12.08.16
Majority rules: We must build HS3 first
The UK’s recent vote to leave the EU has cast doubt on what most industries once perceived as ‘business as usual’. Across rail, there were many questions around the viability of major infrastructure projects that rely on European contracting and, with the appointment of a new transport secretary, nothing – not even the biggest national programmes – was certain anymore.
One of the major threats was HS2. The National Audit Office warned that balancing the high-speed project with other major infrastructure schemes would be more challenging than ever after the referendum, and even HS2 Ltd’s director of finance and operations said he was worried about the long-term impact of Brexit on the £56bn scheme.
Just this week, the influential Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) also came forward to bring some fresh perspective to the table: that work must, in fact, be brought forward on HS3, even if this means that it takes priority over HS2 or Crossrail 2.
This certainly didn’t prove to be a standalone opinion. A short poll of RTM readers prove that the majority support the IPPR’s calls, with 76% of the 327 surveyed readers believing that the north has been starved of rail investment for too long and needs to catch up urgently through the ‘North First’ HS3 strategy proposed by the think tank. The remaining 24% believed HS2 must first provide north-south connectivity before any east-west rail link is built.
Many readers came forward to verbalise their opinions, with one arguing that with or without Brexit, the north “cries out for better rail services”.
“Re-instating the Woodhead line and reconnecting Colne and Skipton to provide to two more Trans-Pennine routes would be a start, and enhancing the Diggle route would improve matters,” the reader said.
“As for HS2, forget it. Many of us don't want it and its enormous potential disruption and cost. Re-open the ex MR route to Manchester to alleviate the West Coast Main Line congestion and provide direct connection to Derby, Leicester, etc. once again.”
Another commenter, however, disagreed with the decision to write off the need for high-speed trains running north-south as part of a national rail plan, regardless of the restorations needed up north.
“We have a network that was built piecemeal then fragmented by closures. So why are we dreaming up new bits of railway piecemeal? Another article in this issue points out that planned works are getting more and more expensive. We can have everything we want for the money available if it's planned as a single national network,” the commenter added.
Graham Nalty, another commenter, added that the IPPR plan was “very sensible” given northern cities need “far better rail services, and they need it now”.
“HS2 is far too much about faster rail services to London at the expense of connections between cities. So why does HS2 Ltd suggest a fast route to Leeds that bypasses Sheffield?” Nalty wrote. “The people of Sheffield should decide whether the HS2 interchange station should be at Victoria or Midland – or even if they do not want HS2.
“The new proposals from HS2 Ltd have not looked in sufficient details at the Birmingham to Leeds HS2 trains, which would take about 30 minutes longer if they served Sheffield – the largest intermediate station – rather than using the proposed fast bypass route. This would be a nightmare for any commercially minded rail operator. Build the high-speed lines in the north first.”
Other readers, such as Michael Bell and Ted Jackson, argued HS3 is “absolutely necessary” and needs to be a priority over HS2 “to open the cross-northern trade route and between the east/west ports”.
Some, on the other hand, suggested the strategy was an unrealistic expectation altogether, either because “the north does not matter to the Conservatives” as it is a Labour heartland, or because it was the north that “voted for Brexit” in the first place.
But perhaps the most sensible commenter was the last to give his opinion, ditching polarised sides of the debate to argue that we, in fact, need both lines: “We are taking too long. We should be building HS4 by now.”
(Top image c. Michael Fox)
Have you got a story to tell? Would you like to become an RTM columnist? If so, click here.