Further written evidence submitted by
HS2 Action Alliance[224]
(HSR 153C)
This note summarises new evidence that shows UK passengers
are more satisfied with the journey speeds being achieved than
for any other aspect of the railways, and that this reflects the
facts on journey times in the UK, compared to other EU countries.
It also sets out the arithmetic to show how our proposed
alternatives to HS2 deliver their capacity improvements to more
than meet the doubling in forecast demand.
RECENT EUROPEAN
EVIDENCE ON
SPEED
1. A recent EU study of passengers views on their
rail services has just reported. It shows that passengers in
the UK are more satisfied than most other EU countries. This study
of people's views on speed coincides with an analysis of the facts
on the journey times that was originally done for the 2006 Eddington
Transport study, and updated by HS2AA.
2. The EU study shows UK satisfaction scored
highest for speed. Not only are UK rail passengers 92% satisfied
with their journey times (second in Europe) and well above Germany,
France and Italy, but this perception reflects the facts. The
facts show that UK has shorter journey times between its capital
and top five cities than in Spain, Italy, France and Germany,
all who have been investing in high speed rail so as to improve
their journey times, that still do not match ours.
2011 Eurobarometer survey[225]
3. The passenger satisfaction survey of those
making middle or long distance rail trips shows the UK are happier
with their journey than almost all their European neighbours.
4. On 17 of the 19 aspects measured, the UK are
above the EU average of 25 countries. For over half of the 19
the UK was in the top third, and on six aspects the UK was in
the top three.
5. The analysis shows for key measures:
— On
travelling speed (ie length of journey time) UK scored 2nd, with
92% satisfied (compared with the EU average of 78% satisfied).
UK was 16% above Italy; 13% above France; 8% above Germany.
— On
frequency of trains UK was 3rd, with 84% satisfied (compared with
the EU average of 72% satisfied). UK was 11% above France and
Italy; 10% above Germany.
— On
reliability and punctuality UK came 6th, with 87% satisfied (compared
with the EU average of 66% satisfied). UK was 35% above Germany;
32% above France; and 24% above Italy.
— On
connections with other rail services UK was top, with 71% satisfied
(compared with the EU average of 59% satisfied). UK was 14% better
than France; 8% better than Germany; and 1% point above Italy.
6. Overall UK passengers were more satisfied
than German passengers on all 19 criteria. The UK also scored
higher than France in 15 and above Italy in 14 of the criteria
measured. These are countries that have majored on high speed
rail.
7. This survey confirms that UK rail passengers
do not rank faster speeds as a priority. In fact they are more
satisfied with their current journey lengths than for any of the
other 19 factors that were measured.
8. ATOC noted[226]
"There is often a widespread perception that the rest
of Europe is happier with their rail services than are UK passengers.
But the European Commission's opinion polling shows that the people
surveyed in the UK were more satisfied with their train services
than in many other countries on the continent".
9. The results reflect the significant investment
that has been put into all aspects of the UK railways, that needs
to continue in ways that benefit everyone, if such results are
to be repeated.
10. People's perceptions on speed also reflect
the facts on actual journey length times, as the studies below
show.
Study of connections between capital and biggest
cities
11. The UK is a small and already well connected
country to our capital. Unlike Europe it has had a fast national
railway system (with routes capable of 200 km/h, 125 mph) for
a long time.
12. The HS2AA study (at Annex
A) showed that the UK has shorter journey times between the capital
and top five biggest cities than in France, Germany, Italy and
Spain, despite their concentration on high speed rail. Because
our major cities are relatively close to each other we do not
need faster trains to achieve short journey times:
— Averaging
145 minutes in UK (or 148 minutes using the same five cities as
Eddington):
— 151
minutes in Spain.
— 184
minutes in Italy.
— 221
minutes in France.
— 244
minutes in Germany.
13. This is consistent with what Sir Rod Eddington
found in his 2006 study. He then states "….with [rail]
journeys between London and other UK major cities performing particularly
well relative to journeys from other European capitals".
HS2AA updated this study
2. COUNTRIES
FACING PROBLEMS
WITH HIGH
SPEED RAIL
14. Recent high speed rail developments have
been facing difficulties in Europe and around the world. Attached
(Annex 2) is a summary of recent reports. It shows a tendency
to over estimate demand, and the financial difficulties of some
recent high speed rail developments.
3. SUMMARY OF
HOW THE
ALTERNATIVES MEET
THE FORECAST
DEMAND
15. To avoid confusion over exactly what the
different alternatives deliver in terms of capacity against forecast
demand, we have summarised how the capacity builds up, with all
the figures put onto the same basis (as how demand is calculated).
