Chapter 2: Priorities for rail investment
5.This chapter considers overcrowding problems on the rail network, improving rail connections for northern cities and where investment in rail infrastructure should be prioritised.
Capacity problems on the rail network
6.The latest strategic case for High Speed 2 said the project was a “once in a generation opportunity” to improve rail services on the West Coast and East Coast Main Lines:
“HS2 will deliver a step change in capacity on the UK’s long distance rail network. By providing direct intercity services on dedicated high speed lines, HS2 will free up train paths and platforms on the heavily congested WCML and ECML. This presents a once in a generation opportunity to improve services on these corridors, including passenger services to locations not directly served by HS2, and freight services. This will not only improve passenger experience by reducing overcrowding on peak time trains but will also allow train operators to run more varied and frequent services.”5
7.Our 2015 report accepted that the West Coast Main Line was nearing full capacity in terms of train paths but that technological innovations, such as in-cab signalling, could release capacity. We concluded “we have not seen convincing evidence that the nature of the capacity problem warrants building HS2.”6 This was because:
- Present overcrowding on long-distance services on the West Coast Main Line appeared largely to be a problem on Friday evenings and weekend services;7
- No long-distance trains had passengers in excess of capacity8, and passengers found to be standing on long-distance services were commuters using services to travel short-distances;9
- The main beneficiaries of the overcrowding relief provided by High Speed 2 will be London commuters on the West Coast Main Line.10
Overcrowding on commuter services
8.Our follow-up work focused on overcrowding on commuter services. Table 1 details the percentage of passengers standing on long-distance and commuter services arriving at, and departing from, Birmingham, Leeds, London Euston, Manchester Piccadilly and Sheffield in 2017.
Table 1: Percentage of passengers standing in the peak hours on a typical autumn weekday by city in 2017 (fast long distance services are highlighted in bold)11
City |
Train operator |
AM peak arrivals (0700–0959) |
PM peak departures (1600–1859) |
|
Birmingham |
Arriva Trains Wales |
0% |
11% |
|
Chiltern Railways |
17% |
7% |
|
|
CrossCountry |
5% |
7% |
|
|
Virgin Trains West Coast |
3% |
8% |
|
|
West Midlands Trains |
18% |
14% |
|
|
Leeds |
CrossCountry |
2% |
4% |
|
London North Eastern Railway |
0% |
0% |
|
|
Northern |
13% |
10% |
|
|
TransPennine Express |
16% |
15% |
|
|
London Euston |
London Overground12 |
55% |
52% |
|
Virgin Trains West Coast |
2% |
2% |
|
|
West Midlands Trains |
21% |
18% |
|
|
Manchester |
Arriva Trains Wales |
10% |
5% |
|
CrossCountry |
0% |
13% |
|
|
East Midlands Trains |
12% |
0% |
|
|
Northern |
15% |
10% |
|
|
TransPennine Express |
23% |
17% |
|
|
Virgin Trains West Coast |
4% |
1% |
|
|
Sheffield |
CrossCountry |
5% |
1% |
|
East Midlands Trains |
0% |
1% |
|
|
Northern |
5% |
7% |
|
|
TransPennine Express |
13% |
12% |
Source: Department for Transport, ‘Rail passenger numbers and crowding on weekdays in major cities in England and Wales: 2017’, Table RAI0214, 24 July 2018: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/rail-passenger-numbers-and-crowding-on-weekdays-in-major-cities-in-england-and-wales-2017 [accessed 1 May 2019]
9.Table 1 indicates that the fast long-distance services are amongst the least crowded trains that serve the cities that will be on the High Speed 2 line.
