Wendover HS2

On 20 May, John Henderson from the Wendover HS2 Technical Committee attended an HS2 sound presentation given in London by Arup, at the invitation of David Lidington MP.  Here is John’s report of the meeting:

Introduction
The presentation was aimed at providing MPs whose constituencies were potentially affected by HS2 with a degree of comfort and reassurance as to the noise levels expected when/if HS2 is in operation.  It appears that an individual show has been offered to each MP.

The presentation was given by Richard Greer of Arup. It took place in a purpose built sound room which was acoustically insulated and contained twelve speakers (plus 2 bass boxes).  The centre of the room was marked to locate the “sweet spot” for listening while sound and picture were controlled by a computer system.   The first fifteen minutes or so were spent in introducing and validating the sound system.

Demonstration
The HS2 part commenced with a recording of a Pendolino West Coast mainline train travelling at 200km/hr and emanating a recorded 69.4Db at a distance of 150m.  Next, Mr Greer explained that they had gone to France and recorded an Alstom TGV travelling at 317km/hr at distances of 25, 75, 150, 300, 600, 1000m. The following adjustments were then made to the data:

a/ Extrapolated for 360km/hr,
b/ Duration corrected for a double length train (HS2 is twice the length of the Alstom TGV)
c/ All readings reduced by 3Db (future “improvements” in technology)
d/ Arup proposed sound reducing measures including assumed reduction in pantograph noise, suitable design of front end, leading bogie and trackside barriers etc. were applied.

The composite results were then integrated into some 12 locations along the proposed route where Arup had previously recorded ambient background sound.

The first site (suburban) was near Northolt where the location chosen lay in a small park alongside the existing Chiltern railway.  The recording position was given as 75m from the HS2 track centre line.  The demonstration started with ambient noise (background traffic, bird song) and then a Chiltern train passed by with a recorded peak of 69Db. The HS2 then “passed by” substantially quieter at 55Db.  It was explained that the HS2 was “silenced” by the train design and by the trackside noise suppression systems.  Next the Chiltern train “passed” again with the HS2 barriers in place giving only 53Db.  I.e. the claim was that the static barrier systems would reduce the noise levels from both railways.  In response to the question “is it possible to hear the HS2 pass without the sound reduction?”, the answer was no, they had not uploaded that data!

The data for Wendover was next demonstrated; the location was as per the sound booth display at the Wendover roadshow. The data is as follows: recording location – the entrance to Church Lane, 150yards from HS2 track, 3m sound deadening barrier, HS2 speed 360km/hr.  Chiltern train produced 71Db, silenced HS2 gave 63Db and the proposed barrier/bund also reduced the Chiltern train noise to 58Db! The point was made to Mr Greer that the 63Db could be up to 36 times an hour as opposed to only 8 trains an hour Chiltern peak time!

The third location was at Hawks Lane in Stoke Mandeville, 350m from the HS2 track.  Mr Greer emphasised that the background noise of 46Db was raised frequently and substantially by aircraft to and from Luton.  The theoretical passing HS2 (screened by 3m theoretical barriers) generated a theoretical peak noise of 54Db.

The final location displayed was Great Missenden where the minimum proposed cutting depth was 8 m, and a recording of ambient noise taken on the Buryfield gave an average (mainly traffic noise) of 52Db.  The HS2 train was stated as being 1 km away and inaudible at only 40Db!

Other
Mr Greer made the statement that the intended increase in speed from 360 km to 400 km would only be done if and when it could be provided with a zero increase in noise.

He showed a picture of a Chinese TGV with sound reduction applied to the pantograph area including slotted vertical winglets each side of the whole pantograph mounting area.

He implied that by moving the barriers closer to the train, greater sound reduction could be achieved with lower barriers than installed on HS1, and he made the point that HS1 utilised 25 year old train technology and that HS2 would be more advanced than any existing TGV.

He said that when the full environmental assessment was carried out the design sound levels would be better verified, refinements would be applied and further reductions could be anticipated!

