HS2 has been described as a white elephant.  The business model does not stack up.  The cost of the infrastructure is upwards of £100bn and there is no prospect of recovering this investment with the now projected volume of passenger traffic.  This is not a white elephant but a one-trick pony.

The problem with the existing West Coast rail route is the limitation in passenger capacity which gave justification to the HS2 project.  Taking account of the limited distance involved, the term ‘HS’ for High Speed becomes a red herring.  A few minutes saved on the distance involved is neither here nor there. The high speeds planned add unnecessary costs.

There is an alternative to this approach which requires an imaginative step change in thinking while still using both the concept and the infrastructure already committed.  The dual use of the track for freight, in addition to the original planned use for passengers, would add to commercial viability.  At the current stage of construction only marginal changes would be required.  The additional revenue would transform the feasibility of the operation and, vitally, enable the risk to be transferred from the Exchequer to the Private Sector.

The model for this proposed solution has existed in reliable operation for over 30 years in the Channel Tunnel.  Shuttle trains loaded with 32 full capacity articulated lorries can depart at the rate of 10 per hour sharing the track, as in the Channel Tunnel, with the passenger trains.  The Channel Tunnel shuttle operation currently achieves a capacity of 150,000 heavy vehicles per month despite the additional complication of customs and passport controls.  Theoretically this number of heavy vehicles could be removed from the overladen UK North / South arterial routes.  Cars and light vehicles can also be carried in double-deck carriages.

Terminals at the intersections with the M25 at the south, at the M42/M6 toll road at Birmingham and, longer term, the M6/M62 at Warrington at the north could remove thousands of these vehicles in each direction.  Each of these legs of approximately 100 miles could be covered in one hour.  Realistically 150,000 heavy vehicles per month, half in each direction and a quarter of the total, could be removed from the motorways, saving over 26,000 tonnes of diesel fuel with corresponding CO2 emissions, equivalent to more than 1000 road tankers, at a cost saving, at current prices, of around £31 million.  Drivers would be able to use the journey as part of their rest period and the journey would take less than half of the time taken by road.  In consequence, there is a substantial increase in productivity with a corresponding decrease in running cost while liberating the motorway system – surely a big win/win.

Revenue for this number of vehicles could be pitched at approximately the value of the fuel saved, an annualised £375 million.  Operating costs should leave a substantial margin on this figure which can be added to the revenue achieved by the passenger operation.

The funding of the entire project should now be removed from the Exchequer and, using this new freedom to introduce freight into the revenue stream, allow the Private Sector to fund and operate the entire project.  The Getlink Company which operates the Channel Tunnel project and which includes both the freight and passenger traffic through the Tunnel has a revenue of €1.1 billion and is currently valued on the Paris Stock Market at €7.5 billion.  Proper consideration should be given to achieving a similar outcome for the HS2 project which would be of similar size for each leg. 

The current arrangement should retain responsibility for completion of Phase 1: Civil Engineering Stage with a tight grip taken immediately on documentation standardisation.  A tender process would take place for the mechanical, electrical and operating contract for each leg with a contract duration of around 30 years.

Once the mindset has been re-calibrated the same resourcefulness can be used to extend the routes, as originally envisaged, to the Freeports of the North East and even to Scotland.  Our entrepreneurial Victorian forebears would have approved of such vision: “Audeamus!”

Robin Colenso and Richard Robinson