See Annex 3
16. This demonstrates that both RP2, and more
importantly the best alternative more than meets the doubling
in forecast demand. It should be noted when replacing first class
with standard class seats this adds capacity for no loss in revenue
as all first class demand is readily accommodated within the reduced
first class capacity. (First class loadings are currently around
20%).
Annex 1
"HS2AA STUDY OF JOURNEY TIME LENGTHS"
The UK actually has an extensive high speed network.
With the exception of CTRL, the principle routes in the UK have
a line speed of 125 mph for intercity services (ie WCML, East
Coast Main Line and Great Western). 125 mph is sufficiently fast
to qualify as high speed for a line uprated to be high speed under
the European Directive on high speed rail.[227]
Bearing in mind the compactness of the UK and the
closeness of centres of population such a speed is entirely appropriate,
as supported by Eddington's report and findings.[228]
In fact the UK has the shortest travelling times
by rail between the capital and its major cities (using the most
recent data and timetables).[229]
Our times are shorter than for Germany, France, Italy and Spain.
GERMANY
| City | City pop 000s[230]
| Rank by Population
size |
Time from capital city
(fastest train)
|
| Hamburg | 1,773 | 2
| 1hr 36m |
| Munich | 1,357 | 3
| 5hr 52m |
| Cologne | 995 | 4
| 4hr 19m |
| Frankfurt | 668 | 5
| 3hr 34m |
| Stuttgart | 600 | 6
| 5hr 00m |
| Avge time to/from Berlin | 3,430
| 1 | 4hr 04m (244m)
|
FRANCE
| City | City pop 000s[231]
| Rank by Population
size | Time from capital city (fastest train)
|
| Marseille | 839 | 2
| 3hr 03m |
| Lyon | 472 | 3
| 1hr 57m |
| Toulouse | 438 | 4
| 5hr 31m |
| Nice | 347 | 5
| 5hr 38m |
| Strasbourg | 273 | 6
| 2hr 17m |
| Avge time to/from Paris | 2,203
| 1 | 3hr 41m (221m)
|
ITALY
| City | City pop 000s[232]
| Rank by Population
size | Time from capital city (fastest train)
|
| Milan | 1,307 | 2
| 2hr 59m |
| Naples | 964 | 3
| 1hr 07m |
| Turin | 909 | 4
| 4hr 10m |
| (Palermo)[233]
| (660) | (5) | (11hr 32m)
|
| Genoa | 612 | 6
| 4hr 58m |
| Bologna | 375 | 7
| 2hr 05m |
| Avge time to/from Rome | 2,727
| 1 | 3hr 04m (184m)
|
SPAIN
| City | City pop 000s[234]
| Rank by Population
size | Time from capital city (fastest train)
|
| Barcelona | 1,622 | 2
| 2hr 43m |
| Valencia | 815 | 3
| 3hr 43m |
| Seville | 703 | 4
| 2hr 20m |
| Zaragoza | 674 | 5
| 1hr 18m |
| Malaga | 568 | 6
| 2hr 30m |
| Avge time to/from Madrid | 3,213
| 1 | 2hr 31m (151m)
|
UK
| City | City pop 000s[235]
| Rank by Population
size | Time from capital city (fastest train)
|
| Birmingham | 1,017 | 2
| 1hr 22m |
| Leeds | 771 | 3
| 2hr 04m |
| Glasgow | 582 | 4
| 4hr 09m |
| Sheffield | 535 | 5
| 2hr 08m |
| Bradford | 502 | 6
| 2hr 24m |
| Avge time to/from London | 7,556
| 1 | 2hr 25m (145m)
|
SUMMARY OF AVERAGE (FASTEST) JOURNEY TIMES BETWEEN THE
CAPITAL AND FIVE LARGEST CITIES
| Country | Average Journey Time
| Notes |
| Germany | 4hrs 04m (244m) |
Mixture of high speed, upgraded and some conventional lines
|
| France | 3hrs 41m (221m) |
All high speed TGV except Marseille - Nice link
|
| Italy | 3hrs 04m (184m) |
All high speed except last section to Genoa |
| Spain | 2hrs 31m (151m) |
All high speed except some short sections to Valencia
|
| UK | 2hrs 25m (145m) | Intercity network
|
The tables also show how dominant London is as the major city
in the UK (seven times the next largest), compared to other major
West European countries (where the capital is about twice as large).
