To do that, a new eastern chord is required to connect the Moor Street lines to the Derby lines at Bordesley, just outside the city centre. The problem is that the proposed HS2 eastern leg, while delivering some of the Midlands Rail Hub outcomes in terms of east-west connectivity to Nottingham, leaves out the aspirations for better connections to places such as Leicester, as well as some of the intermediate stations such as Nuneaton, Burton and Tamworth.
Also at risk are Transport for West Midlands’ plans for new stations at Sutton Park and Castle Vale. Not only that, but the connectivity improvements promised by the revamped HS2 eastern leg, on current timescales, would have to wait until the mid-2040s. Plans for the Eastern chord could be implemented much sooner.
The IRP proposed another possible change to the HS2 eastern leg. In the document’s appendix, the Government highlighted a plan put forward by Greengauge 21 to take HS2 beyond Nottingham to Newark, to link up with the East Coast Main Line. Greengauge 21 had reviewed the eastern arm and had shown how the ability to serve Nottingham with high-speed rail could also be used as a basis for transforming the nation’s key longer-distance, inter-regional cross-country network.
Greengauge 21’s proposals would effectively turn the Y-shaped network (whose right arm was shortened by the IRP) into a more useful ‘X’ shape. Its proposals also supported a proposition for upgrading the East Coast Main Line northwards from Newark to Newcastle, and adding capacity where needed (potentially by adding new high-speed rail infrastructure in the northern part of the East Coast corridor). It maintained this was an easier proposition than the original HS2 alignment to Leeds and York.
Steer said: “The idea of upgrading Birmingham-Nottingham-Newark has been around for quite a while, but the breakthrough thought is about creating additional capacity to take some trains off the main line at Newark going south and get them into London. The ECML has bottlenecks between Newark and London.”
Now, almost a year after the IRP was published, some of the schemes contained in it may be reworked as a result of further criticism from a variety of different bodies. Back in July, both the National Audit Office (NAO) and the Transport Select Committee (TSC) waded into the IRP debate.
The NAO had conducted a detailed review of the Transpennine Route Upgrade, and for ministers it wasn’t easy reading. The NAO report concluded that it wasn’t yet clear how the upgrade’s intended benefits would be achieved. It said that the DfT had developed a clear case for investment in the Transpennine route, but has taken too long to decide how to upgrade it.
The document also suggested that negotiations between Network Rail and train operators to agree track access for construction work on the route will be difficult (which would create a risk of delays), and that there was no commitment to funding the rolling stock.
There were also questions about how the DfT and Network Rail will fund it, with sharp rises in the cost of energy and materials.
Gareth Davies, the head of the NAO, said: “Rail passengers in the North have contended with increasing overcrowding and delays for too long. It is good that plans for the Transpennine Route Upgrade are now agreed, but there are still significant risks to the programme’s progress that could cause further disruption. The Department for Transport, Network Rail and Government must work together to manage these challenges and deliver the expected benefits for rail users.”
The NAO also found that passengers’ awareness of the planned upgrades to the Transpennine route was low, which is a concern because of the disruption it may cause to their journeys.
In conclusion, the report stated that it was not yet clear how other government departments and local government will help deliver the programme’s benefits, and that its interface with NPR wasn’t clear enough to ensure the benefits and connections between the two projects.
Finally, the NAO said it still wasn’t clear if the programme’s design will provide long-term resilience to climate change.
If the NAO’s criticism wasn’t bad enough, there was more to come from MPs sitting on the Transport Select Committee. They had gathered evidence from a variety of different stakeholders in the rail industry, and as a result concluded that the plan should be revisited to address several issues. The TSC suggested that a thorough reassessment of the IRP was essential to ensure this “once-in-a-generation investment” in rail is not a missed opportunity to address regional imbalances.
The MPs stated: “We are concerned that the evidence base is insufficient to fully understand and substantiate its decisions.”
As a result, the committee’s report made 12 recommendations - ranging from updating the benefit:cost ratio for HS2 in the light of the changes to the eastern leg to demanding a full analysis of the wider economic impacts of the different NPR options.
The report also called on the Government to commit to the redevelopment of Leeds station, and to reconsider the case for the development of a new Bradford station.
And as part of a review of the Midlands Rail Hub, the Government should commit to an eastern chord out of Birmingham Moor Street station and publish a rail freight strategy, including a detailed assessment of how IRP will achieve greater capacity for freight.
Other recommendations centre on the Government’s “fixation” on journey time reductions overshadowing the issue of track capacity, and the need for a renewed and transparent conversation about the risks and benefits of the underground station option at Manchester Piccadilly.
The report also said that upgrading plans contained in the IRP would “bring modest benefits, but not to the transformational extent needed to end regional imbalances”.
As you can imagine, publication of the TSC report was music to the ears of Transport for the North.
“This report is a vindication of what TfN has been calling for, for some time,” said TfN Chief Executive Martin Tugwell.
“London and the South East have seen vast sums spent on HS1, the first phase of HS2, the new Elizabeth line, and the Thameslink upgrade. Meanwhile, the North’s ageing and creaking rail network has had little in the way of new infrastructure or expansion of services. And yet the North’s railway has recovered faster and stronger than the rest of the country - a sure sign of not only how important it is to our economy now, but of its potential to be the catalyst for further growth.”
TfN maintained that its plans for NPR were fully costed and have a robust evidence base to underpin them, and that they would provide a good return on their investment by allowing the North to break free of the constraints that have held back its economy for too long. TfN also welcomed calls for plans for Leeds, Bradford and Manchester to be re-examined.
However, there are still concerns about the timings of the various schemes, the scheduling of work, and the need to get shovels in the ground.
Jonathan Brown, TfN’s strategic rail lead officer, said: “The Government said at the time that they were going to do things quicker, but we are still waiting for things like the terms of reference for a study into HS2 to Leeds. It’s getting towards a year, and we are now being held up because of the change in Prime Minister. If it’s taking nearly a year to get to a point where we are told what the terms of reference are, we are clearly left wondering about the timetable for delivery.”
Brown also highlights the fact that the TSC was critical of the DfT for not doing a wider economic assessment of the impact of the IRP.