10.Ben Still, Managing Director of the West Yorkshire Combined Authority, said that for the cities in the north, “there is more overcrowding on the commuter routes.”13 The problem was that “many of the trains are serving dual purposes; they are both inter-city and semi-fast, and serving commuter markets”:
“For example, the trans-Pennine services between York, Leeds and Manchester are most congested between Leeds and Manchester. They are at the very most congested from Leeds into Huddersfield, and in those areas there is standing room only.”14
11.He said there was also overcrowding on the fast long-distance services that are also used by commuters, but he accepted that present overcrowding problems were “a commuter and short-distance issue.”15
12.Simon Warburton, Transport Strategy Director at Transport for Greater Manchester, said that “rolling stock capacity and train capacity are now falling well behind passenger demand … Rail demand into central Manchester has doubled in the last 15 years but there had been only a 50 per cent increase in rolling stock capacity”.16
High Speed 2 and overcrowding relief
13.Bridget Rosewell, founder of Volterra Partners, said that High Speed 2, by taking long-distance trains off the West Coast Main Line, would free up capacity for more commuter services: “you may well need the routes that are currently used for Manchester to London to be able to use more Stockport services, for example, which cannot be run because that capacity is used for the fast trains.”17
14.Chris Stokes, an independent rail consultant, however pointed out that the existing long-distance services on the West Coast Main Line already primarily serve commuters:
“If you take the morning peak as an example, there are two trains that arrive in Manchester before 9 am—only two trains during the morning peak … one of those trains goes via Stoke and Macclesfield, and is not full of people who left Euston at half past six in the morning but full of people from Stoke and Macclesfield, while the other train goes via Crewe and Wilmslow and is similarly full of people from Crewe to Wilmslow. So those trains would have to run anyway, the position with Leeds is exactly the same, and the amount of additional train path capacity that HS2 brings to the northern cities is pretty much zero.”18
15.As we concluded in our 2015 report, the main beneficiaries of overcrowding relief from High Speed 2 will be London commuters who use the West Coast Main Line. The benefits to these commuters were made clear in a report by Steer Davies Gleave for the Department for Transport in 2017:
“Introducing extra train services to Milton Keynes when HS2 is built would decrease the crowding on services to Milton Keynes that depart London Euston between 5pm and 6pm. Load factors on these services were 115 per cent in 2015 (i.e. 15 percent more passengers than seats). The transfer of long distance passengers to HS2 services in 2026 and the introduction of additional services on the existing network could mean a fall in the load factor to 81 per cent for Milton Keynes passengers.”19
16.Chris Stokes said High Speed 2 was “a very expensive way of dealing with the Milton Keynes-Euston commuter peak.”20
Northern Powerhouse Rail and overcrowding relief
17.High Speed 2 will therefore offer limited benefits for addressing current overcrowding problems outside of London. But one project which would address these issues more comprehensively is the Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme.
18.Transport for the North published a ‘Strategic Transport Plan’ in February 2019 which outlined the scope of the programme. It consists of new lines, improvements to existing lines and improvements that will come from Phase 2b of High Speed 2. The programme is summarised in Box 1.
Box 1: Summary of the main improvements under Northern Powerhouse Rail
Source: Transport for the North, ‘Strategic Transport Plan’, 7 February 2019: https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TfN-final-strategic-transport-plan-2019.pdf [accessed 1 May 2019]
|
The main improvements under the programme include:
|
19.Mr Warburton explained how a segregated railway between northern cities would address commuter issues:
“[It] would allow us finally to deal with a railway that at the moment tries to do two things: to link city pairs and to provide commuter options. Frankly, it does neither of those things particularly well at the moment. The journey times between the cities are held back by the commuter, and the commuter is frustrated by the city-to-city movement that often means that services do not stop en route.”21
20.He gave Huddersfield as an example of a place where Northern Powerhouse Rail would benefit commuters, providing easier access for residents to Manchester and Leeds:
“At present, its residents are frustrated by a railway service which does not serve them as well as it could, because that rail service is also trying to run as fast as possible between two cities. If we remove the city-to-city connectivity from that rail line through a segregated railway, Huddersfield starts to present itself as a real locational choice for individuals, couples and families with talent so that they can look through their careers to trade across two northern cities rather than one.”22
Improving rail connections for northern cities
Northern Powerhouse Rail
21.The Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme is expected to reduce substantially journey times between northern cities. The improvements it will bring are shown for selected routes in Table 2 and Figure 1.