Conclusions
The Arup 3D sound system technology is impressive.  The lacuna is that the un-silenced Alston TGV results were not made available in the demonstration and so no data as to the size of the proposed reduction from train design and barriers was available.  Without knowing what the size of the reductions applied, the demonstration lacks conviction!  It is proposed to write to Mr Greer seeking this data.

In all cases no high frequency sound was apparent, only low level.  However good the designs of trains and barriers, it seems improbable that obliteration of all high frequency emissions will be achieved in practice.

It is worth looking at the TGV noise comparison tables set out in the report from the Madrid conference of 2008.  They clearly demonstrate that noise is a function of speed, and therefore the claim that a speed increase from 360 km/hr to 400km/hr can be achieved without a commensurate increase in noise seems improbable.

It is not clear what this demonstration actually achieves, since lacking the physical trains, any so called data is theoretical, and unless and until a clear and binding commitment to maximum noise levels and proper compensation is defined and published for those who will be affected, it is doubtful that those potentially affected will be comforted let alone convinced.

A Wendover resident writes:

I visited the HS2 roadshow in Wendover on Saturday 14th May 2011. I went with questions that I had prepared pertinent to each of the consultation questions, and sought out the correct people for the answers. Here’s a summary of my experience… First though, I would like to note that the response from the HS2 representatives was (mostly!) courteous and respectful. I had heard a lot of reports about the members of staff on duty not being able to supply answers. I think it would be fair to say that there was a representative qualified to answer questions on their own specialist subject. If you were able to find that person, then I found that answers were forthcoming (whether or not the answers were correct or appropriate would be for the questioner to decide!). I came away with the very strong understanding that the proposed new railway has absolutely nothing to do with anything other than capacity. This was re-enforced several times by different representatives. Capacity is the driver, not speed, and not connectivity. I now believe that the only way to challenge the proposed railway is to demonstrate that the extra capacity is probably not required, and even if it is, it can be met in other ways. The fact that the business case is dubious, the time savings marginal, and the route destructive will have I believe little bearing on the decision making process. It is now also my view that supporters of the project in Manchester and Leeds (etc) should not be so confident that HS2 will ever reach them. The over-riding purpose of HS2 is to create extra capacity between London and the West Coast Mainline just north of Birmingham.

My Questions:

Question 7: Blight and Compensation.

I spoke to John Sayer of CB Richard Ellis.

CB Richard Ellis are consultants contracted by HS2 Ltd to advise on property-related compensation. I asked John what compensation I would get. We live on Perry Street in Wendover. He told me that we would not be able to make a claim until one year after the railway had been completed and opened. On the current timeline, that’s 2026. At that time, we would be assessed, and compensation *may* become payable. It would be a cash payment, not being linked to a sale of a property.

I asked John if we would be entitled to any compensation in respect of the construction works. He told me that would be very unlikely. He said that the law does provide for such compensation – “Section 10″ – but that he had never known of a successful claim.

John told me that CB Richard Ellis have been contracted to begin work in the New Year (January 2012) on revisions to the compensation scheme as applicable to HS2. I was lead to understand that the responses to the consultation would feed into that work. Assuming of course the project goes ahead.

———————-
Question 2: Value for Money.

I spoke to Stephen McFarlane of HS2 Ltd.

I asked Stephen what the cost of HS2 would be. He told me that “Phase 1″ would cost £17billion, and that “Phase 2″ would cost a further £15billion – totalling £32billion. “Phase 1″ includes London Euston to Birmingham Curzon Street, and the link to HS1. “Phase 2″ includes connections to Heathrow, Manchester and Leeds.

I asked Stephen if the link to HS1 would be open on “Day 1″ – giving an example route of Birmingham to Paris. He told that yes, Birmingham to Paris trains would be possible on “Day 1″. Stephen was careful to note that “possible” means “a path would be available” – and does not necessarily indicate that an operator will be offering those services.

I asked Stephen what the capacity of the HS2/HS1 link would be. He told me that it would be a single track line, with a capacity of 3 trains per hour in each direction (total 6 trains per hour). Whilst he couldn’t give me an exact speed of the trains on that link, we agreed
that it would be “about 30mph”. 

