INDEX

Subject Page

Evidence of Mr Palmer

(At 2.15 p.m.)

CHAIR: Welcome to this afternoon’s meeting of the Hybrid Bill Select Committee. As I mentioned informally before we started, we will suspend at 2.45 for 15 minutes due to another event that one or more of us need to be at, but that will only be for 15 minutes and then I will, of course, add those 15 minutes on to the end of the session today. So, with that in mind, we’ll commence where we left off yesterday, which is with the petitioners’ latest witness. So, Mr Cameron, over to you.

Greater Manchester Partners

Evidence of Mr Lax

MR CAMERON KC: Thank you very much, sir, and you’ll remember that we were about to come on to the GM solution. That was the next topic and you will appreciate, sir, that I haven’t been able to talk to Mr Lax. Because he’s giving evidence, it wouldn’t be right for me to do so. So I’m going to have to tell him formally now that I’m going to – I’m slowing it down at the moment but I’m going to try and speed up the process by asking him to hand on various topics to the experts, or the particular experts, who come later. So I won’t be asking about rail reliability and I won’t be asking about economics, because otherwise, by the time we get to the specialist witnesses, you’ll say you’ve heard that. So, just so that Mr Lax knows.
Right, the GM solution. I’m not going to go through every slide but can I ask you about alignment? So if you go to A64(33), if we could have that up. How do the GM partners envisage that an underground route will be aligned and what’s the reason for that alignment?
MR LAX: We envisage that the underground route will extend from the HS2 route, so shown on the plan in blue with gold dots. The red route is the NPR route proposed by HS2 and the grey route is the route that we’re proposing. You’ll notice these all go to node 3. Node 3 is the same node as the node used in the HS2 SIFT study, when it looked at underground, to enable us to do a like-for-like comparison. That node could move in the future. At the moment, it’s south of a line between Piccadilly and Huddersfield. So whether it goes to Huddersfield or Bradford in the future, that node could move to the north, which would obviously change the relative lengths of the red dotted and the grey lines.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. So that’s alignment. Levels, I’d like to ask about next, and that’s the levels at which the station sits and the different functions at different levels. So if we could have slide A64(34). So what does this show us? Where’s the platform level for HS2/NPR and where is Metrolink?
MR LAX: So this plan shows us that the HS2/NPR platforms are underground, effectively, with Metrolink and that’s the dark blue plan at the bottom of this plan. And then above that, on the layer above that, is Metrolink and the HS2 concourse, and then above that is ground level and the plaza area outside the station, broadly.
MR CAMERON KC: And at the bottom, you say, ‘Not necessarily an optimised solution, simply a high-level demonstration of how a technically feasible underground solution can be constructed within the Bill limits,’ or Act limits. So can we then have slide A64(37). How does the GM high-level alternative sit within Act limits?
MR LAX: So the GM alternative is the blue scheme on there and that shows that that sits within the limits, which are the red construction boundary limits from the hybrid Bill, on the plan.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. Phasing, so slide 38 please. How do you connect with NPR at a later date?
MR LAX: You connect with NPR at the western end of the station, so the underground station box shown on the plan there in green. The proposal that we put forward would be that there were twin 30-metre stub tunnels, two of them at the western end of the underground box, to enable the future NPR tunnel boring machines to come down and into the existing station site. They would be temporarily sealed off but the works could take place while the station continued to operate. There would obviously be some connection works, the same as the surface station, where the signalling and the track would need to be tied in and tested, and that would be the same for both options. But in construction terms, this enables us to deal with the NPR scheme and keep the HS2 scheme operating.
MR CAMERON KC: And that is HS2/NPR, underground station still operating. But can we turn to the question that the Chair of the Committee asked yesterday, which was, ‘Can you build an underground station whilst keeping the existing classic or conventional station working?’ Which I think, I hope I understood the question correctly, it’s mentioned on slide 38 but what’s the answer?
MR LAX: The answer, we think, is yes. Clearly, there’s detailed design work to be done to ensure that that happens but we think you can build the underground station and keep the existing surface station operational.
CHAIR: On that point, if it became impossible for that to happen, and that you would then be considering potentially many years of disruption, or including closure, to existing Piccadilly operations, would that change the local partners’ view on the desirability of an underground HS2 station?
MR LAX: It think the honest answer is ‘it depends’. Clearly, we don’t think you’d need to do that to start with and we would do everything we could to design the requirement to do that out. I think the question would then be, if it was necessary for whatever reason, how long would that delay be and what were the works that were needed to the existing station that required it to be closed and was there any mitigation around those? If it was going to be closed – I’m picking numbers out the air but if you said, ‘Right, we’ve got to close it for 20 years,’ say, clearly, that would be a major issue for us in the city. If you needed to close it for a month, two months, it would be less of an issue but still very significant. So we don’t think you need to do that, but it would be a proportionate response according to the timescale that was needed to close the Piccadilly station.
CHAIR: And are you aware of other examples, either around the country or around the world, where such works have taken place proximate to an existing overground station and what has been the experience of those?
MR LAX: Not in terms of closure, and some of the technical team might be able to pick that up, but clearly in proximity terms at Euston, the high-speed station is extremely close to the existing Network Rail operation there and I think there is actually an interface at the western end of the existing Euston station and the HS2 station sits to the west of that. So I think there are some works there that may take platforms into and out of operation at Euston but that’s the sort of thing you would manage through the construction process.
CHAIR: I think this is almost the crux of this. If the suggestion is this can all be done with no impact on existing Piccadilly operations, that’s one thing. If there’s evidence that there’s going to be significant disruption to Piccadilly, potentially for years, then that of course is a very – the two things are very different, what you’re asking the Committee to do. One of them is very simple, in one sense. The other one is asking us to go down the route of a solution which potentially could cause years of delays to another part of the rail network, and that obviously would be a very different proposition for us to consider. So I think it’s important – I’m speaking for myself but maybe colleagues as well – to demonstrate that the latter, i.e. those years and years of disruption to existing Piccadilly operations, wouldn’t be a reasonably foreseeable outcome of an underground station being constructed next door. I think that’s quite an important issue for the partners to prove conclusively. I offer that as not a question but as a comment.
MR CAMERON KC: Well, it’s duly noted, and we will take action to address that question but, I mean, Mr Lax has given his view but we note what you say, sir, and we will address it either in later evidence or we will put in a note, which we would seek to agree with HS2. If we can’t agree it, we can’t agree it.
MR LAX: I think there are elements that are in the current surface Bill, and Committee members may remember from the site visit, there’s a north block office building that will go and obviously that abuts the existing concourse. Gateway House would go with the underground scheme and you remember that.
CHAIR: Gateway House being the S-shaped one. Is that right?
MR LAX: Exactly.
CHAIR: With the Greggs in it.
MR LAX: Yes, with the Greggs. And you would have to manage the passenger areas adjacent to that, while those buildings were demolished and the new facility was connected in, but that would be the same for the surface, as well as the underground station.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MR CAMERON KC: We’re still on the GM solution. We’ve been looking below the ground but let’s now look above the ground, and I’m not going to ask you about every image, because the Committee will have seen it, but can we go to slide A64(41)? And if you could just flick to 42, please. So what’s the difference between 41 and 42?
MR LAX: Forty-one shows the surface proposals for the underground station, so effectively shows the concourse and the plaza area outside it. Forty-one doesn’t touch the Network Rail operation at all, partly answering the question that you’ve just asked. Forty-two, which is on the screen at the moment, then shows the potential for significant development at the front of the station, which would require works to the Network Rail concourse and that would then switch into the main HS2 proposed concourse but would deliver a significant amount of development at the front of the station.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. And we then have some images – I’m not going to ask you about them but if we just draw to the Committee’s attention 43 and 44 – of how you envisage the entrance would appear. Thank you.
Right, in your exhibits, you refer to the economic benefits of the GM solution and you also refer to the rail benefits, but what I’m going to do is not ask you about that and I’m going to ask the later witnesses about that, as long as you’re comfortable with that, sir, and your colleagues. So what I’m going to go on to is slide 58, please, and ask about programme impact. We see here the assumptions that were made for a six-platform surface turnback station, so the hybrid Bill proposal, and then we’ve got the GM alternative. How much longer do you think that the GM alternative would add to the process?
MR LAX: We think the GM alternative would be around three years longer than the existing turnback station programme.
MR CAMERON KC: And the reasons for that?
MR LAX: Slightly longer timescales with the build process. There may need to be further information that comes forward, revision to environmental statements etc, and then a longer construction process, as shown on the plan, particularly around the fitout of the underground station, which we think would take longer.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. Can we turn to a different subject? That’s programme cost. Now, can we have slide A64(59)? And the Committee have already asked about how you went about assessing the difference in cost between a six-platform underground station and a four-platform underground station. How was that exercise undertaken?
MR LAX: We did a cost estimate looking at the work we’d done for the GM design for an underground station and we used some of the cost information that we’d had from HS2, relating to our discussions. I’m quite conscious, in terms of cost, we’re under NDA for some of that, quite rightly and understandably, because it’s commercially sensitive in terms of some of the detailed numbers, but the headlines are here as HS2 have shared the headlines as well and we think that, compared to the B1 cost estimate, which is there on the left-hand side, that the underground station would cost between £1.75 billion and £2.6 billion additional cost.
MR CAMERON KC: That is in addition to the hybrid Bill cost.
MR LAX: It is, yes.
MR CAMERON KC: And can we have up the promoter’s exhibit –
CHAIR: Can I ask, Mr Cameron, will later witnesses on this be going into this cost estimate issue in more detail or not? Because obviously there’s a potentially £3-4 billion difference between the – obviously, I understand that the option B1 was a six-platform option, versus the four you’re proposing. I’m just wondering if this is a significant difference in what we’re being told from the IRP with the HS2 estimate. So will you be interrogating that in more detail later?
