‘Over 100 towns and cities on Britain’s existing railway lines could benefit from quicker, more frequent journeys and better connections when HS2 phase two is complete.’
The good news was duly published in several regional papers, including the Yorkshire Evening Post and Northern Echo, seemingly without any scrutiny of this extraordinary statement.
In fact, Network Rail’s own report makes no such claim. The statement that ‘over 100 towns and cities’ could benefit appears in the accompanying press release only. The report itself reveals that this is a triumph of spin over reality.
It is true that more than 100 localities are named in Network Rail’s report, in a list of options for new services on the existing network, but the report makes it quite clear that these are competing options that cannot all be implemented.
The report, entitled Better Connections: Options for the integration of High Speed 2, looks at how capacity on the existing lines could be re-used once Phase 2 of HS2 is completed, and high-speed services are running from London and Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds. On the assumption that many long-distance rail passengers will switch from using existing intercity services to HS2, Network Rail sets out three different options for service provision on the existing or ‘classic’ north-south rail lines – the West Coast, East Coast and Midland Main Lines.
The ‘Do Minimum’ Approach
In this situation most current services would remain, with intercity services on the existing lines providing passengers with an alternative to HS2. However, Network Rail states that there would be a significant disadvantage of this approach. Maintaining existing intercity services in parallel with HS2 services to the same cities means that no space would be freed up on the existing lines for the additional commuter, cross-country, inter-regional and freight services it believes will be needed by 2032.
The Incremental Approach
In this scenario there would be a reduction in the number of traditional intercity services running on the West Coast and East Coast Main Lines. Routes served by HS2, such as London-Manchester, London-Newcastle and London-Edinburgh, would be served primarily by HS2 instead. Network Rail argues that reducing the number of ordinary intercity services on those routes would free up capacity on the lines for new direct services between places that are currently not connected, or provide additional inter-regional, commuter and freight services.
The Hub and Spoke Approach
In this radical scenario, long-distance passengers would take a train to their nearest HS2 hub station (such as Crewe) and change there onto an HS2 service. Removing ordinary long-distance services from the existing north-south lines almost entirely would provide even more opportunities for new passenger and freight services.
Having laid out these three alternatives, Network Rail then assesses how any capacity freed up on existing lines could be re-used. For example, with HS2 providing London-Newcastle and London-Edinburgh services, most East Coast intercity services between those cities could be removed and the freed line capacity re-used for new services, such as:
- London-Hull (via Selby)
- London-Middlesbrough or Sunderland
- Newcastle-Edinburgh
- Birmingham -Newcastle (via Hartlepool and Sunderland)
- Liverpool –Newcastle (via Hartlepool and Sunderland)
- London – Cleethorpes (via Lincoln or Scunthorpe)
- London – Saltburn (via Yarm)
- London – Sheffield (via Retford)
- London-Scarborough
- London – Skegness (via Grantham)
- London – Nottingham (via Grantham)
- London – Harrogate (via York)
- London – Bradford Interchange
However, it is simply not correct to conclude from this projection that ‘more than 100’ localities will see improved services. For one thing, Network Rail notes, against its list of intermediate stations, that ‘Services could call at one or more of these intermediate calling points’, not at all of them. In a footnote, Network Rail adds that ‘further work will be undertaken on the impacts of calling patterns on journey times and operations’, so it is clear that providing stopping services to all of the destinations named is not likely to be feasible.
Secondly, and more importantly, it is quite clear that the options given for new services on the existing lines are a set of alternatives. At the top of the table of possible new services, Network Rail gives the following warning:
‘It should be noted that not all journey opportunities may be delivered together. These offer different options for the potential use of capacity released.’
What their press release might perhaps have said is:
We have drawn up a list of over 100 towns and cities on Britain’s existing railway lines, and a lucky few of these will benefit from improved services.
But that is not much of a news story.