Table 2: Current service frequency and journey times between selected northern cities and expected improvements following Northern Powerhouse Rail
Train route |
Best existing frequency and journey time |
Best possible frequency and journey time with Northern Powerhouse Rail |
||
Number of services per hour |
Journey time (minutes) |
Number of services per hour |
Journey time (minutes) |
|
|
Newcastle-Leeds |
3 |
88-95 |
4 |
58 |
|
Leeds-Hull |
1 |
57 |
2 |
38 |
|
Sheffield-Leeds |
1 |
39-42 |
4 |
28 |
|
Sheffield-Hull |
1 |
80-86 |
2 |
50 |
|
Manchester -Sheffield |
2 |
49-57 |
4 |
40 |
|
Leeds-Manchester |
4 |
46-58 |
6 |
25 |
|
Liverpool-Manchester |
4 |
37-57 |
6 |
26 |
Source: Transport for the North, ‘Strategic Transport Plan’, 7 February 2019, p 112: https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TfN-final-strategic-transport-plan-2019.pdf [accessed 1 May 2019]
Figure 1: Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme (including junctions with High Speed 2)
Source: Transport for the North, At a glance Northern Powerhouse Rail, https://transportforthenorth.com/wp-content/uploads/TFTN_-_NPR_At_a_Glance.pdf [accessed 10 May 2019]
22.Barry White, chief executive of Transport for the North, said that transport links between northern cities had “held the jobs market back”. He said the benefits of the Northern Powerhouse Rail, although expressed in terms of journey time improvements, “are much more economically based and are about economic opportunities for individuals.” He gave Bradford to Manchester as an example:
“It is currently an hour’s journey. Under Northern Powerhouse Rail that journey will reduce to 20 minutes. Bradford is a very big northern city that is very poorly connected, so practically speaking this is a transformation opportunity that would allow Bradford citizens to access a wider jobs market or to study in Manchester but to continue to live at home, for instance.”23
High Speed 2
23.The existing journey times between London and northern cities, and the improvements High Speed 2 will bring, are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Current journey times between London Euston and northern cities and expected improvements following High Speed 2
London to |
Existing journey time (minutes) |
Journey time with HS2 (minutes) |
|
Leeds |
131 |
81 |
|
Liverpool |
134 |
94 |
|
Manchester Piccadilly |
127 |
67 |
|
Newcastle |
170 |
137 |
|
Sheffield |
121 |
87 |
Source: Department for Transport, ‘High Speed Two Phase Two Strategic Case’, July 2017, p 5: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629393/high-speed-two-phase-two-strategic-case.pdf [accessed 1 May 2019]
24.The Government’s latest economic case for High Speed 2 however showed that London receives the most benefits from the full High Speed 2 network. Its distribution by region of the transport user benefits estimated to result from the project is reproduced in Table 4.
Table 4: Distribution of the transport user benefits of High Speed 2 project by region, according to where a long-distance trip starts and finishes (figures are proportions from HS2 Ltd’s modelling for 2037)
Region |
Full network |
Phase 2a increment |
Phase 2b increment |
|
London |
40% |
43% |
36% |
|
South East |
3% |
3% |
3% |
|
West Midlands |
12% |
1% |
5% |
|
North West |
18% |
39% |
13% |
|
East Midlands |
4% |
1% |
7% |
|
Yorkshire and Humber |
10% |
3% |
17% |
|
North East |
4% |
0% |
6% |
|
Scotland |
5% |
4% |
7% |
|
Other (East England, South West, Wales) |
3% |
5% |
4% |
Source: HS2 Ltd, ‘High Speed Two (HS2): Phase Two Economic case advice for the Department for Transport’, Appendix 5, July 2017: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/628526/CS866_A_HS2_Phase_2a_Economic_case.pdf [accessed 1 May 2019]
25.In terms of wider economic benefits, Tim Wood, Northern Powerhouse Rail Director at Transport for the North, said that “HS2 is the spine for us to see big businesses and opportunities in London and Birmingham coming to the north and to see that agglomeration effect that will happen.”24
26.The Committee’s 2015 inquiry however heard evidence that London was likely to be the biggest beneficiary from agglomeration (agglomeration refers to the productivity gains that occur when improved transport links allow easier interaction between businesses and give businesses greater access to the labour market, as businesses and workers are brought closer together). Witnesses said that High Speed 2 may encourage longer-distance commuting to London and the evidence from France’s experience of high speed rail was that Paris had benefitted more than other cities.25 An academic study of high speed rail across different countries found that “for regions and cities whose economic conditions compare unfavourably with those of their neighbours, a connection to the [high speed] line may even result in economic activities being drained away and an overall negative impact.”26
Prioritisation of rail infrastructure projects