MR CAMERON KC: Sir, the answer is that I was intending to ask this witness about that.
CHAIR: Okay, that’s fine.
MR CAMERON KC: And I’m about to turn to the promoter’s exhibit where they’ve got a cost.
CHAIR: Sorry, I jumped ahead.
MR CAMERON KC: No, sir. Well, it’s not for me to say, but it’s a very pertinent question as far as we’re concerned. If the Committee felt they wanted more evidence on it, we could call a witness who could explain the basis for this, because this is not Mr Lax’s work – he’s presenting somebody else’s work – but we weren’t planning to. But if it’s a matter that the Committee would like further evidence from us on, we have somebody who we could call.
CHAIR: We’ll maybe discuss that at some point and I’ll comment on that later.
DR CAMERON: You know when you said you used ‘some of the information’, that’s quite vague. How do we know which bits you used and which bits you didn’t?
MR LAX: I think in terms of the information that we used, we’ve obviously had ongoing discussions – maybe not obviously, sorry. We have had ongoing discussions with HS2 about costs, particularly around the airport station where we uniquely are being asked to fund part of the HS2 infrastructure. So we started to understand what the costs looked like at a level of detail and also at Piccadilly we’ve been looking at Metrolink costs with HS2. So we’ve got some understanding of how costs are structured. What we don’t have as much visibility of, and we have asked for, is the costs behind the B1 estimate. So when we’re doing a like-for-like comparison, we have had some information on that relatively recently and, as I say, the detail of that is understandably under NDA because it’s commercially confidential and we respect that. But I think in headline terms, it gives you a ballpark number.
One of the things that we’re asking for from the Committee is for us to basically work with HS2 to come up with what is a solution and agreed position on numbers because we’ll sit here and say, ‘We think it’s this’, and HS2 will say, ‘No, we think it’s that’. It’s a matter of sitting down with each other on an open book basis and saying, ‘Right, what have we costed? What haven’t we costed? How have we got to the numbers?’ And that’s one of the things that I think would help –
DR CAMERON: From what you’re saying then, HS2 have more detailed information to arrive at the costs than you have had at your disposal.
MR LAX: I think they will have more information, certainly, as to how they’ve got to the costs of B1. Yes, absolutely.
DR CAMERON: Right.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Can I come in here? I think there’s a risk that we are going down a line that in fact isn’t an issue between us. As I think Mr Cameron is about to come to, the issue before the Committee in the evidence is not to argue about unit costs, the unit rate for a widget. The issue is whether the cost that you’ve just been shown, whether that omits some elements that would be essential to the production of a four-platform underground scheme, which I think Mr Cameron is about to come to. I suspect he’s about to come to P424.
MR CAMERON KC: That’s what I –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): So I’m just conscious that there’s a risk you might be anticipating issues about costs that don’t actually exist in the evidence before you.
DR CAMERON: Yes, it’s just cost is quite a big thing for taxpayers, you know? So it’s something that’s very mindful to us.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, as Mr Lax has fairly said, we’ve shared some additional cost information but it’s been shared on a non-disclosure basis and Mr Lax, if I may say so, has fairly said that that’s right because it involves commercially confidential information, which it would not be proper – now, if the decisive issue between us on the debate that’s before you turned on that information and that information alone, we might have to find a way of sharing that with you in a way that didn’t disclose it publicly. But unless Mr Cameron tells me otherwise, I don’t think that is the position.
CHAIR: I mean, I’m sympathetic to Lisa’s point here. For me, the whole crux of this comes down to, how much is it going to cost; what’s the impact of this solution in terms of disruption and delay; and then, what are the potential benefits or disbenefits of going down this route, of which cost is a really important part. And if we’re being told on the one hand that an underground station option is £4-5 billion, which may then make the whole scheme less viable or unviable, versus an option that could be done for £1.75-2.6 billion, I do think that is quite important to test the robustness of those figures to enable us to come to a conclusion on where our position is. We’re being told there are these benefits but we all know the cost-benefit analysis, right? We need to know how many quid it’s going to cost before we can actually come to a view whether we think it’s a reasonable thing that we’re being asked to do here. So I do think there is more merit in robustly testing the credibility of the figures that we’re being provided by both sides.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Could I suggest that the way forward is this, just for your thoughts? You hear the debate that is going to take place, because I think Mr Cameron’s going to invite some evidence from Mr Lax on our schedule. I have one or two questions I have planned to put to Mr Lax on that. We have disclosed some more detailed cost information to Manchester on a non-disclosure basis and they have some information from us. Having heard the debate that is going to take place in the next hours, maybe, possibly into next week, if in the light of that debate you remain concerned that you are lacking in information that you think you should have, then I have no doubt, between us, we can find a way of sharing that information with you, but perhaps in a way that means we don’t disclose commercially confidential information to the public. I’m sure we can find a way of doing that.
CHAIR: I mean, it kind of hinges also, Mr Mould, on whether or not part of your submission next week, which you’re free to tell us or not, is that these figures are credible or not, of £1.75-2.6 billion, because if they’re accepted by HS2 as, ‘This is how much the cost of an underground four-platform station will be, and that this is a reasonable cost’, then there’s no issue for us here. But you may wish not to tell me that now.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, I will tell you now, because I want to be helpful to you. As you will hear, our case is that these costs are credible as far as they go, but they miss out the cost of certain elements, which would need to be built into the four station proposition, in order to make it work.
CHAIR: Right. Clear as mud.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I’m sorry about that.
CHAIR: No, no. I don’t mean that as a criticism. They’re credible but they don’t go far enough is what I think you’re saying.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, that’s where the debate is going to come, I think, yes.
CHAIR: Okay, right.
MR CAMERON KC: Shall I go to the next stage and see whether that helps or doesn’t help?
CHAIR: Yes, please.
MR CAMERON KC: We are conscious of this but we’re also conscious that we can’t, as Mr Lax has said, refer to costs that have been disclosed on a confidential basis. But if we could have exhibit P424 up, please. Now, Mr Lax, that is a promoter’s document and Mr Mould has said the main issue is whether the GM partners estimate includes various items or not. And if one looks at that, on the left-hand side there’s a heading, ‘Omitted Items’, and that is where HS2 say that the GM partners have omitted those items in their costings.
CHAIR: What’s the total cost of the claimed omitted items? Is it £1.7 billion?
MR LAX: Yes.
CHAIR: Right.
MR CAMERON KC: Yes, but one then has to work it up because you then have to add on 20% for HS2 indirect costs and then you have to add on a contingency. And if it’s an item which hasn’t been costed by HS2, the contingency is 66%. So taking as an example the biggest ticket item, the turnback facility, the 1.269, so the £1.26 billion turns into just over £2.5 billion when you’ve added on the 20% and then the 66%.
CHAIR: The turnback facility wouldn’t be required in your option.
MR CAMERON KC: That’s the point, sir. Exactly.
CHAIR: Okay. So what I’m going to do now, before we go further into this, I’m going to suspend the Committee for the 15 minutes, as previously stated, because we’re at that time, and then we’ll return about 3.00 to continue from here. So the Committee is suspended.

Sitting suspended.

On resuming –

CHAIR: I resume the Committee. Mr Cameron?
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you, sir. During the break, Mr Mould and I have had a chance to discuss two of the points you’ve raised: cost and would it be possible or feasible to construct an underground station without having material disruption to the existing classic station?
On that, what we would like to do, if the Committee approves it, is to get the parties together to see whether agreement could be reached on the construction point, and impact on the classic station, and on cost. What it really comes down to, as Mr Mould was saying, is not pricing specific items but whether a certain item should be included, and what might be useful on that, we thought, was we draw up a table of the items in dispute.
I was about to ask Mr Lax – the big picture item is the turnback facility; there are various others, but it might just be easier for you to have them on a table.
CHAIR: I’m happy with that. Are you happy with that, Grahame?
MR MORRIS: Yes.
CHAIR: Martin?
MR VICKERS: Yes.
CHAIR: Knowing where the points of dispute are, I think, is vital but similarly, if you can come to an agreement in terms of the construction impact, that’s also – so yes, I’m more than content.
MR CAMERON KC: So we’ll do that. Mr Hindle, who’s coming later, when we get to him, the expert on underground construction, will be able to give some evidence on it and will make a comparison with Paddington, where a Crossrail station was built alongside the existing classic station.
CHAIR: Thank you.
MR CAMERON KC: So, Mr Lax, if I can come back, we were on the promoter’s document P424, which we’ve got in front of us. On those items, we’re going to draw up a list so I don’t ask you on all of them, but the turnback facility I’ll start on. So, this is a turnback facility immediately to the north of the station to be constructed, in HS2’s view, under central Manchester. Does the petitioner consider that will be necessary with its scheme?
MR LAX: The petitioner thinks there are alternatives to having a turnback facility particularly immediately adjacent to the station in the centre of Manchester. They include sending the trains through, which is part of the aim of the work that we’re doing in adding the capacity. They could go through as 400‑metre trains. We’ve skipped over the rail planning slide, which sets out what waits in the platform need the turnback, but if you recall from yesterday, it’s the London trains particularly, the 400-metre trains that terminate at Piccadilly. So through trains for NPR will all be running through and they wouldn’t need anywhere to turn back.
So, the options around those 400-metre trains, instead of having them turn back at the station underground, which occupies platforms for that 20-minute period while they do that, is to either move them through and separate them elsewhere, or separate them at the station and send services on elsewhere. So, practically, there are a number of options that you could do from a service perspective with those trains.