SENSITIVITY
The above analysis uses different cities than those used in the
original Eddington analysis. As a sensitivity the UK cities used
were adjusted to match Eddington's selection.
| City | City pop. 000s[236]
| Rank by Population
size |
Time from capital city
(fastest train)
|
| Birmingham | 1,017 | 2
| 1hr 22m |
| Leeds | 771 | 3
| 2hr 04m |
| Glasgow | 582 | 4
| 4hr 09m |
| Manchester | 484 |
| 1hr 58m |
| Newcastle | 275 |
| 2hr 50m |
| Avge time to/from London | 7,556
| 1 | 2hr 28m (148m)
|
Sir Rod Eddington's cities (Manchester and Newcastle Dec 2010
timetable)
As can be seen there is little impact on the overall comparison.
CENTRALISATION
One of the reasons that the UK is so centralised is because journey
times from major cities to London are short and have been for
over 100 years. It is interesting that it is suggested that further
shortening the journey times will reverse the centralisation that
has resulted from it.
Annex 2
COUNTRIES FACING PROBLEMS WITH THEIR HIGH SPEED RAILWAYS
It is suggested by some that we should build more high speed rail
in the UK to keep up with other countries. This note summarises
some recent development in other countries.
Portugal
The Portuguese government has decided to suspend construction
of its €3.3 billion Lisbon-Madrid high speed rail link. This
was debated in their parliament on 30 June and 1 July, following
their €78 billion bailout by the International Monetary Fund
and European Union. Suspending this project is not a requirement
of the bailout, but the idea is to guard against possible external
and internal risks. Portugal's debt as a proportion of GDP was
93% at the end of 2010. In the UK the figure was 52% at the end
of last year, and is now believed to have risen to 60%.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/05/portugal-spain-rail-plan-morel
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1900_2011&chart=G0-total&units=p#copypaste
Spain
From 1 July, Spain will be axing the high speed train running
between Toledo, Cuenca and Albacete. This high speed line, which
cost €3.5 billion, was opened last December; however only
nine passengers (on average) used this route per day. The failed
route was costing €18,000 per day to operate. This is one
of several austerity measures intended to drastically shrink public
spending and reduce Spain's borrowing costs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/spain/8603392/Spain-cuts-high-speed-ghost-train.html
http://en.lacerca.com/news/castilla_la_mancha/high_speed_madrid_albacete-73451-1.html
France
France's plans for TGV expansion are running into
financing problems because of the recession and the county's high
budget deficit. We risk having longer and longer high-speed lines
which are used less and less; so said the president of the SNCF,
Guillaume Pépy. He thinks that France is going too fast
in its further construction of high speed lines. TGV fares have
increased by 100% in the last decade compared to about 30% for
car travel. Pépy went on to say: The whole basis of the
high-speed rail revolution - that the TGV should be the "normal"
means of travel, not just something affordable by the business
elite - is under threat. The SNCF president also described the
state railways as: Decaying... facing a financial impasse... and
heading for the wall. He should know better than most.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/life-on-the-fast-track-thirty-years-of-the-tgv-2265455.html
Netherlands
Earlier this year Reuters reported: The Dutch
high-speed train operator could face eventual bankruptcy unless
steps are taken to boost its viability, after little more than
a year of full services. However passenger numbers have increased,
from a low of 15% occupancy on some trains, following the decision
by the operator to reduce its price premium for high speed rail
tickets.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/01/netherlands-rail-idUSLDE71025P20110201
http://www.forexyard.com/en/news/Dutch-high-speed-rail-faces-financial-woes-govt-2011-02-01T182016Z
Plans for a high speed line from Amsterdam to Germany
(HSL-Oost) have been suspended. The scope of the project has been
reduced, and the Dutch have no plans to run high speed trains
on this route in the near future.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_Netherlands
Taiwan
In 2009 it became necessary for the Taiwanese government
to take over the running of the Taiwan High Speed Rail Corporation
as it was almost bankrupt, two years after it first started running
its high speed trains. One of the contributing factors to the
financial problems was that passenger numbers were approximately
one third of those that had been forecast.
http://ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ijbm/article/view/6370/6325
China
China has incurred a vast amount of debt during the
building of its high speed rail network. The debt was estimated
to have reached 2 trillion yuan (US$304 billion) by the end of
2010. The Chinese Railways Ministry is required to pay interest
of up to 120 billion yuan (US$ 18.26 billion) each year. Apparently
the railway system is currently only able to pay interest on the
debt, and is unable to repay any of debt itself.