27.The National Infrastructure Commission published its first ‘National Infrastructure Assessment’ in July 2018. It set out the ‘fiscal remit’ for infrastructure projects up to 2050 and recommended the Government adopt the funding profile for High Speed 2, Crossrail 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail shown in Table 5. The Government will respond to the Assessment when it sets out its long-term funding plans following the Spending Review, which is expected later this year.27
Table 5: National Infrastructure Assessment and fiscal remit for High Speed 2, Crossrail 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail
Project |
Average annual expenditure over five year time period (2018/19 prices) |
Total |
|||
2020–2025 |
2025–2030 |
2030–2035 |
2035–2040 |
||
|
High Speed 2 |
£4.5 billion |
£3.9 billion |
£900 million |
n/a |
£46.5 billion |
|
Crossrail 2 |
£200 million |
£2.2 billion |
£2.9 billion |
n/a |
£26.5 billion |
|
Northern Powerhouse Rail |
£200 million |
£1.1 billion |
£1.7 billion |
£1.8 billion |
£24 billion |
Source: National Infrastructure Commission, ‘National Infrastructure Assessment’, July 2018, Table 7.1: https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/CCS001_CCS0618917350–001_NIC-NIA_Accessible.pdf
28.High Speed 2 and Crossrail 2 receive more funding under the proposed fiscal remit and receive it sooner.
29.Barry White, chief executive of Transport for the North, said the “high level cost estimate” for the Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme was £39 billion. He said the new lines would have to go through a hybrid bill process: “we have been told that would start in 2024 at the earliest … and would take about three and a half years.” Construction could start at the end of the 2020s and “would be complete by the end of the 2030s.” Upgrading the existing lines “could start in the mid-2020s.”28
30.Chris Stokes said that “there is an opportunity cost about these projects, and for example I think Northern Powerhouse Rail will not be the scheme it might be if we were not spending all this money on High Speed 2.” On Channel 4’s ‘Dispatches’ programme in February 2019, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham said that while both programmes were important for the north, he would prioritise the Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme if he had to choose between them. He described Northern Powerhouse Rail as “the single highest transport investment priority for our country.”29
Dependency of Northern Powerhouse Rail on High Speed 2
31.Representatives from the north who gave evidence to our inquiry argued that both projects were required. Ben Still said the choice was “akin to saying that you need only the M1 or the M62”:
“Through these programmes we are having to rectify decades of underinvestment in the north of England. Strong and efficient north-south routes are required, as are better east-west routes. Northern Powerhouse Rail is about joining up all the core metropolitan areas of the north using the elements of HS2 that make sense and infilling where necessary.”30
32.He said the Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme could not work without High Speed 2. Barry White explained that as planned presently, Northern Powerhouse Rail used High Speed 2’s infrastructure in three places:
“the tunnel coming north into Manchester from Manchester Airport; east of Leeds heading out to York; and south of Leeds heading towards Sheffield. Because the Government have committed to HS2, we have planned on the basis of HS2 being delivered. Therefore, to make the best value-for-money proposals, we have used spare capacity on those tracks where available to make what we think is a very sensible proposition for Northern Powerhouse Rail. We are reliant on HS2 to that extent.”31
33.The links between High Speed 2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail are described in more detail in Figure 1. Chris Stokes was less convinced about the interdependency of the two projects: “The linkage between the two is not very strong, because Northern Powerhouse Rail is really about east-west access; obviously, HS2 is about north-south access.”32
34.Simon Warburton said that delivering only one of the programmes would not deliver the economic benefits:
“The level of transformation talked about in the northern powerhouse independent economic review is equivalent to trebling the size of the employment market in Manchester city centre and to nearly trebling the size of the employment market in our neighbouring city centre in Leeds and so on across the north …
… the level of demand that that level of growth brings with it means that a choice between HS2 and NPR is not realistic in bringing about economic transformation. To deliver only one of those two elements will not bring about a northern powerhouse transformation.”33
35.Tim Wood agreed: “It is a programme—a network—so it requires High Speed 2 and the trans-Pennine upgrade, and it requires NPR to be built in full.”34
36.The conclusions in our 2015 report on capacity problems remain valid: overcrowding is a problem on commuter services rather than long-distance services. This is a problem that High Speed 2 addresses indirectly and in full only for London commuters using Euston, who will be the main beneficiaries of the overcrowding relief provided by the project.