So split joining those trains, which is effectively separating them at the station and then sending them off to either different destinations or similar destinations, is something that is proposed elsewhere on the high-speed network as well. So Carlisle and – I don’t know if the Committee has yet heard anything around the proposals at Carlisle – but at that station, trains will split join from different parts of Scotland and then come down the west coast. It’s a way of enabling more trains to come through locations with less capacity.
Or you could build a turnback, or a siding, which is effectively what we are talking about here. But in any rational world, you wouldn’t spend £2.5 billion on that proposal. You would put that further out, depending on where the route runs to, but Oldham/Rochdale area potentially, once the line came to the surface, and you would put the facility there.
So at the moment, as another example, the 400-metre trains that come up from London are proposed off peak, initially, to split and half of the train will go into sidings at Crewe, so empty coaching stock, it’s called, and that will go to Crewe, and then off peak, a shorter train will run and then that train, the spare train, will come back and, on the peak, a longer train will run again. So that’s the proposal from HS2 to deliver that.
There are sidings proposed at Ardwick, close to the station. So, when NPR starts with the HS2 proposals, some of those trains will need to go to those sidings at Ardwick rather than run up and down to Crewe. We haven’t included any costs around those because they’re not included in the SIFT scheme either.
I don’t know if you could bring up A421(18), please, which is the page in the SIFT report that has some of the scope at the beginning. Paragraph 311 says, ‘For the purposes of a like-for-like comparison with the alternative underground options, the provision of stabling sidings for hybrid Bill baseline plus option 0 to node 3 has been excluded from the assessment and the costing of the baseline comparator option.
So we haven’t included any costs for sidings here, but if they were included on a like-for-like basis, we would obviously understand the costs that would be added to the base scheme, and then look at those relative to what might be an appropriate proposal for the underground station.
MR CAMERON KC: And I’m not going to go through every omission because we’re going to have a table but car parks – is there a difference there?
MR LAX: I don’t think there’s a difference there in our view and it’s one of the many issues that we’ll come to in the autumn and the winter. We need less car parks at Piccadilly. So I think that number should be significantly less in our proposal.
MR CAMERON KC: Right. Conscious of the time, and hoping that there will be agreed table, I’m going to move on from costs and, if we can’t reach an agreement, we might have to come back with more detail on costs.
The final subject I’d like to cover because I want to – I don’t ask you further on turnback because I’m going to ask the rail expert on whether you need a turnback under central Manchester. If you go to A64(61), please. Now the stated reasons for rejecting an underground station are set out in the integrated rail plan, IRP, para 319, and you have analysed these and the short question, but I suspect will be a longer answer, is do all the reasons given by the Government for rejecting underground in the IRP stand in relation to a four-platform underground through station?
MR LAX: We don’t think they do stand for the reasons that we’ve given; the costs are different, the programme’s different and we think the benefits are different as well. So we think that the reasons don’t stand in the IRP relative to the proposal that we’re putting forward.
MR CAMERON KC: And you’ve set out the outline of the reasons for that in your slides 62, 63 and 64.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. Well, given time and the other witnesses we have to call, I’m going to ask you no other questions now, and I have deliberately not asked about economics and rail reliability, not because we don’t take those points but because I’m going to focus on the specialist witnesses to deal with those subjects but I don’t want the point taken against me, ‘But you didn’t cover that with Mr Lax’.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, I can assure Mr Cameron I won’t take that point against him.
CHAIR: Can you just go back one slide, sorry? On that last… Okay, thank you.
MR MORRIS: Mr Lax, I wonder if you could – the point you made about the car parking – forgive my ignorance, but why would the underground four-platform proposal from GM partners require less car parking? I’m sorry; I’m sure there’s a simple explanation. Why would it require less provision for car parking?
MR LAX: I think it was a standard provision from HS2 that original there were 2,000 spaces at every station. One of the points that we’ve made on the surface station is we think that should be less. It’s in the centre of Piccadilly. We’ve set out why we think there are alternative modes to get there, rail and Metrolink and bus. So we don’t think you need that scale of car parking at Piccadilly. It’s still in the Bill and it was shown on the visuals, if you remember, next to the station.
MR MORRIS: It’s here.
MR LAX: So I think, as part of the discussion, the wider discussion going forward –
MR MORRIS: Irrespective of whether it’s overground or underground, you think that the 2,000 carpark provision is excessive.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MORRIS: Okay, thanks for clarifying.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Would you like me to ask my –
CHAIR: Yes, sorry, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you. Whilst we have that point in our minds, Mr Lax, essentially, the point is this, isn’t it? There is a dispute as to how much car parking Manchester Piccadilly HS2/NPR station should be provided with.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But when the answer to that question has been found, then the cost of that provision is a common cost to both schemes.
MR LAX: It would be, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yeah. And it’s not as yet included as one of your cost items in your underground scheme, is it? You effectively have £0 for car parking provision.
MR LAX: As far as I’m aware, but I think we need to produce the list just to make sure.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. Because I think that’s the position now. We can no doubt agree on a number that needs to be added on both sides; that is to say, a number that is common to both our station and your station.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yeah. Okay. Can we then please come back to the evidence you gave yesterday? And I want to start, please, with A64(25). Do you remember you told the Committee about your scenarios? We’re now dealing essentially with the surface station and its ability to support services on the basis of a number of scenarios, yes?
And the second of them we can see contemplates nine trains per hour and we can see that that’s identified as ‘HS2 plus NPR, integrated rail plan core network’. That, I think, equates to the investment package that is shown on plan on page A64(6); that’s right, isn’t it?
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yeah. And as we can see, that involves – and you can just see this from the key on A64(6) – the Bill scheme, the HS2 western leg to Manchester; that’s the blue line. It also involves the provision of a new stretch of railway line between the Hoo Green junction and Warrington, and the upgrade of an existing railway line between Warrington and Liverpool, yeah?
MR LAX: Right.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Going north-eastwards, it involves the provision of a new stretch of line, I think, between Manchester Piccadilly and Marsden.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And then the upgrade of the TransPennine route between Marsden, Leeds and then onto York.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Indeed, just to illustrate that part of that package – that is to say, the stretch between Huddersfield and just to the west of Dewsbury, Westtown – that is an upgrade which was consented under a Transport and Works Act Order by the Secretary of State, I think, last year and forms part of the TransPennine route upgrade programme; that’s been incorporated, effectively, into the integrated rail plan, hasn’t it?
MR LAX: I would have to take your word for that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. But the point is, what you call in your scenario 2 the IRP core network, nine trains per hour, that is essentially the investment package for HS2 western leg and Northern Powerhouse Rail; that is the Government’s current published policy in the integrated rail plan.
MR LAX: Correct.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. And if we turn to your slide A64(27), we can see that, assuming your dwell time for Northern Powerhouse Rail services on the turnback station of eight minutes, the surface station is able to accommodate that programme, isn’t it?
MR LAX: It is, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. So, the Bill scheme is able to operate satisfactorily the Government’s current investment package; that is to say, the integrated rail plan.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yeah. Now, if we then turn to scenario 3, please, go back to A64(25), that scenario involves 11 trains per hour and that is described as TFN NPR preferred network; do you see that?
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. That, I think, is shown on plan on page A64(7). Now, that was the preferred network of Transport for the North, which I think you said yesterday had been developed in consultation with the GM partners.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): That was put forward to Government to consider in the preparation of the integrated rail plan, wasn’t it, but it wasn’t adopted by Government?
MR LAX: No, Government didn’t adopt that network.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No. And can we just see – just help the Committee with what that – if it were to be adopted, what the investment package for the rail network would need to be in order to enable that preferred network to be rolled out. It would involve, wouldn’t it, a new station at Liverpool?
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): A new railway line out of a station from Liverpool to Warrington rather than using the upgraded West Coast Main Line. A new underground station at Warrington, yeah?
MR LAX: I’m not sure if that was in. Are you reading from a specific…?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I’m reading from my own notes but I’ve checked this so I’m just asking if you can agree it.
MR LAX: Okay. I didn’t think it was an underground at Warrington.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, a new station at Warrington.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I think it is underground but we can check on that.
MR LAX: Yeah.
Mr MOULD KC (DfT): It would also involve NPR running via Bradford rather than Huddersfield.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And a new railway line being constructed in order to enable that to happen.
MR LAX: It would connect Bradford to the NPR network, yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. And it would also involve a new spur to Sheffield on the Marple corridor.
MR LAX: Yes, there would be connections to Sheffield; that’s right.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. So, in order to run a railway on the basis of that preferred network and take advantage of the capacity that you say on that scenario would be able to accommodate 11 trains per hour at Manchester Piccadilly, one would need to carry out the capital investment to create all of those additional elements, wouldn’t one?
MR LAX: I couldn’t say you’d need to create all of those additional elements; you’d have to look at the detail behind the IRP work.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, that was the –
MR LAX: I think in terms of that network and those number of trains, yes, that’s what that network could do. Could you do it for less investment? I don’t know, is the answer.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, whether you can do that or not hasn’t been explored, I don’t think.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. As things currently stand, in order to enable Manchester Piccadilly station to play its part in operating on a basis of 11 trains per hour on that preferred network, on the face of it, on the plan put forward by Transport for the North, you would need to include in the investment package all those further elements.
MR LAX: You would need further investment over time, absolutely, but that’s part of the discussion that we’ve put forward. Absolutely, IRP is a snapshot that aligns the funding programme to the 2040s, and I think I talked through this yesterday. The infrastructure of the station at Piccadilly will operate for 100 years or more, so we’re effectively now setting the framework for the capacity of that station.