I asked Stephen “What is HS2 for?”. He told me that it was for capacity relief, and to reduce journey times. He also told me that HS2 are projecting that 6million journeys will be transferred from aviation. Stephen cited the oft-quoted 3.5 hours journey-time cut-off (it is said by some that if a journey can be completed by train in under 3.5 hours, then most people will chose the train rather than the plane). I demonstrated to Stephen that a journey from Wendover to Edinburgh, using a completely finished new railway (high speed all the way from London to Edinburgh) would be 5hours 12mins – and would not therefore (using his definition) be more attractive. A similar journey from Wendover to Edinburgh by air takes 3hrs 10mins. A journey using today’s railway from Wendover to Edinburgh takes 6hrs 2mins.

Stephen agreed that the reduced journey times would only be of benefit to some people, but that the real benefit and purpose of the project was to generate improved capacity on the West Coast Mainline.

———————-
Question 4: Principles and Specification.

I spoke to Phil Hall of ARUP.

ARUP have been contracted by HS2 Ltd to design the proposed new railway, in accordance with the specifications of HS2 Ltd.

Phil outlined to me the brief that ARUP were given by HS2 Ltd. Phil told me that ARUP were asked to propose a route between a London terminal, and the West Coast Mainline north of  Birmingham. Phil told me that HS2 Ltd specified that the proposed railway should run at 400kph, and that it should follow “existing transport corridors”.

Phil explained some of the design practicalities that resulted from the brief. He told me that for a train to run at 400kph, bends in the track must be limited to a minimum radius of 8200 meters (8.2KM – approximately 5 miles), and gradients limited to a maximum incline of 2.5% (1 in 40). Phil explained that reducing the speed of the trains does relax those constraints, but that the speed would need to be reduced by a fair amount before the relaxed constraints allowed significant route changes. Phil told me that (for example) if the specification of the route was for 300kph trains, then the route would not be much different to that proposed for 400kph trains. If the speed of the trains was reduced to 200kph, then the proposed route may have been different. Phil explained that if (for example) the route followed the existing M40 motorway corridor, then the trains would be able to travel at a maximum of 160kph (approximately 100mph).

I asked Phil why the proposed route appeared to bend towards Wendover. Phil told me that the brief from HS2 Ltd was that the route should follow “existing transport corridors” – in this case the existing Chiltern Line railway. I put it to Phil that HS2 and the Chiltern Line were “very different beasts” – and he agreed.

I asked Phil why the railway could not pass Wendover in a deep bored tunnel. Phil told me that it could – that there was “no engineering reason” why HS2 could not be in a deep bored tunnel in the Wendover area. He went on to tell me that ARUP had proposed such a tunnel, but that HS2 Ltd had rejected it – presumably on the grounds of cost.

Phil and I talked about the proposed closure and re-routing of Ellesborough Road. Phil explained that it had been quite challenging to design the route at that point, because the topographical information available was not sufficient. The only information
currently available is that which is published by the Ordnance Survey – which only has a vertical resolution of between five and ten meters. In order to accurately map the area – with enough detail to allow an accurate specification of the elevation of the railway (and therefore whether or not Ellesborough Road would be closed), it would have been
necessary for ARUP to commission a detailed local topographical survey. Phil explained that ARUP had decided not to commission such a survey, because it would have sent the wrong message – implying that work on the project had already begun.

Phil explained some of the other local topographies that had impacted the design of the railway in the Wendover area. Phil told me that the area around Stoke Mandeville through which HS2 is proposed to pass, is a flood plain. For that reason, particular design criteria apply. That is that the railway cannot run at ground level, in a cutting, or in a so-called “Green Tunnel”. The tracks must either be elevated above the flood plain, or in a deep bored tunnel beneath it. Because of the maximum possible gradient noted above, the elevation of the tracks around Stoke Mandeville directly impacts the elevation of the tracks at Wendover, and at Wendover Dean. More generally, I put it to Phil that HS2 was simply a project to “six-track” the WCML – that is, to add two more fast-tracks from London to the area just North of Birmingham. Phil agreed that this was an accurate description. I asked Phil about other proposals that could deliver the same or similar results, but he declined to comment – reminding me of his brief.

