HS2 leg cancellation ‘a devastating blow to industry and our whole …

A proposed design for an HS2 train by Alstom (Credit: Alstom)

The cancellation of HS2 Phase 2 is a “a devastating blow to our industry and our whole economy,” business leaders have said.

Changes to the high-speed rail scheme – confirmed yesterday (4 October) by prime minister Rishi Sunak following weeks of speculation – are a “recipe for disaster”, claimed the High Speed Rail Group ^[1] (HSRG).

Ending the railway at Birmingham rather than Manchester will cause disruption for industry, create bottlenecks for both passenger services and freight, and risk increasing carbon emissions, said the organisation and other industry bodies.

“For 15 years we have worked with the government to develop this project – their project – taking it from a concept to construction. Companies have invested in people, skills and equipment on the back of it, with some even relocating in anticipation of it being completed,” said HSRG, which represents 21 organisations including the Railway Industry Association, Siemens Mobility, High Speed 1 and Thales GTS UK.

“Rampant” inflation has hit the construction sector harder than most, the statement continued, but “the principal cause of any real term cost increases lies in the chopping and changing of the project’s scope… As any project manager will tell you, the cheapest way to deliver is against a fixed scope without constant changes. This is the biggest and most damaging U-turn in the history of UK infrastructure.”

Merging HS2 trains onto existing lines at Birmingham will create a huge bottleneck, the body said, “akin to the M40 merging onto an A-road and then a country lane – rather than the M6”.

As the prime minister cancelled the leg to Manchester, he announced plans to reallocate £36bn for other road and rail projects in the North and elsewhere (although Labour claimed that “almost all” of the schemes had already been part of government plans, The Guardian ^[2] reported ^[3]).

The proposed investment is “an interesting one and of course welcome”, HSRG said, but it claimed that cancelling Phase 2 of HS2 will free up just £1-3bn over the next five years.

Carbon cost

The prime minister’s decision “will have consequences felt for generations by the rail industry, its supply chain, passengers and freight customers,” said Andy Bagnall, chief executive of Rail Partners ^[4].

“While reinvestment in other regional rail schemes is a significant consolation, the decision to reduce investment in rail and divert funds to road schemes feels counterintuitive as we look to attract people to move away from carbon intensive modes of transport.”

Cancelling Phase 2 reduces the additional capacity planned in that area, said the head of the group, which includes operators and freight companies. It also risks decreasing overall freight capacity, he added, as passenger services from HS2 will create a “significant bottleneck” as they merge onto the mainline in the West Midlands.

Ultimately the cuts could lead to up to half a million more HGV movements on the roads each year, the group warned, limiting efforts to decarbonise the supply chain.

“Funding should not be diverted to high carbon road projects simply to satisfy the demands of a vocal minority,” said Julian Worth, a spokesperson from the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport (CILT).

Rather than a significant allocation to road projects, the organisation said that a proportion of any money released from HS2 should be invested in ‘modal shift’, by increasing capacity at key locations and electrifying missing links in the core rail freight network, 60% of which is already electrified. Wiring 800 miles over the next 20 years, at a cost of less than £2bn, would allow roughly 95% of rail freight to be electrically hauled with zero carbon emissions, Worth added.

‘Stop-start approach’

Business group Logistics UK said the decision would damage investor confidence and harm development of the national logistics network.

Policy director Kate Jennings said: “The additional capacity across the rail network, which it would have released, was critical to expanding rail freight opportunities and enabling a shift from road to rail to cut carbon emissions. Putting high speed trains on the existing line between Birmingham and Manchester will make today’s rail freight capacity issues even worse.”

The UK must change its approach to planning and delivering infrastructure, said the Institution of Civil Engineers' director of policy, Chris Richards. “The stop-start approach the country takes to major infrastructure benefits no-one. We need long-term plans, supported by evidence, long-term thinking on financing options, and robust and consistent policy to achieve desired outcomes.”

He added: “Changing direction and switching projects delays businesses and communities from benefitting from infrastructure investment. These positive outcomes are how we should be measuring success, not just by lowest cost to deliver.

“The National Infrastructure Commission will publish its second National Infrastructure Assessment in a few weeks. Before politicians rush off to make the same mistakes again on infrastructure, they should pause, look at the commission's advice and use this as a long-term plan to prioritise investment and rebuild credibility.”

Want the best engineering stories delivered straight to your inbox? The Professional Engineering newsletter gives you vital updates on the most cutting-edge engineering and exciting new job opportunities. To sign up, click here ^[5].

Content published by Professional Engineering does not necessarily represent the views of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.

References

^{^} High Speed Rail Group (www.rail-leaders.com)
^{^} The Guardian (www.theguardian.com)
^{^} reported (www.theguardian.com)
^{^} Rail Partners (railpartners.co.uk)
^{^} here (thinkpublishing.us1.list-manage.com)