The map that’s up at the moment, A64(7) shows you the opportunity. That’s the NPR network, absolutely, that northern leaders agreed, but there are opportunities beyond that, either to enhance the service frequency, and therefore get to 15, or to serve other locations on the map. That’s Scarborough shown on there, and Cleethorpes and Scunthorpe, for example, over on the east, and you could add services in if you had sufficient capacity through Piccadilly to do that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): So you’re asking this Committee to direct Government to substitute the underground four-platform station for the surface station.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Not because the surface station is unable to accommodate the Government’s investment package in the integrated rail plan, because you accept that it’s able to do that; it’s because you want this station to be the first step in a putative future, much more extensive investment package that, as yet, has no support from Government.
MR LAX: I don’t think it would be the –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Is that right?
MR LAX: That isn’t right. I don’t think it would be the first step; it would be the second step because the first step is the construction of the spur, which has the 15 train an hour capacity, so what this would do as a second – and that’s in the plan. What this would do as a second step is enable the station to match that capacity so more services could run through in the future.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): We don’t agree with you on the capacity of the spur but I’m not going to ask you about that, but assuming you’re right about that and it’s not the first step – it’s the second step – it’s most clearly not the final step and the further steps that would need to be taken would involve a commitment to the further investment, new station at Liverpool, etc, that you’ve agreed with me, on the current state of Transport for the North’s preferred network, is an essential part of that network.
MR LAX: I think over time more investment in the network –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Could you answer my question? That is right, isn’t it?
MR LAX: Sorry, could you repeat the question?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes, I can, if you could focus on that. If it’s the second step, it’s definitely not the final step, is it, because the preferred network on A64(7) involves all of those further capital investment elements that I put to you and you accepted, Liverpool station etc?
MR LAX: It wouldn’t be the final step and I think that’s what I was saying.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. And do you know what the IRP’s estimate of the additional cost of those further capital investment elements in order to achieve the preferred network is?
MR LAX: No.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. Well, if we can turn up R180 at page 94, please. These are the relevant pages from the IRP. We can just see 3.52 in the IRP refers to three options. Option 1 is the core network, scenario 2. Option 2 is an intermediate step. Option 3 is the Transport for the North preferred network.
CHAIR: Scenario 3?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Option 3, yeah.
CHAIR: Option 3 is –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Is scenario 3, yeah. And if you just scroll down, please, we can see paragraph 3.54, the published cost estimates for those three options, option 1, £22 billion, option 2, £31 billion, and option 3, £36 billion. So you’re effectively asking the Committee to direct the Secretary of State to substitute a station which would form part of a broader investment package rejected by Government in the IRP, which would add overall £14 billion onto the cost of the IRP core network which this Bill is being designed to accommodate.
MR LAX: No, I’m not asking that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): That’s, in effect, what you are asking, because in order to make scenario 3 work in practice, you need that investment to take place, don’t you?
MR LAX: Need it over time. We wouldn’t be asking this Secretary of State, but over 50 to 100 years, yes, you would want to put that investment into the rail network.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Okay. Well, if we just then turn back to page A64(27). After all that, let’s just see how the Bill station performs in relation to that preferred network because we saw that scenario 3 involved providing a station at Manchester Piccadilly, surface or otherwise, that could accommodate 11 trains per hour. We know that your case is that, in order for that station to accommodate NPR services, it needed to provide for a dwell time of eight minutes. Yeah?
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And we can see that, if you allow for both of those assumptions, the surface station is able to accommodate those requirements, isn’t it? We can see, bottom right‑hand corner, eight-minute NPR reversal enables 11 trains per hour to be operated through Manchester Piccadilly.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): So, in fact, it’s not necessary for – there’s no need to expand the operating capacity of the surface station under the Bill in order to enable the further investment package of an additional £14 billion to produce the preferred network to be operated, is it? The surface station will achieve it, correct?
MR LAX: It will achieve the preferred network.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes.
MR LAX: But not the capacity of the spur and future expansion.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No. We’ve seen the Transport for the North’s preferred network, not taken up by Government, but you say was your – you supported that preferred network involving a significant further injection of capital funds in order to achieve it. But when all’s said and done, you don’t need to go underground to a four‑platform station, because actually on analysis, the Bill’s surface station is able to deliver the 11 trains per hour operating capacity, even on an eight-minute dwell time. That’s your evidence, isn’t it?
MR LAX: Transport for the North’s preferred network included the underground station at Piccadilly.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No, I know, but I’m putting to you that, on the basis of your own evidence, applying an eight‑minute dwell time, which is, you say, the appropriate standard to apply for planning purposes, your scenario 3, which is the preferred network operation, if you substitute the surface station for the underground station for these purposes, the surface station is able to accommodate 11 trains per hour, so it can accommodate the preferred network, which is the basis for your scenario 3, can’t it?
MR LAX: But doesn’t give the growth and doesn’t give the development which is the case that we’ve made here.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But it doesn’t give you scenario 4, is your point, isn’t it?
MR LAX: Nor does it give you the development. Correct, yes, it doesn’t give you scenario 4..
MR MOULD KC (DfT): It gives you scenario 2, it gives you scenario 3, but it doesn’t give you scenario 4; is that a fair way of putting it?
MR LAX: Correct.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you. Right. Well then let’s turn to scenario 4. Let’s go back to A64(25). Where do you get scenario 4 from? Where do you root that, in current transport policy, emerging transport policy, blue sky thinking, whatever it may be? Where does that come from?
MR LAX: In terms of the number of services?
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. Which document do I look to, or which study, which optioneering exercise do I look to which says, ‘If we had a Manchester Piccadilly station, HS2/NPR station, that could accommodate 15 trains per hour, it would deliver this’?
MR LAX: It would deliver additional services across the north.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Where do I see –
MR LAX: Which would help the connectivity across the north, which helps levelling up. So the levelling up White Paper that the Government’s set out – and the Departments have said that HS2 and NPR are part of the process of levelling up – sets out targets to 2030. Clearly, that will need to continue beyond 2030. HS2 and NPR won’t be open by 2030 in Manchester or the north.
So that process will continue over time and as demand rises over time, as population grows over time, that additional capacity will be required.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): A station at Manchester Piccadilly serving HS2 and NPR which can accommodate a capacity of 15 trains per hour, that is not an aspiration in any existing or proposed rail investment plan, national or local, is it?
MR LAX: It’s an aspirational –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Is it in any existing rail investment or transport investment plan, national, regional or local?
MR LAX: It’s not in an existing one because it’s a longer-term proposal.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Is it in any proposed, any emerging, any draft plan of that kind?
MR LAX: Only in so much as the HS2 plan sets out 15 trains an hour capacity, so that gives the capability to deliver that level of capacity.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I don’t know what you mean by that: ‘The HS2 plan gives a 15 train per hour capacity’. You mean the theoretical capacity of the Manchester spur is 15 trains per hour.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right, I see. Okay. Just turn to A67(17), one of Mr Palmer’s exhibits, because you can just see the point I’m putting to you illustrated. On the left-hand side there, we can see an analysis of the origins and destinations which might come together to create this 15 trains per hour throughput at Manchester. You see the key, east of Manchester, west of Manchester? So a substantial number of these origins, destinations are unknown, aren’t they? Liverpool to somewhere east of Manchester.
We have in fact got at the bottom two trains of that 15 going from somewhere to the west of Manchester to somewhere to the east of Manchester, the origin and destination. How can we possibly know when, and if so when, those destinations might be identified? They might exist on existing rail track; it might be necessary to upgrade; it might be necessary to upgrade stations. There might be no demand in future for any services to serve those stations. This is entirely speculative, isn’t it, Mr Lax? Scenario 4 is entirely speculative.
MR LAX: It isn’t, because over time we believe that there will be demand for services, additional services across the north as the north grows.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): ‘We believe over time that there will be’ is my definition of ‘entirely speculative’. It’s the same thing, isn’t it? It’s just a paraphrase of the adverb and the adjective ‘entirely speculative’.
MR LAX: You lost me slightly there, Mr Mould.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Alright. In a nutshell, the debate that you’ve asked this Committee to consider is not about whether the surface station is able to accommodate the rail investment within which it now sits, which is the IRP; we agree that it can accommodate that. It’s not even to ask the Committee to make a decision about whether it can accommodate the Transport for the North preferred network, because we agree it can accommodate that, yes?
MR LAX: We agree the underground station is in the Transport for the North preferred network.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): We agreed earlier that the surface station can accommodate it on the basis of the dwell time for NPR services that you say is needed.
MR LAX: But the Transport for the North network helps futureproof growth as well.
CHAIR: I think this is key. Just to Mr Mould’s point here, the scenario 3 of 11 trains per hour which you wish to see accommodated via the underground station, I think Mr Mould is correct here. You did accept that that can be delivered via the overground station.
MR LAX: Yes.
CHAIR: Right. I think it’s really important we do have that nailed down. So, the bone of contention here is around the scenario 4 capability, isn’t it?
MR LAX: Yes.
CHAIR: Mr Mould did ask you directly on that and I think that’s what you did say earlier, so I think it is important we are clear on that: that the scenario 3 of the 11 trains per hour, even with the eight minute dwell time, could be accommodated from the above ground station.
MR LAX: Yes.
CHAIR: Okay, thank you.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And I’ve put my points to you on scenario 4; I don’t need to repeat those.
MR VICKERS: Maybe I’m getting a bit confused here, but just to get clear in my mind, are there any of the options that don’t accommodate HS2 plus the already approved NPR?
MR LAX: Sorry, anything of the –
MR VICKERS: Based on what’s already been agreed in terms of the Northern Powerhouse and the HS2, are there any of the station options that don’t accommodate the plan or the –
CHAIR: The NPR plan and Transport for the North’s preferred NPR plan.
MR LAX: Yeah.
CHAIR: Which is the scenario 2 and 3.
MR VICKERS: Yeah.
