EHS0093/EAC/14-15
Response to Lords HS2 Inquiry
Sent as an interested private individual not representing any organisation
a) VHS services between London and Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds would probably not achieve a significant extra benefit. These provincial cities are already well within day-return range of London and have the “lions share” of the passenger market vis-a-vis aviation.
However, costs, both environmental and financial, are high, particularly due to finding a viable route through the NW London suburbs and the Chiltern Hills. The whole route is planned to go through relatively highly populated/developed country.
I understand that a similar project in Belgium/Netherlands (FYRA) involving VHS on relatively short distances through relatively highly developed country has recently been abandoned.
In this country, it seems the only route that would have similar characteristics to most VHS lines abroad is one that links London more directly than with the current proposals to Tees/Tyne/Edinburgh/Glasgow, on an East Coast alignment (with “spin-off” benefits for centres in Yorkshire). The distances involved are such that substantial extra benefit would probably accrue, with new day-return opportunities to substantially alter the balance between rail/aviation (in turn bringing significant environmental benefit).
Such an East Coast alignment might involve upgrading some suitable existing sections, together with some new-build stretches as VHS cut-off/by-pass sections where appropriate. The per-mile costs (both financial and environmental) of this would, I think, be significantly less than for the current proposals.
As a footnote to the above, I was told by a retired senior ex-railway civil engineer that any attempt at building
a VHS line from the Manchester area to Glasgow/Edinburgh would be costly, due to the topography.
b) There may still be need for capacity enhancement on the WCML south of Rugby. If VHS on this line were not necessary, a prime candidate for achieving this more cheaply (both environmentally and financially) might be to bring the ex-Great Central formation back into use. At its northern end, a new stretch could be built, diverging south of Rugby, passing to its west, and joining the WCML south of Nuneaton.
At its southern end, there appear to be three ways to access Central London:
i) via the Metropolitan route to Marylebone; ii) via a rebuilt Ashenden-Grendon link to Paddington; iii) via a new-build link from just north of Aylesbury to Tring and thence to Euston.
A judicious distribution of usage between all three of these might ensure sufficient capacity.
Alternatively, the ex-GC line, as above, could be utilised as a dedicated freight route to the north, again having a “knock-on” capacity relief effect on the WCML.
Also, the current Chiltern Main Line between London and Birmingham via High Wycombe could be enhanced to further relive WCML capacity.
Instead of capacity enhancement through a VHS line, a new dedicated "piggyback"guage freight line might be more cost/effective, on a Channel Tunnel / Felixstowe - East London - Midlands - N W England (and perhaps beyond) alignment.
This could convey road seni - trailers and double - stack containers, bringing congestion relief to both West Coast Line and to the M20 / A12 / M1 / M6, etc.