———————-
Question 1: Is there a strong case?

I spoke to Alison Munro, Chief Executive of HS2 Ltd.

I asked Alison what the case for the new railway is, and what benefit it will bring. Alison told me that it was to relieve capacity and crowding, and to create time savings.

I demonstrated to Alison that that a journey from Wendover to Edinburgh, using a completely finished new railway (high speed all the way from London to Edinburgh) would be 5hours 12mins – and would not therefore be likely to be more attractive than a journey by air. A similar journey from Wendover to Edinburgh by air takes 3hrs 10mins. A
journey using today’s railway from Wendover to Edinburgh takes 6hrs 2mins. I put it to Alison that whilst the journey cited was a specific case, it was representative of journeys from many towns and villages roughly 45mins or more from London.

Alison agreed that the faster trains would only translate into meaningfully shorter journey times for some people. Alison noted that for example she lived in South London, and with the new faster trains she would be able to make more “day return” trips to places further North – for example, Edinburgh.

I demonstrated to Alison that the journey time from (eg)  Birmingham to (eg) Amsterdam or (eg) Paris would be greater than the oft-quoted cut-off time of three and a half hours – and that therefore such a route might not attract much business away from airlines. I also demonstrated that it is already possible to travel by high speed rail from London to a number of continental destinations – but that very few people do so.

Alison agreed on both counts, but went on to tell me that this was not really relevant to the debate and discussion re: HS2, as HS2 is a domestic project designed to create (relieve) capacity on the West Coast Mainline. Alison told me that in fact, the proposed HS2/HS1 link is part of HS2 phase 1, simply because adding it later would be too difficult and disruptive.

I asked Alison how HS2 would bring economic benefit. Alison explained that the majority of the financial benefit came in the shape of time savings. I put it to Alison that many had challenged HS2′s value of time whilst travelling – that is, that time travelling is wasted. Alison countered that by telling me that HS2 Ltd had similarly zero-valued travelling time in the calculations regarding relieving of crowding that it is said that HS2 will bring – and that the two assumptions effectively cancel each other out. More generally, I put it to Alison that HS2 was a “done deal”. Alison insisted that it was not. I asked Alison under what circumstances would the project be cancelled, but she was unable to tell me. I then put it to Alison that if the consultation was indeed genuine, then HS2 was no more than an idea being put forward – with some proponents, and some objectors – that it was no more likely to happen than not to happen – that it was “50/50″. Alison disagreed, telling me that it was the Government’s opinion that the new railway should be built, and that it should be built on the route as described. Alison told me that there was very much more than a “50/50″ chance of it being built.

At a packed public meeting at Wendover Memorial Hall on Friday evening, residents were urged to make their voices heard in the public consultation and to get their friends and family around the UK to take part too.

So many people attended that a sound system had to be set up outside the hall to relay the presentations to crowds standing outside.

The meeting was chaired by Councillor Marion Clayton, Chairman of Wendover HS2 Action Group, who called on every adult in Wendover to take part in the consultation. Dr John Savin of the Business Group demolished the supposed business case for HS2, pointing out that the Government’s figures took no account of inflation or tax, that there was not enough passenger demand to justify its construction and that national benefits would be likely to be minimal.

Colin White, Planning Officer at the Chilterns Conservation Board, described the terrible environmental effect the line would have on the natural environment, with lost habitats, threats to rivers and aquifers, and damage to the protected Chilterns landscape.  He stressed that the Chilterns AONB had the same level of protection as the National Parks, and that development can only be considered if it is proven to be in the national interest and cannot be located elsewhere. He also highlighted the fact that HS2 will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, and that the economic case for HS2 includes no costs (either real or notional) for the damage caused to the environment.

Mike Beard and Lynn Petersen from the Wendover HS2 Public Affairs group went through the seven consultation questions and explained how residents could get the best out of the HS2 Ltd Roadshows in Wendover on 13 and 14 May.  