MR LAX: I’m trying to avoid the double negative. No, there aren’t any options that don’t –
CHAIR: I went to a comp in Hull. We need to be careful on these grammar points; they are getting complicated. But I think what Martin’s – sorry.
MR VICKERS: Using double negatives, but you interpret it for me. You’re a Yorkshireman.
CHAIR: Yeah. That means I’m right. I think there isn’t a difference here, is there? Scenario 2 and 3, which is the NPR plus the preferred NPR option from Transport for the North, which is the 11 trains per hour, can be accommodated both by the underground station, which Mr Lax says is the preferred option of Transport for the North, but also can be accommodated via the above ground station.
The only thing that cannot be accommodated, if I’m right here, is scenario 4, which is 15 – and that’s if you accept that, depending on dwell time, it doesn’t – but for which there are presently no plans or proposals for additional services, but it’s the growth potential beyond scenario 3 you say cannot be accommodated by the overground station but can be by the underground station.
MR LAX: Exactly.
CHAIR: Have I done that without any double negatives?
MR LAX: Yes.
CHAIR: That’s where we’re at, isn’t it?
MR LAX: Yes.
CHAIR: I think that’s important for us to –
MR VICKERS: For a Yorkshire man to understand a Lincolnshire man –
CHAIR: There will be no violence in this Committee, Martin. Does that answer your –
MR VICKERS: That satisfies me, yes.
CHAIR: Yes, okay.
MR LAX: What we haven’t done either is add in any benefits from those paths. So those additional paths could have additional benefit that’s quite significant.
CHAIR: Scenario 4 additional paths.
MR LAX: Yes, example.
CHAIR: Yes, okay, I understand that, but it is important that we’re clear on that scenario 3, which is the aspiration presently of Transport for the North, of which the Manchester combined authority and the mayor – well, the mayor’s the chair, isn’t he, or is that Rail North? There’s so many.
MR LAX: Rail North, that’s right.
CHAIR: Rail North, yes, but he will be a partner for Transport for the North, so the current aspiration of Greater Manchester is scenario 3, isn’t it?
MR LAX: With the underground station.
CHAIR: I get that; I understand that, but in terms of the connectivity of NPR, it’s scenario 3.
MR LAX: Okay.
CHAIR: Good.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I have to take these things in baby steps because that’s the only way I can operate, I’m afraid. Sir, I haven’t lost sight of your point about the advantages to growth, and obviously we’re going to deal with that as part of our case, but I’m interested in the question of where we part company on the ability of the surface station to accommodate your various growth scenarios. Yeah?
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. Can we then turn on, please – I just want to ask you a question or two about turnback and I’m conscious of what Mr Cameron said, so I’m not going to overstay my welcome on this, but A64(54), please.
As I understand it, if you look at the right-hand side, this is one of your slides on the operation of the underground station.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): As I understand it, your and Mr Palmer’s position is explained in the notes to scenario 4. You say, ‘The four-platform underground station can accommodate the 15 trains per hour under scenario 4 but it does this on the basis as we see that all services run through.’
MR LAX: Yeah, that’s correct.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): So that means that the HS2 services would be running through to a point – let’s say for the sake of argument, say that the north point is the arrow – to a point north of the station platforms?
MR LAX: Correct.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And there is no specific point to the north at which those HS2 services would be able to turn around, is there, on your scheme?
MR LAX: There isn’t in the NPR element of that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, the HS2 services – that is to say, on the core programme, the three HS2 services that terminate – they are terminating services at Manchester, aren’t they?
MR LAX: Correct.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. There’s no suggestion from either party that HS2 services running from London to Manchester on the western leg, that they should do anything other than terminate at Manchester Piccadilly and turn around and come back down to London.
MR LAX: We haven’t put that forward in the case, but they could go through to Bradford, say, or –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And the principle of this Bill is this, isn’t it, that Manchester Piccadilly station should operate as a terminus station for HS2 services. That’s the principle of this Bill, isn’t it?
MR LAX: I will say yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, I throw that out; if others want to debate that, they can. But the Bill is founded on the proposition that Manchester Piccadilly station operates as the north-western terminus for HS2. Yeah? Yeah. So, scenario 4 is founded upon something different. It’s founded upon HS2 services not terminating at Manchester Piccadilly station, but running north to some as yet unidentified more northerly point, yeah?
MR LAX: They are options, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But it only works if they run through to some unidentified northerly point, doesn’t it?
MR LAX: The 15, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. And it’s on that basic proposition that we suggest that for costing purposes, the cost of a turnback facility is an essential element of the cost of delivering a four-platform underground station; do you understand that?
MR LAX: I understand that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. Your explanation as to why the cost in the cost schedule wasn’t justified is because there might be some other solution to that problem.
MR LAX: Yes, there would be other solutions to that problem.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, you say there would be. We don’t know that, do we? There hasn’t been any work done to see what that other solution might be and whether it would work in practice. That’s right, isn’t it?
MR LAX: There’s no detailed work been done to the west of the proposed station.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No. What we do know is that both parties agree that the Bill scheme is predicated on HS2 services terminating at Manchester Piccadilly. So, some means of enabling those services to turn around and go back to London on your underground station scheme would need to be found, wouldn’t it?
MR LAX: If you didn’t run them through, yes, absolutely.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, you are running them through. You’d need to find a way of turning them around further to the north or the west, whichever is the correct point of the compass, but beyond the platforms on the underground station, wouldn’t you?
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yeah. And that would come at a cost.
MR LAX: If it wasn’t at a station elsewhere.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes.
MR LAX: It would need a facility further out.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): To get to a station elsewhere would come as a cost, wouldn’t it? You’d have to provide the track to get to a station elsewhere?
MR LAX: You would as part of the NPR scheme, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, it would be an essential cost of operating the station at 15 trains per hour, wouldn’t it? Otherwise, the HS2 services would block two platforms for 20 minutes in every hour.
MR LAX: Yes, they’d need – I think we’re all agreed they’d need to run through the station to achieve 15.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yeah. You say, ‘Well it might not need turnback sidings; it might be that they could run through to an unspecified station’.
MR LAX: We think there are options, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But they would come at a capital cost, wouldn’t they?
MR LAX: They would do, and with benefits, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. So if we’re going to cost your station on the basis, not part of a station proposition but an entire station proposition, we need to include a cost in pounds to allow for the HS2 services that are running through beyond the platforms to turn around somewhere further north or west, depending on what it is. We need to add that cost in, don’t we?
MR LAX: We can do. We hadn’t in the baseline, but we can add it on to both sides.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): We had suggested that a reasonable way of adding that cost in was to assume the provision of turnback sidings at the cost that is shown in P424.
MR LAX: Sorry, if you could just repeat that? You’d assumed –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. We recognised also that there was a need to add in the capital cost of the facility that would enable the HS2 terminating services to turn around north of the platforms, and we took the view that a reasonable way of estimating that cost was to assume the provision of a turnback facility, which we’ve costed at the sum that is set out in the schedule in P424.
MR LAX: We don’t think that’s a reasonable way of doing it.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, it’s the only way that’s before the Committee in evidence at the moment, isn’t it?
MR LAX: It is.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you.
MR LAX: But at a cost of £2.5 billion, which would be unfeasible.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, the ball’s in your court to come up with a cheaper alternative, isn’t it?
MR LAX: Okay.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. Okay. Can we then please just turn to one other topic, which is the benefits that you mentioned in your answer to the Chair a few minutes ago? Can we turn, please, to A64(21)? Remember, you showed us this yesterday, as I think did the leader of the council. The orange shaded area, you say, is the surface land taken up by the HS2/NPR Bill scheme station and the necessary approach infrastructure.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And you said it amounts to some 16 hectares or, in imperial measurements, 40 acres.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But can we turn, please, with that thought in mind, to A64(46)? That orange land that we saw on the previous slide does not represent the potential development land which would be released by going underground through the Greater Manchester partners’ alternatives, does it? Because the land shown red on A64(46) to the north-west of Mancunian Way, that is land which is given over to the railway function on the GM partners’ underground station scheme, isn’t it? Do you know where I mean by Mancunian Way? That’s exactly it. All the land to the left of that on the screen, Mr Lax, on the underground station scheme is given over to either the station itself, or to circulating areas, or to station-related buildings such as the coach station and the relay room, isn’t it?
MR LAX: It isn’t, no. If I may just ask, if we go onto A64(47), which shows exactly that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. But the red area on A64(47) is the station building, isn’t it?
MR LAX: It is.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But if we turn back to a plan you showed the Committee earlier, A64(41), we can see the station building but we can see that the area fronting onto London Road and the area fronting on to what will become the boulevard, that is shown as open area, which is circulation space and approach space for the station itself, isn’t it? It’s not intended to be developed for commercial development.
MR LAX: If you could go to A64(42), that then shows the potential for commercial development. You’re right about the area between the station and the boulevard, absolutely. That plaza area is not intended for development.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, the area between the station frontage and London Road on A64(42), that is essentially the area which is currently occupied by Gateway House, isn’t it?
MR LAX: It is, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well there’s nothing in the Bill scheme that prevents Gateway House from being redeveloped if that is the preferred option, is there, for that very reason? The Bill scheme assumes Gateway House remains in place, but if Greater Manchester’s view is that working with the owners of Gateway House, which I think is Network Rail and its leaseholders, which I think is HSBC – if they take the view there’s a case for Gateway House to be redeveloped under either the Bill scheme or the underground scheme, then that’s a matter which Greater Manchester can pursue as local planning authority, isn’t it?