One comment reported by Reuters may strike a chord:
Professor Zhao cited the line from eastern Henan province's
capital Zhengzhou to the Shaanxi city of Xi'an as the perfect
example of a white elephant rail project. "It is basically
empty," he said. In the first six months after its launch
in February 2010, the railway reported 1.98 million passengers.
It was designed for 37 million a year.
Following some safety concerns, the speed of the
trains has been reduced from 380 kph to 300 kph.
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1502&MainCatID=15&id=20110301000115
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/23/uk-chinas-railway-boom-hurtles-into-the-idUSLNE75M04520110623
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3d859f1e-a1a1-11e0-b9f9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Qe9CBRd8
USA
In February this year, Florida's governor Rick Scott
turned down a $2 billion government incentive to develop a high
speed rail link from Tampa to Orlando. He believed passenger numbers
to be overestimated, and that the state would have to pick up
the bill for subsidies because the line would be unable to pay
for itself. His decision follows very similar decisions made in
Ohio and Winsconsin.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us/17rail.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/12/09/us-usa-infrastructure-highspeedrail-idUSTRE6B860B20101209
United Kingdom
We only have the experience of HS1 to draw on. Some
may remember that 18 Javelin carriages were taken out of service
four months after the line was completed in 2009 due to low passenger
usage. In April 2011 a Telegraph reporter noted there were more
than 200 empty seats on a peak time train leaving St Pancras at
6:10pm. Off peak usage was described as 90% empty.
http://www.metro.co.uk/news/824624-140mph-train-service-is-reduced-after-complaints
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/andrew-gilligan/8423638/High-speed-rail-Britains-first-link-hasnt-worked-as-planned-say-critics.html
CONCLUSION
What can we learn from this? There is a tendency
to overestimate demand for high speed rail lines. Aalborg University
found that nine out of ten rail projects overestimated passenger
demand, the average overestimation being 106%. Serious financial
difficulties have been experienced on some of the more recently
constructed high speed lines. A government with a high level of
debt finds it prudent to suspend further investment in a high
speed rail project.
http://seekerblog.com/2010/08/31/high-speed-rail-inaccuracy-in-traffic-forecasts/
Annex 3
SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES TO HS2: USING EXISTING
LINES TO MEET CAPACITY NEEDS
The McNulty report stressed the importance of "sweating
existing assets". There is substantial scope to do this for
the West Coast, East Coast and Midland Mainlines.
Given that the benefits of faster speeds are small
(see independent Oxera report to Transport Select Committee, and
the 2011 Eurobarometer survey for UK passenger views), the primary
benefit of HS2 is to add to capacity. However, this can be done
more quickly and more affordably by developing the existing lines.
The table below gives the arithmetic for increasing
West Coast Mainline intercity capacity from London for three options:
— The
(unrealistic) DfT "do minimum" used as the comparator
for HS2
— The
DfT alternative to HS2, "Rail Package 2" (RP2), which
has many benefits but is not "optimised" and there is
no immediate need for much of the engineering work suggested
— An
"Optimised Alternative".
The table shows that RP2 more than meets the doubling
in demand that is forecast by HS2 Ltd to happen, but also that
the "Optimised Alternative" can achieve this (with 121%
extra capacity overall) largely before the need for infrastructure
changes.
Resolving commuter over crowding problems
It is worth noting that the grade separation at Ledburn
junction (at 2.1 in the table) will, with new trains, also be
able to double the fast commuter train capacity (not shown in
the table) to Milton Keynes and Northampton. This is an overcrowded
service that needs to be dealt with now. It cannot wait for HS2
in 2026.
Providing sufficient peak time capacity
Questions have been raised over the extent that train
lengthening etc. can provide extra capacity at peak times. The
"Optimised Alternative" suggests a timetable that increases
the base timetable in the period 16:30 to 18:29 from 19 Intercity
and 4 fast commuter trains (in the 2007-08 base) to 24 Intercity
and 8 fast commuter trains. This shows the doubling of the fast
commuter trains (ie Milton Keynes) capacity while at the same
time (as the table shows) increasing the number of standard class
intercity peak time seats from 5,736 seats (18x9 car Pendolinos
and 1x10 car Voyagers) to 13,700 (18x12 car Pendolinos, 4x11 car
Pendolinos and 2x10 car Voyagers), a 139% increase.
So its not just that overall capacity increases with
the "Optimised Alternative", or even that standard class
capacity increases, but peak standard class capacity does too.
CONCLUSION
Capacity needs can be therefore be met incrementally
(hence with less risk given the uncertain demand) and much more
affordably, and given that the benefits of speed are small, there
is no justification for the very high costs of HS2.