37.The evidence suggests that Northern Powerhouse Rail is required more urgently than High Speed 2. If construction on High Speed 2 had not started already, we would recommend investing in northern rail infrastructure first. Northern Powerhouse Rail will better address overcrowding in the north and improve rail connections between northern cities that are poor at present, in contrast to north-south connections which are already good.
38.Construction on High Speed 2 should have started in the north. The decision to build High Speed 2 from the south upwards means that London, already the city expected to gain most from the project, will also receive the benefits of the new railway long before northern cities will.
39.Representatives from the north were clear they require both High Speed 2 Phase 2b and the Northern Powerhouse Rail Programme. Given the integration of the projects, the Government should consider Phase 2b and Northern Powerhouse Rail as one programme, rather than two separate programmes. A combined programme would allow investment in rail infrastructure in the north to be prioritised where it is needed most.
40.In any case, funding for the Northern Powerhouse Rail needs to be ringfenced and brought forward where possible. Investment in rail infrastructure in the north is required urgently, and we do not see why High Speed 2 and Crossrail 2 are being prioritised over Northern Powerhouse Rail.
5 Department for Transport, High Speed Two: Phase Two Strategic Case, (July 2017): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629393/high-speed-two-phase-two-strategic-case.pdf [accessed 1 May 2019]
6 Economic Affairs Committee, The Economics of High Speed 2, p 5
7 Our 2015 report said that the first off-peak services on a Friday evening, when cheaper tickets become available, and weekend services, particularly for sporting events such as when Manchester United Football Club had a home fixture, were the times when overcrowding was a problem on Virgin Trains services between London Euston and Manchester Piccadilly. Economic Affairs Committee, The Economics of High Speed 2, p 49
8 Train capacity includes an allowance for some standing passengers.
9 For example, commuters travelling from Stockport to Manchester Piccadilly on a Virgin Trains service. Economic Affairs Committee, The Economics of High Speed 2, p 53
10 Economic Affairs Committee, The Economics of High Speed 2, p 54
11 The overcrowding figures are based on the number of people on the train when it is at its busiest, which is when it departs from, or arrives at, the cities listed.
12 London Overground trains are designed to accommodate large numbers of standing passengers and have longitudinal seating (similar to trains on the London Underground).
18 Q 41 (Chris Stokes). As we concluded in our 2015 report, it is likely that the standing passengers on long-distance services shown in Table 1 result from commuters using the services to travel short distances.
19 Steer Davies Gleave, ‘HS2 Released Capacity Study: Summary Report’, July 2017: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/629168/high-speed-two-phase-two-strategic-case-appendix-hs2-released-capacity-study-summary-report.pdf [accessed 1 May 2019]
25 Economic Affairs Committee, The Economics of High Speed 2, p 84
26 Albalete and Bel, ‘High Speed Rail: Lessons for Policy Makers from Experiences Abroad’, Public Administration Review, Vol. 72, Issue 3 (May/June 2012), p 346: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02492.x [Accessed 1 May 2019]
27 HM Treasury, ‘Interim Response to the National Infrastructure Assessment Budget 2018’, October 2018: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/752340/NIA_Interim_Response_pdf.pdf [accessed 1 May 2019]
28 Q 50 (Barry White). Mr White said the upgrade of existing lines “could go through Network Rail’s existing industry processes and be ready to go in what Network Rail would refer to as control period seven—the next period of investment.”
29 ‘HS2: The Great Train Robbery: Channel 4 Dispatches’, Channel 4, (11 February 2019): https://www.channel4.com/press/news/hs2-great-train-robbery-channel-4-dispatches [accessed 1 May 2019]