MR LAX: I think it’s slightly different because the underground station requires Gateway House. I think we say there’s one additional demolition and that’s Gateway House.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): You’re missing my point. That may be right, but the question I’m asking you is – what I’m essentially saying is, is it right to view the opportunity to develop that triangle of land on screen in front of us fronting between the station, the boulevard and London Road, is it right to view that, if you like, as a development opportunity gain which only arises under the underground scheme? The answer to that is, because the Bill scheme doesn’t require Gateway House for railway works, the redevelopment of Gateway House is something which is neutral to either the underground scheme or the surface scheme, isn’t it?
MR LAX: I think the underground scheme would enable it, because it takes the building, and you’re right; at the moment on the surface scheme, it doesn’t take the building so the scheme wouldn’t enable the redevelopment.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, it wouldn’t prevent it, because we don’t need Gateway House for railway works on the Bill scheme.
MR LAX: But it doesn’t enable it either. So it might not prevent it –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I think the Committee has my point.
MR LAX: – in the future if the building was redeveloped.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): What I’m trying to understand is what is the land that is genuinely sterilised by the surface station in comparison to the land that is genuinely sterilised for development by the underground station. And I suggest to you, just to complete this analysis, those two buildings which we see on the left-hand side – there are two irregularly shaped buildings – the arrow is over a building which is, as I understand it is, is earmarked as a coach station under the Greater Manchester scheme.
MR LAX: The ground floor of that, yes, that’s correct.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And the building further to the north is also earmarked to have a rail-related function, isn’t it?
MR LAX: It’s got a service bay on the ground floor.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. So at least to some degree, those buildings are for rail-related purposes rather than being given over to a commercial development opportunity.
MR LAX: I think there’s more commercial development opportunity than there is with the surface scheme.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): If we go back to A64(46), the principal area within which you say the Bill scheme sterilises development land which would be released for development under the underground scheme is the land to the east of Mancunian Way, isn’t it?
MR LAX: There’s two areas and there’s quite significant elements between them, but yes, the land to the east of Mancunian Way is clearly a larger area.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): You can see that by comparing this plan, which we can see shows, as we saw yesterday, the blocks of buildings showing coloured blue, which are said to be constrained in development terms, and we go onto the next slide.
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): We can see we’ve lost those red and blue running tracks on the surface. They’re now underground, aren’t they? And we can see that that blue area is showing as being unconstrained for development purposes. So it’s that area, the eastern zone as it were, which is the area where you’re principally focusing your case for the underground scheme to release significantly better commercial development potential.
MR LAX: It’s important. I think it’s both areas. If it might help to go onto A64(48), if that would be acceptable, because both are then, both surface and underground, are shown on the same slide on 48. I know we didn’t get to this slide, but that shows the area at the top taken for surface station development, and at the bottom, the area taken for underground development.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But the bottom, if we look at the left-hand side of the bottom image, it doesn’t actually show you – if we’re looking at areas that are sterilised for commercial development by the Bill scheme but released for commercial development by the underground scheme, it’s not correct, because it’s not just the actual station building that is taken for railway related development; you’ve got that large circulating area which lies alongside, between the boulevard and the station building itself. You’re not suggesting that you can build offices right up to the station entrance, are you? You’re saying you need a large area of circulation.
MR LAX: We are, and that was part of the point yesterday in between the developable land area. So we’re only proposing that, effectively, one third of the land area in the green zone on both maps is developed and two-thirds will be other uses, such as the plaza and roads, and other –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): You didn’t include within that explanation yesterday circulation space and so forth adjacent to the station, but in fact, that third encompasses that too, does it?
MR LAX: Apologies for that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Okay.
CHAIR: Sorry, the third includes the circulation space, the plaza, the developable third, because my understanding yesterday was a third of the 40 acres and it was an average of, over 40 acres, equivalent of four-storey development, wasn’t it, which would be 12 to 15 over the developable third? So, that developable third, does that include the circulation space?
MR LAX: No, it doesn’t. That would be in the undeveloped –
CHAIR: That would be in the two-thirds, in effect.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I see.
CHAIR: So the bit that has buildings on is the third.
MR LAX: Exactly.
CHAIR: Right, okay.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Okay. Well then can we just –
MR LAX: Sorry, on these two plans as well, the area with Gateway House in it is identified on both of the plans.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes, that was my point.
MR LAX: I think there is a witness coming on regeneration and the land use, but it might be that that redevelopment is assumed in both anyway.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): That was the point I was putting to you a few minutes ago. Well, I’m glad we’ve resolved that. Thank you. Alright. Can we just go back to A64(46) and (47), please?
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I just want to test the assumptions that you’ve made about building heights. I think you said yesterday that you’d look to build up to 12 storeys on that third that was available for development. We can see the red running tracks for the HS2 railway going down to the Ardwick tunnel portal and we can see the blue railway lines going out from the junction towards the tunnel going towards Leeds, yes?
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Now, if we go to A64(47), under the underground scheme, both of those tracks would be running in tunnel beneath that eastern zone, wouldn’t they?
MR LAX: Correct.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): But we can see, if we just remind ourselves of the – if we just have in our mind that the lines along which those tracks are running, underground beneath that eastern zone – we can see that on this block plan and massing drawing, we’ve got some pretty substantial buildings apparently being located above those tunnels, haven’t we?
MR LAX: This is a concept design and I think the architect will say it gives a sense of massing. I wouldn’t say this is the exact design that will move forward.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Do you accept that, although the railway lines will be underground, that presents at least a potential constraint on the sort of heights of buildings that could be constructed at surface above those lines?
MR LAX: Technically it could do but we’d need to obviously understand the evidence. Clearly, if you have oversight development you might need different foundations or you might need to put –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Well, it might affect the commercial attractiveness to a developer, because the more expensive and extensive the foundations you have to put in to bridge over the running tunnels, the more that’s going to affect your judgment as to whether it’s worth your while to go to the trouble and expense of developing tall buildings.
MR LAX: Yes, and it depends on the use and the height. Again, there will be areas of open space that could be positioned over those tunnels, if necessary.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yeah. Can we turn to A78(16), please, which is a page from your published growth strategy? We can see that this is your published position, as we see from the top left-hand corner, ‘Our vision – a new commercial district’, and the first paragraph says, ‘The arrival of HS2 and NPR at Piccadilly station represents a once in a century opportunity to create a truly world-class integrated transport hub and to transform the eastern part of the city centre.’
If we can just zoom out again, the area within which that opportunity to transform the eastern part of the city centre and to create a new commercial district is the area shown coloured on the plan in front of us, isn’t it, in the context of this growth strategy?
MR LAX: It is, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. It doesn’t extend further east than Mancunian Way, does it?
MR LAX: It doesn’t in this strategy.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No. And this is your current published strategy, isn’t it?
MR LAX: It is.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. The strategic regeneration framework doesn’t extend east of Mancunian Way, does it?
MR LAX: It doesn’t, yet.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): No. So, there is in fact no published strategy for the types of development use, height of buildings, etc that might come forward on that area to the east of Mancunian Way which we saw in that massing drawing a few minutes ago.
MR LAX: No.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): That’s entirely unaddressed by published forward planning documentation at the moment, isn’t it?
MR LAX: There’s nothing published. But we think that those areas will come forward next. Clearly, as part of the interface with HS2 and NPR, that’s been moving around so we haven’t developed anything and the city have done the work to start looking at that as set out to Committee and in the slides. But it’s not yet part of a formal framework.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): An important question that will need to be considered when you do bring forward forward planning documents in the form of growth strategies and strategic frameworks to cover that area, and which will no doubt be the subject of public debate before they’re adopted, is the balance of uses within that area, the balance between, for example, new residential development and new commercial development.
How much of that land should be developed for residential purposes? How much should be developed for commercial purposes? How much should be devoted to community uses? What are the constraints on heights of buildings due to the presence of running tunnels if the Manchester underground station scheme were to be adopted? Those are all matters that are at large so far as your current planning framework is concerned, aren’t they?
MR LAX: They are, but I think they’re all resolvable. I think that’s a question to pick up with the architectural witness next.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And the more the output of that work is that the balance should favour uses such as residential or community rather than commercial uses, the lower will be the additional number of jobs that will be yielded by putting those railway tracks underground; that must follow, mustn’t it?
MR LAX: Sorry, I don’t –
MR MOULD KC (DfT): The more that balance of use favours non-commercial development over commercial development, the lower will be the jobs created by the future redevelopment of that eastern zone.
MR LAX: Clearly, there will be a balance between residential and commercial.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes, And the more that balance favours non-commercial development over commercial development, the fewer will be the jobs that will be created directly by carrying out development within that area.
MR LAX: Correct, and vice versa.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. And obviously that means that – you have assumed, I think, that – am I right in this? You’ve told the Committee that 14,000 additional jobs would come forward from putting those running tracks underground rather than having them at surface.
MR LAX: I think that was the number, yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I understood your evidence yesterday to be that that was predicated on the balance between commercial and non-commercial development in that area being very strongly weighted in favour of commercial development.
MR LAX: I would have to give that question to our architectural witness, to be honest, in terms of the exact proportions of what was commercial and what was residential.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): And finally on this point, if we go back to A64(46) again, it’s not your case that, under the surface scheme, the development potential of land within that eastern zone under the Bill scheme is nil.
MR LAX: No, it isn’t nil. As we’ve set out in the slides, we’ve assumed that the green areas are developed in a similar way.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): The blue and the grey areas are developed.
MR LAX: Sorry, yes, on this slide.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Yes. Your 14,000 jobs, does that net off the jobs that you say should be assumed from development of the grey and the blue under the surface scheme?
MR LAX: Yes, it will do.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Because I’ve not seen that calculation in your evidence.
MR LAX: It will be an assumption about what that land can be used for with a proportionate split between commercial and residential.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I think it would be very helpful to us if we’ve got time, because we’re coming back again next week, if we could please see the calculation under which you net off from that 14,000 additional jobs, you net off the number of jobs that you assume would come forward from development along the lines of that which is shown on A64(46).