Martin Tett of Buckinghamshire County Council described what the council was doing to combat HS2. A new group, the 51M Group, has been set up by the many county and district councils now opposing HS2.  The group’s name represents the £51 million every single parliamentary constituency in this country would have to pay towards HS2, which the councils believe is based on a flawed business case and for which the environmental promises cannot be met.

Finally, David Lidington MP urged residents to take part in the consultation, to look at the detailed proposals before doing so and ask detailed questions at the Roadshows on 13 and 14 May.  He also suggested people address what the proponents of HS2 believe to be the strongest points, and not to understimate the commitment of those in favour of HS2.  He mentioned a letter in the Financial Times which sixty business leaders had signed expressing their support for HS2, and revealed that a contact who is actively involved with the campaign against HS2 had been telephoned, in his capacity as a business leader, by the Department for Transport asking him if he would sign the letter. 

Mr Lidington called on people to write to him with specific questions about HS2, and to ask their friends and family to write to their own MPs asking them to take up the matter with the Transport Secretary.  During questions, several members of the audience expressed frustration at the Government’s support for HS2. Mr Lidington said that he had been making his constituents’ concerns about HS2 clearly known in Parliament, and revealed that he had frank discussions with the Prime Minister on the subject.

Slides from the presentations are now available.  These are large files so may take some time to load. For Colin White’s presentation on the environmental impact, see this file (PDF, 10MB).  The remaining presentations are available here (PDF, 6.3MB).

You can read the consultation documents and take part in the consultation on the HS2 consultation website.

Geoffrey Palmer paid a surprise visit to the Wendover HS2 Information Centre a couple of days ago.  The actor, who has spoken out publicly against the HS2 proposals, is pictured here with Oliver Statham from the Wendover HS2 Action Group.

Geoffrey Palmer at the Wendover HS2 Information Centre

The Government’s five-month consultation on its plans for a new high-speed rail line were launched on 28 February.

More information can be seen at: http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/ 

The Wendover HS2 Campaign Team will be taking time to study these in detail before taking part in the consultation.  As the consultation runs until the end of July, we recommend you do not rush your response either.  Several consultation-related events will be held in Wendover over the coming weeks. These include a public meeting for residents in the Wendover Memorial Hall on 15 April, hosted by the Wendover HS2 Action Group.  Speakers will include David Lidington MP.  On 13 and 14 May, HS2 Ltd, the company behind the Government’s plans, will be visiting Wendover with a travelling roadshow. This will again be in the Memorial Hall.  More details to follow soon.

Wendover HS2′s website will be updated soon to reflect the new information in the consultation documents.  In the meantime, the latest version of the map for the Wendover area is at

http://highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/sites/highspeedrail.dft.gov.uk/files/HS2-ARP-00-DR-RW-04209_3.pdf

…and what he doesn’t want you to find there.

John Savin’s presentation given at the Stop HS2 Convention is now available here.

Dr Savin’s presentation shows that the supposed national benefits of HS2 remain elusive while many costs, including environmental ones, are excluded from the calculations, and that the main beneficiaries of HS2 will be contractors and consultants.

Stop HS2 Convention

More than 500 people turned out for the Stop HS2 National Convention on Saturday 19 February.  The keynote speaker, Christian Wolmar, facing a capacity audience with many people having to stand at the back of the hall, demolished the arguments for HS2 point-by-point. Other speakers, including the HS2 Action Alliance’s Bruce Weston and Hilary Wharf and Wendover HS2′s John Savin, honed in on flaws in the Government’s business case in more detail.  One of the other highlights was a powerful presentation by Professor John Whitelegg, visiting Professor of Sustainable Transport at Liverpool John Moores University, who described HS2 as the worst transport project he had faced yet, and as “fundamentally not sustainable”.  He stressed that HS2 was not carbon neutral and that it would actually increase carbon emissions.

Local action groups, including Wendover HS2, had stands in the exhibition hall, along with conservation bodies and countryside groups. The event proved an excellent opportunity not only for people to learn about the fundamental problems with the HS2 business and environmental arguments but to network and make connections with like-minded organisations and individuals.  Also present were several figures from the rail industry who said they were not in favour of the current HS2 proposals.