Written evidence from Reynolds Hardiman
1. For various reasons of law that I cannot go
into here, I was not able earlier to allow you to place some of
our correspondence before the Select Committee. On those previous
elements that remains the case.
2. I am however now able today to ask you to
present this and the attached forwarded e-mail to your Committee
in evidence on a point that has not been raised, in my knowledge,
in any other submission.
3. The key associated HSR policy issue is that
HS2, in reality, is the intended backbone of any future HSR network
in UK north of London and there is great uncertainty about how
many operating paths it can operate at per hour in each direction
at peak. DfT's own economics evidence in the HS2 public consultation
says that 19 is the planned evaluation (for their BCR assessment)
at the "Y" junction and that the BCR is so calculated
on that basis for a two track "Y" form leg south of
the proposed "Y" junctionseemingly somewhere
4. The world wide HSR pathing achievement, and
most notably Japanese Railways in particular with over 40 years
HSR experience, cannot get anywhere near that figure. I believe
that the best that Japanese Railways achieve consistently, and
consistently is the vital operating issue here, is 13 paths per
peak hour on a two track HSR of the nature being proposed as the
5. My interest is to see taxpayers' funds (including
my own contributions) for any HSR well spent and without waste
or neglect by DfT and anyone involved in HSR in UK development,
provision and operation. This does not mean that I support HS2,
or indeed any HSR in UK, it means merely that I do not want money
thrown away on mere guesswork, speculation and unaccountable opinions
if any HSR is decided upon by Parliament by legislative effect.
6. To that end I have asked the Secretary of
State today to give an undertaking so that mere arguable guesses
about the key HSR pathing issues are dealt a total blow and are
replaced by a definitive quantitative analysis and a legally enforceable
performance and damages regime via material legislation and indemnity.
Both will focus minds and pockets and that is what is needed to
control this HSR policy development in UK. There must be no guesses:
far too much is at stake.
7. Every path is very valuable and failure to
achieve the BCR based on "x" pathings per hour is material
at root to the viability and financial return of any such projectmost
especially the HS2 proposal with a materially imbalanced pathing
in the wrong operating order: four tracks north of Birmingham
but only two tracks, in the key part, south of Birmingham to London.
The correct capacity order should be the other way roundor
four track the "Y" leg properly to London (or have two
two track HSR railways one each to the NW and NE as the WCML and
ECML are today).
8. Please would you place this e-mail to you
and the copy forwarded attached e-mail before the Committee in
I will promptly alert you and, via you, the Committee of any material
reply from the Secretary of State. Please would you confirm the
Committee's acceptance of the point and the said two e-mail communications
466 Attachments not printed with this submission. Back