MR LAX: Okay.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you, could you do that for us?
MR LAX: I’ll have a look at that.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Thank you.
MR CAMERON KC: I think we can do that. We are, as we’ve told the Committee, intending to put in evidence on the related issue of how you use the 40 acres.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Finally, Mr Lax, can I just ask you to turn please to A64(58), which is your programme slide?
MR LAX: Yeah.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): As I understand it, the green and the purple lines on the GM alternative four‑platform underground through stations chart, you’ve taken those from Mr Hindle’s evidence; is that right?
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): Right. It’s just that I don’t want to ask you about matters that I can ask Mr Hindle about. So, I should pose those questions to Mr Hindle.
MR LAX: Yes.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I’m very grateful to you. Thank you. Those are my questions.
MR CAMERON KC: Sir, I am concerned about time. I have three points I’d like to ask Mr Lax about, but I’m very concerned –
CHAIR: Before you do, Mr Cameron, on this time point, I’ve consulted with my colleagues here. We are really keen, because this is such a key issue, to ensure that the Great Manchester partners have had appropriate time to present their case and that the promoters have had appropriate time to robustly challenge that case too.
I’m not sure that the time we have allocated, or that we’ve agreed, is sufficient so it may be something that you wish to discuss with our programme manager and with our clerks as to whether we can accommodate or change our schedule perhaps to accommodate further meetings on this, because I don’t think it would be fair, given you have two more witnesses and we were planning to conclude, I think, the presentation of your petition today for HS2 to respond next week, and that’s clearly not going to be sufficient time.
So I think if both parties are in agreement, we maybe should look to scheduling some additional sessions on this so that we can – because this is a really key issue, and I think – I’ve checked with my two colleagues here and we’re keen to facilitate further discussion. I say that now, so as to not harry you with the time you have left, and we are expecting Divisions as well, of which there will be a number today.
MR CAMERON KC: Well, I’m grateful, sir, for that and I’ll make sure it’s discussed with Mr Mould and others, and with your programme manager.
CHAIR: We will have a Division that could be coming any time now and there could be a series of those, so perhaps in that you may want to have a discussion about how much time you think is required, but anyway, proceed.
MR CAMERON KC: Sir, it’s three at the moment, rail tunnelling and economics. And we may have an architectural witness to deal with some of the points we’ve just raised, but can I just ask about the three points in re‑examination, if I may?
Can I first ask you about – you were asked about the integrated rail plan and Mr Mould gave an R number, which I can’t remember, but I’ve got the integrated rail plan in front of me and I’d like to go to para 110 in it, please.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): R180(94).
MR CAMERON KC: Yes. If we can get R180, and I’d like to go to para 110 in that and ask you something about it, Mr Lax. Have you got the integrated rail plan in front of you?
MR LAX: I do.
MR CAMERON KC: We’ll wait till it’s up on the screen. Page 30 of the IRP. I hope it’s going to be worth it when we get there, everybody’s thinking.
CHAIR: It better be.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you very much indeed. What I want to ask you, Mr Lax, you were asked about current Government policy, you were asked to go about the integrated rail plan and whether the station would have sufficient capacity on your assumptions to cater for the IRP. What is the period over which the IRP seeks to plan ahead is what I wanted to ask you?
MR LAX: To 2050.
MR CAMERON KC: And when one is constructing a new railway, which is to come into operation in the late 2030s or so, is it right or wrong to restrict one’s horizon to 2050?
MR LAX: It would be wrong.
MR CAMERON KC: If it would be wrong, would it be right to build a railway to cater for needs identified in a plan that goes to 2050 or not?
MR LAX: It would be right to cater for those needs, yeah.
MR CAMERON KC: And would it be right to cater to any other needs?
MR LAX: It would be right to anticipate the needs beyond 2050. So, if the railway was opening, as you say, in the mid-2030s, which I think the date on the programme of 2036 is the date for HS2 to open, and NPR opening in the early to mid‑2040s then it would be right to look beyond that in terms of futureproofing capacity beyond the four or five years after opening.
MR CAMERON KC: And would it be right or wrong to build in a restriction which would prevent you going beyond the aspiration set out in a plan to 2050 or, indeed, Transport for the North’s plans?
MR LAX: My view, it would be wrong to build in that restriction.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. Next thing I’d like to ask you about, you were asked about the scenarios on your page 54. So it’s A64(54).
CHAIR: Sorry to labour this again, but can we just be clear on this building in the restriction? On Transport for the North’s plan, which was scenario 3, even on the eight-minute dwell time that you presented yesterday as a believable and likely figure, I thought we had agreement here that 11 trains per hour could be accommodated by the above ground station, which means that there would be no building in of a restriction so far as Transport for the North’s plans are concerned. Is that correct or are we back to disagreement here?
MR CAMERON KC: No, that is correct, sir. The question was not about that plan; it’s when you go beyond 2050 and you look beyond the IRP and you look beyond Transport for the North’s plans.
CHAIR: I thought you said Transport for the North because Transport for the North do not have an additional plan beyond the NPR-plus, as we call it.
MR CAMERON KC: No, I’m not suggesting that; I’m suggesting if you look beyond and in the future to other plans that might be developed. That is the point of the question.
CHAIR: Okay. Every station has a capacity limit, doesn’t it? So the capacity limit of an underground station of four platforms was 15, is that correct?
MR LAX: Correct.
CHAIR: 15, okay. So there’s a restriction built into every station construction, isn’t there? Because it can only take as many trains as it can take on the platform, but 15 is the –
MR CAMERON KC: Yes, sir, it’s the number of platforms, but the short point is that you shouldn’t build a station which has a lower capacity than the capacity of the spur. It’s simple as that really.
CHAIR: That’s the contention here.
MR CAMERON KC: It is, yes.
CHAIR: Okay, thank you.
MR CAMERON KC: Let me go to A64(54), which are these scenarios. You were asked in particular about scenario 4 and these were asked in the context of whether you need a turnback facility immediately – I’m going to call it north but it’s probably west – of the station. It was put to you that you would need that, so that’s the proposition that Mr Mould put to you, that you would need it when you were going to run services through.
So if you look at these scenarios, if Mr Mould is right – just suspend your disbelief for a moment – so if he’s right and you need a turnback, do you need that, if he’s right? Do you need it for HS2, scenario 1, if he’s right?
MR LAX: For scenario 1, no, because nothing runs through the station.
MR CAMERON KC: And if it’s for HS2 terminators – because the example he gave you was the terminating HS2 service – do you need it for London service terminators in scenarios 2 or 3?
MR LAX: No. They’re the yellow lines on the plan.
MR CAMERON KC: So, if you do need it, when you do need it, is it needed for NPR expanded or for HS2?
MR LAX: In scenario 4?
MR CAMERON KC: Scenario 4.
MR LAX: I think there are options, so you can either take the service – you could split the services and take them elsewhere across the north, as is proposed elsewhere in the high-speed network. You could turn them back somewhere; that is an option, but there are other options. You could run the 400-metre trains to a different destination.
MR CAMERON KC: But if you needed it, would you need it before or after NPR?
MR LAX: You’d need it after NPR.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you.
CHAIR: That’s scenario 4.
MR CAMERON KC: Scenario 4, if you needed it. But our case is that you certainly don’t need it under the city.
CHAIR: Yeah.
MR CAMERON KC: Last point, and apologies if everybody’s got this ready, but can you go to A64(21)? You were asked some questions about Gateway House and the 40 acres and there you are; you’ve got the 40 acres. Is Gateway House included in those 40 acres or not?
MR LAX: It’s not included.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. So thank you very much. Those are all the questions I’ve got for you.
CHAIR: Mr Cameron, you’ve –
MR CAMERON KC: I’ve finished the evidence of this witness. I don’t think Mr Mould even here gets another turn.
MR MOULD KC (DfT): I’m not asking for one.
CHAIR: Okay. So we’ll move on to your next witness then.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you very much. That will be Mr Palmer, who’s going to speak on rail matters.
CHAIR: We know there’s Divisions coming up so we’re just trying to work out a strategy of how to deal with those, other than having to go and vote in them.

Evidence of Mr Palmer

MR CAMERON KC: Mr Palmer, you have a set of slides and you are an expert in railways, being a member of the Chartered Institution of Railway Operators; is that correct?
MR PALMER: That’s correct, yes.
MR CAMERON KC: I’m going to ask you – first subject is hybrid Bill proposal defects. I’m not going to run through the slides; we’re going to try and focus on the defects, and when we’ve done that, we’re going to look at the GM partners solution for consideration.
So can we go to 67(4) first, please? We’ve been discussing the capacity of the proposed surface turnback station, and I’d like you to deal with planned capacity and then designed capacity. What is the planned capacity of the surface turnback station, and then what’s the designed capacity?
MR PALMER: The planned capacity from a quantum of services that will operate –
MR CAMERON KC: Remember to address the Committee, rather than me.
MR PALMER: Sorry. Apologies. It’s my first time here. I’m still slightly nervous.
CHAIR: No, don’t be nervous of us. We have, as I keep saying, assembled the finest minds in Parliament but you shouldn’t let that intimidate you.
MR PALMER: The planned capacity from a timetable planning point of view, as has been discussed and debated previously, the station as planned will support either nine services, comprising of three terminating services from London and six through services – we’ll call them NPR throughs – or it will support a maximum of 11 services, be that eight through services and three terminators from London, but it will not support any more than that. So the planned capacity and the designed capacity of the station are identical.
MR CAMERON KC: So that’s planned. Designed, can we go to 67(6), please? We can see a diagram and there’s a box on the right hand side. Can you just explain to the Committee what that shows?
