast and Midland Main Lines. However, improvements aren’t as simple on the West Coast Main Line. It is also worth pointing out that journey time savings on the eastern branch of HS2 (journeys are currently served by the East Coast, Midland Main Line & Cross-country route); save less time than compared to the western branch (journeys are currently served by the West Coast Main Line). This is show in the table below.
The journeys represented in red are currently served by either the East Coast, Midlands or Cross-country route. Whereas the journeys represented in blue are currently served by the West Coast Main Line. As already discussed, there are a lot of upgrades which can be made to the Midland, East Coast and Cross-country routes, (including significant journey time improvements). So, this brings us to the question; Why build the eastern section of HS2 when potential upgrades to existing lines are available? The West Coast Main Line cannot be significantly upgraded. In this case, there may not be an obvious solution in the long-term, besides building HS2. However, given the alternatives, it is clear that the eastern section of HS2 may not represent the best use of taxpayer’s money.
One issue which has not yet been discussed is the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and subsequent climate change. On the face of it, high speed rail may seem to be an extremely green proposal. It certainly provides viable alternatives to both air and road travel. However, HS2 may not actually cut carbon emissions. Research by the University of Leeds, suggests that the project will lead to an increase in the overall number of journeys being undertaken. It will also gain most of its customers from those who previously used conventional rail. Conventional rail is more environmentally friendly than HS2, due to the much greater amount of energy, needed to run high speed trains. On the other hand, upgrades to traditional lines can contribute to lowering emissions. Projects such as electrifying the Midland Main Line, can further contribute to reducing emissions on conventional lines. Hence alternatives to HS2, can provide environmentally friendly outcomes.
Cost Benefit Analysis for HS2 and other rail schemes
Both HS2 and upgrades of conventional lines are not cheap. With this in mind, it is time to weigh up the project’s costs and benefits. The benefit to cost ratio (BCR) shows how many £’s of benefits are received for every £1 spent. (E.g. a BCR of 2 means that for every 1 pound invested, 2 pounds worth of benefits are received). Listed below is HS2’s most recent BCR, alongside other BCR’s for other key UK rail projects. (It is worth bearing in mind that the BCR for HS2 rests on the assumption that costs meet the projected target of £55.8 billion. However, it seems unlikely that HS2 will not exceed this target. Similarly, upgrades of conventional routes are known to often exceed their budgets).
| Project | Benefit: Cost Ratio (BCR) |
| HS2 | 2.3 |
| Midland Main Line upgrades | 4.7 |
| East Coast Main Line upgrades | 2.63 |
| Cross-country electrification | 3.4 |
| Northern hub project | 4.2 |
(It can be seen that all of the projects have higher BCR’s than HS2, including a number of alternatives to HS2.)
Should we go ahead with the project?
So, is HS2 worth it? Well according to the business case, the project could still yield net positive returns. However, the evidence instead suggests that upgrading traditional routes offer greater returns. This is especially true when comparing HS2’s eastern route, to alternative improvements on the East Coast and Midland Main Lines. On the other hand, there may come a time when the West Coast Main Line becomes so severely constrained in terms of capacity, that HS2 is needed. Alternatively, there are other lines besides the West Coast Main Line which have greater capacity constraints. Take a look at the busiest peak train journeys in the United Kingdom. It is clear that it’s not only the West Coast Main Line that is struggling with capacity issues. Lots of other routes are congested and are also desperately in need of investment. Additionally, as shown in this report, the business case for many other rail projects, are significantly higher than HS2. Furthermore, upgrading these routes would have an impact on reducing carbon emissions, whereas HS2 would not. Overall, it makes more economic sense to upgrade the United Kingdom’s existing lines, before investing in HS2.
However, it must be noted that preliminary construction has already begun. It may be the case that the UK Government simply cannot face the prospect of throwing away the huge potential sunk costs, which have already been invested in the project. By mid-2018, 4.1 billion pounds had already been spent. It would be awkward for the Government to cancel the project, with nothing to show for it. In recent months this conundrum has been described as the point of no return. It is clear that a decision is needed, but which way will it go? We should soon have our answer.
Transportation Contemplation 