ALTERNATIVE ELEMENTS FOR INTERCITY WCML CAPACITY
(IE EXCL COMMUTER SERVICES)
(ON SAME BASIS AS THE BACKGROUND GROWTH IN
DEMAND IE OVER 2007-08 BASE)
| Alternatives:
| "Optimised" capacity increase
over 2007-08 base (cum. figures)
| Comment
*Evening peak 16.30 to 18.39
|
| "do
minim-um"
| RP2 | "Optimis-ed"
| Total | Standard class
| |
| | |
| | total
| Peak* |
|
| 1. Train investment (with little/no infrastructure investment)
|
| 1.1 Dec. 2008 timetable change | Y
| Y | Y
| +36% | +38%
| +23% | Not in 2007-08 base
|
| 1.2 Evergreen 3 Chiltern speed improvements
| N | N
| Y | |
| | From autumn 2011, scope for extra capacity
|
| 1.3 Extra Pendolinos (by 2013) | Y
| Y | Y
| +63% | +79%
| | Being implemented; benefits peak & off-peak capacity
|
| 1.4 2013 timetable change | N
| N | Y
| +75% | +92%
| na | Increases off-peak capacity only
|
| 1.5 Reassign 1 Pendolino car to standard class
| N | N
| Y | +84%
| +127% | |
Very low cost: benefits peak & off peak capacity
|
| 1.6 Full 11-car on WCML | N
| Y | Y
| | | +106%
| Benefits peak & off peak capacity |
| 1.7 12-car WCML (not Liverpool) | N
| N | Y
| +121% | +181%
| +130% | Benefits peak & off peak capacity
|
Trains total:
(% incr. in capacity)
| 133,328
(+51%) | 149,725
(+69%)
| 195,432
(+121%) | 195,432
(+121%)
| 166,908
(+181%) | 13,179
(+130%)
| Seats in traffic
Increase over 2007-08
|
| 2. Infrastructure investment | 9 tph
| 12 tph | 11 tph
| | | | Trains per hour
|
| 2.1 Grade-separated junction between Leighton Buzzard/Ched'ton
| N | Y
| Y | |
| | Needed to relieve peak crowding on commuter services
|
| 2.2 Stafford area by-pass | N
| Y | Y
| | | | Benefits peak & off peak
|
| 2.3 Extra 3 Euston platforms | N
| Y | N
| | | |
|
| 2.4 Extra platforms at Manchester (with Ardwick grade separation)
| N | Y
| N | |
| | HS2 has same train frequency to Manchester without these changes
|
| 2.5 4-tracking Attleb'rgh/Brinklow (incl. freight works at Nuneaton)
| N | Y
| Y | |
| | Benefits peak & off peak
|
| 2.6 Northampton area speed improvements |
N | Y
| Y | |
| | Benefits peak & off peak
|
| 2.7 4-tracking Beechwood Tunnel - Stechford
| N | Y
| N | |
| | Benefits peak & off peak
|
3. Total after all investments:
(% incr. in capacity)
| 133,328
(+51%)
| 222,080
(+151%)
| 218,538
(+147%)
| 218,538
(+147%)
| 186,648
(+215%)
| 13,700
(+139%)
| Seats in traffic
Increase over 2007-08
|
224
This paper was prepared by Hilary Wharf, on behalf of HS2 Action
Alliance, which is a not for profit organisation that is campaigning
on an evidence based approach against HS2, and has 73 affiliated
groups (see www.hs2actionalliance.org). Back
225
The survey can be found at http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/flash_arch_329_315_en.htm#326
Back
226
ATOC comments on the report are in Rail at
www.rail.co/2011/06/24/uk-rail-passengers-more-satisfied-with-their-service-than-in-many-other-eu-countries/
Back
227
"Directive 96/48/EC - Interoperability of the Trans-European
High Speed Rail: System Technical Specification for Interoperability" Back
228
Transport Study: Main Report (December 2006), Vol. 2 para 2.18,
chart 2.4 Back
229
Information on fastest times in Europe from timetables on Rail
Europe (on a typical midweek July 2010 day) Back
230
2008 census (except Cologne and Frankfurt (2007)) Back
231
2006 census (except Paris (2007)) Back
232
2008 census (except Rome 2009) Back
233
Palermo is on the island of Sicily, and has been excluded from
the analysis of average times Back
234
2009 census (except Barcelona 2008) Back
235
2008 census (except Glasgow (2007) Back
236
2008 census (except Glasgow (2007) Back
| 