MR PALMER: As per the information contained within the IRP documentation, and as has been referenced previously by parties, that shows the service options that are proposed to operate, and it shows potentially the maximum number of services that this station design can accommodate.
MR CAMERON KC: And that’s where you get your 11.
MR PALMER: That’s where we get our 11 from, correct.
MR CAMERON KC: And then if we go on to 67(7), you say there that ‘additional infrastructure is required to support more than two extra NPR services’ and we can see some different coloured lines on that slide compared to the previous one. What do they show?
MR PALMER: The green-coloured lines shown on the image represent the additional infrastructure that HS2’s assessments have identified is required to be added to the surface station to support more than eight through services per hour.
MR CAMERON KC: That’s through, so if you’ve got three terminators and eight through, you get to 11?
MR PALMER: You get to 11. If you want to add a ninth through service or – we generally add things in pairs on the railway – if you wanted to go to 10 through services, the additional infrastructure in green, which would constitute an additional viaduct parallel to the existing viaducts that have been proposed by HS2 for the surface station, and a second viaduct parallel to the grade-separating viaducts that HS2 require for the operation of the station, up to eight through services an hour, would also have to be provided.
CHAIR: Sorry, so this is for NPR. For the through services, obviously the only through services will be the NPR services, as planned. Why do you need to, to add two NPR services, construct an additional viaduct?
MR PALMER: The assessments that HS2 have undertaken have looked at the capacity and capability of the existing infrastructure shown in this image in blue and yellow to deliver the service frequency. And they have identified, through their performance assessments and their analysis, that the infrastructure as proposed in the hybrid Bill, in the form of the blue lines and the yellow lines, cannot support more than eight through services per hour.
So if you wanted to run more than eight through services per hour to meet a future level of demand or to pick up more of the benefits that have been discussed and debated, you would need to come back at some point in the future and add in that extra infrastructure.
CHAIR: I’m a laypeople so I’m a bit confused by this, because they’re all running down the same line, aren’t they, out of Manchester?
MR PALMER: Yes.
CHAIR: So they’re not going to be running at the same time, the additional services. So why is additional infrastructure needed to run 10 versus eight?
MR PALMER: The issue associated with the design of the surface station – and this is something that we will pick up as part of some of the slides a bit later on – is the requirement to turn back in the station platform. What this means is that every service that comes in from Manchester Airport on the blue lines has to go through the connections, the point work, the tracks that are shown to the right of the left-hand red line to get into a platform. They then have to come out of the station, go back through those same pointing to go across to continue their journey.
So what happens is, as you increase the number of services that reverse in the station, you increase the chances of them clashing with each other in the station throat area because they are interacting with each other, similar to if you were waiting at a junction on a highway network where you wanted to turn left across the carriageway, but you had to wait until there was a suitable gap in the traffic going in the opposite direction.
CHAIR: Okay, right. Thank you.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. So, Mr Palmer, you’ve explained that point. Can we then just look at 67(8), which is the spur capacity? There are various formulas there, but in short, is this how you get to the capacity of 15 for the spur?
MR PALMER: This sets out using the UIC capacity calculation formula, which HS2 themselves have agreed they have used, and the three calculations show us, using the information supplied by HS2, how they get their number of 18 services per hour, and how we get our number of 15 services per hour.
What the difference boils down to is we have adopted a more conservative approach by adding a 30-second allowance to the maximum headway of the track, to build in the ability to cope with delay and perturbation. HS2 have only been able to do that against the minimum headway that they have published and have stated that their infrastructure design must support.
CHAIR: Right.
MR CAMERON KC: There’s a row which has ‘HS2 minimum headway’ and an ‘HS2 maximum headway.’ And then there’s ‘petitioner headway.’
MR PALMER: Yes. The Petitioner headway represents our approach using HS2’s maximum headway value, so we are being conservative. And we’ve then added the 30 seconds as the additional allowance, which mirrors what HS2 have used on their minimum headway calculation.
MR CAMERON KC: That’s how you get to the 15.
MR PALMER: That’s how you get to the 15. I won’t do the mental maths in front of people.
MR CAMERON KC: No. We can see it there and anybody who wants to do it can look at it. While we’re on this, Mr Morris asked about lessons learned from elsewhere. Are there any examples of where a new railway – or a renewed railway, if it’s not completely new – hasn’t been built with full capacity at particular points; has that caused any problems or not?
MR PALMER: Yes.
MR CAMERON KC: Right. Can you give us the example then please?
MR PALMER: Sorry. The railway in question is the Borders Railway running from Tweedbank to Edinburgh Waverley, up in Scotland. The original design of the railway contained sections of single track, i.e., the track is used by trains going in both directions, so similar to when you have to use a country lane where there are no passing places or going over a very narrow bridge. And that line had large sections of double track, which enabled trains to pass each other on the move.
As part of the process of designing that railway, there would have been requirements associated with how the railway was to be designed in terms of standards. There will have also been questions relating to things like journey times, and there would have been requirements in terms of performance, to ensure that any new infrastructure being added to the existing network, and any new services being operated on that infrastructure, did not reduce the level of performance on all the other trains around it.
What happened was the design of the Borders Railway included infrastructure sections where you didn’t have that resilience, where you didn’t have that redundancy by having two tracks, one in each direction. And as on top of that, as part of a value engineering process, the bits that were left that helped you accommodate changes in timetables or vehicle performance or coped with delays on other lines were reduced.
So you now have a piece of infrastructure which can only operate one very specific type of timetable. And if performance goes wrong on that line – which it has done, because every line has good days and bad days – that poor performance impacts on other services across the rest of the network in and around Edinburgh.
MR CAMERON KC: Thank you. Let’s turn to the heading now of ‘Robustness of operation of the surface turnback station.’ And we’re going to get on to the subject of dwell times. We’ve touched on this, but the Committee have raised the question of evidence relating to reversal times, so let’s look at this if we can. Can we go to your slide 11, 67(11)? What does this show us? Why are these times relevant? They’re for different length trains, as we go down.
MR PALMER: What this slide shows us is an extract from Network Rail’s timetable planning rules for 2022 that covers north-west and central – effectively, the area around Manchester Piccadilly. These values are values that Network Rail has determined in discussion with operators, in discussion with various other industry bodies and drawing on the experience of how the railway performs. What it’s designed to do is the values are designed to ensure an acceptable level of performance for a given type of train.
So what we would say is that it is unrealistic to have a three-car train have a 35-minute time to reverse. It’s clearly inefficient. It’s clearly not something that the railway would want to do, accepting it would have absolutely amazing performance benefits, but we’re never likely to see them.
On the flip side, it is also suggesting that if you have a longer service – so in this case, if we pick the examples of the Pendolinos that trundle up and down the west coast main line – because those trains are proportionately longer, you would allow proportionately more time. There’s also a function that goes into this that looks at how far the trains have travelled and how many locations they have gone through where they are likely to incur a delay.
So what you see on the screen is the boiled-down experience, and answers to all those questions, that actually suggests, the longer the train is and the further the train has travelled, the more time you should allow for those activities to take place.
MR CAMERON KC: We got that, which relates to train lengths and length of travel, as you say. And now reversal times at existing stations was also raised. So can we have up A71(36) please, which is in part three of the petitioner’s pack, at page 116, I think?
This is a reversing information table. It’s got various stations and you can see ‘time taken’, ‘length of trains’. Are the examples here, of high-speed trains of the length we’re considering – the ones that have to turn back, the NPR ones – and the frequency of operation, are these comparable at all?
MR PALMER: There are examples of train services that reverse, where the length of the train is comparable to those that are proposed to operate NPR services. There are a couple of services in this table where the trains are 260 metres long. There are no services in this table where the number of trains per hour that reverse matches the frequency proposed by HS2.
MR CAMERON KC: And why does frequency matter?
MR PALMER: Because the more frequently you have an interaction, the more frequently you undertake something on the railway, the greater the opportunity for delay. And the higher the frequency of a service that operates, the smaller amount of time that you have between services to be able to mitigate any problems that occur.
Also, if we pick up on the frequency proposed for NPR in the beginning, the so-called core specification, where we’re talking about effectively six services that operate through, four of which would come from Leeds – sorry, that would go between Liverpool and Leeds – those services are 15 minutes apart. So if you take into account the time specified by HS2 for that reversal activity to take place –
CHAIR: Which is what, again, can you remind us?
MR PALMER: Which is five minutes.
CHAIR: Five minutes.
MR PALMER: It leaves you a 10-minute window to be able to cope with any issues before the next service comes along. But if we now double that service frequency from four services to, say, eight services, not relating to any specific specification, but that 10-minute window is now five minutes.
So you’ve gone from having 10 minutes to cope with an issue to now having five minutes to cope with an issue. And again, the more services you add, the smaller that window becomes.
MR CAMERON KC: So HS2’s answer, or the promoter’s answer to this on reversal times is, ‘Well, we’ll use stepping back and that’s how we’ll achieve the five minutes.’ So let’s just go, if we can, to your slide 12. We just have this in front of us, but is stepping back an appropriate method to use for this type of service?
MR PALMER: The simple answer is no.
CHAIR: We shall have to – sorry – dwell on that answer. I know; we’ve been here a while. There are Divisions in the House. We’re expecting four, so that could take up to 40 minutes, which will take us past the time for today’s Committee.
So if everyone is agreement I will end the Committee at this point and obviously we’ll resume where we left off at the next meeting. But we’ll have conversations, obviously offline, about how we schedule where we’re going next on this, given that you still have – Mr Palmer has only just started. You have another witness to go, so we’ll do that.
But on that basis I’ll end the Committee there today and thank everybody for attending. And I’m sorry, Mr Palmer, that we’ve only just got started but we have to go and vote now. So on that basis I’ll close the Committee.