Viewpoint

Control System or ETCS Level 2 already being installed on the southern end of the ECML) is often touted as the harbinger of chunky capacity improvements. However, when the marketing meets the mixedtraffic main line the capacity gains are more likely minimal. The revival of proposals for 140mph running (originally developed in the 1980s for the Intercity225s) has already been proven to make minimal journey time improvements whilst further reducing capacity as described by the likes of Roger Ford and William Barter. And finally, the thorny problem of bottlenecks of which the ECML has many. The 2-track sections at Welwyn, Huntingdon, Stoke Tunnel and that between Grantham and Doncaster that also includes the Newark flat crossing are significant constraints. Welwyn, Huntingdon and Newark are particularly difficult and whilst the latter are mentioned, the 2 ½ mile viaduct plus tunnel section at Welwyn is ominous by its omission.

The other key issue to highlight is the one already exposed recently by the proposed May 2022 (now delayed to May 2023) timetable consultations. Again, forensic analysis by industry commentators exposed that to improve headline intercity journey times along the ECML, intra-regional connections, such as those between Doncaster and Peterborough, would be lost. This would leave towns like Grantham, Newark and Retford unable to use the train to get to the adjacent station/town as trains would only be able to stop at one of those locations to keep longer distance journey times down.

It is under these realities that a forensic eye should be cast over the IRP as the claims and promises it is making appear to be unrealistic at best, and less beneficial at worst. Again when considering that the construction of HS2 is generally away from the existing network, except at the interfaces and key stations, it is clear that trying to bring even 50 per cent of HS2 East’s benefits to the MML and ECMLs will result in major disruption, cost and environmental impact for less benefit. Is this really a plan worth investing in, let alone celebrating?

Moreover, heading north across the Pennines, the pessimism is palpable. NPR was expected to bring down journey times between Manchester and Leeds to a mere 25 minutes against today’s best at 45 minutes whilst serving Bradford city centre directly. Instead, Bradford will get the line from Interchange to Leeds electrified and journey times reduced to twelve minutes, a saving of six minutes and seemingly at the expense of the intermediate stations at New Pudsey and Bramley. This proposal also appears to ignore the fact that the majority of services on this line go through Bradford and Leeds to other destinations.

Bradford, like its West Yorkshire neighbours in Leeds, are treated as secondclass citizens when it comes to transport provision. It is aways forgotten that 675,000 people live within ten kilometres of Bradford which is more than Bordeaux, more than Geneva and more than Strasbourg. Yet these European cities enjoy excellent public transport links in the form of trams, frequent local rail services and high speed connections to other major cities. Tracy Brabin’s strong words to Grant Shapps are now starting to make sense.

So where does this leave the IRP? In summary, the scaling back of the original plans are questionable and reduce the overall benefits of planned investment. Don’t believe me. These are the conclusions of the Mott McDonald and DfT internal assessments of the IRP. The objectives of the IRP are confused and contradictory and seemingly forget what the previous plans were for without consulting the communities who would be most impacted by these changes.

The IRP promises welcome investment on the existing rail network. But instead of complimenting the wider improvements that would come with delivery of the full HS2 plan and NPR, the reduced benefits are being sold as better than the previous plan.

Did we need to save money on transport investment in the wake of the pandemic and its economic impacts? No. Government investment spreads economic benefits and government borrowing doesn’t produce an unsustainable debt burden because that’s not how national economics works.

The IRP leaves Leeds in the lurch with no clear plan for how services will reach the city, how they will be accommodated and does this off the back of somewhat flimsy promises about improving ECML journey times. The solution for services into Manchester seems to rely on a dead-end HS2 terminus and claims that such termini are good, actually. This is despite the fact that across the Channel in Antwerp, Berlin and Stuttgart great efforts have been made to convert dead-end termini into through stations as they are far more efficient.

Promises of improved journey times and better services for the towns, cities and communities of the Midlands and the north are hard to believe when these plans are so confused. The IRP also claims that these schemes will be delivered quicker as a result of the IRP. Again, it’s hard to believe this will be the case when there are so many unanswered questions.

One question that can’t be avoided is how we tackle climate change. The UK government has mandated targets of reaching net zero by 2050. The reality is that this can only be achieved by the railway playing its part in carrying 50 per cent more people and 50 per cent more freight than it does today, in just 28 years.

The pandemic has certainly created major changes in travel demand but remember that road use has been at 100 per cent and higher of pre-pandemic use since the country started to emerge out of the first lockdown. Travel demand hasn’t disappeared, it has changed and rail has to be part of that. Great British Railways (GBR) is being developed with a legally mandated freight growth target. This can only be achieved via enhancements to

Britain’s rail network.

Fortunately, the strength of feeling has been noticed by the DfT and HM

Treasury with their strong rebuttals to the criticism. Hopefully, there is still time to re-think transport investment and re-commit to more widespread and more beneficial investment in the rail network of the Midlands and the north. Building the full Y-HS2 and NPR networks would be a start, followed by a rolling programme of electrification along major freight corridors and urban networks. This should be concurrent with the development of alternative traction where appropriate whilst urban areas get major developments in light rail, electric buses and active transport infrastructure that links into the rail network. Getting more people onto trains and more freight off the roads and onto rail would make for an integrated plan for transport that might be welcomed more broadly across the Midlands and the North.

Simon Kendler is a Freight Manager and an active member of the Young Rail Professionals. The views expressed in this article are his personal opinion and do not reflect the views of Network Rail or Young Rail Professionals. You can follow Simon on Twitter @SimonZev