High Speed Rail – The Completion And Sale Of Hs1

The Parliamentary Information Office of the Parliamentary Yearbook is currently monitoring developments in the UK high speed rail network for major features on transport and the environment in the next edition

The Commons Public Accounts select Committee today published its 4th Report of Session 2012-13, the completion and sale of High Speed 1.

High Speed 1 (HS1), officially known as the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and originally as the Union Railway or Continental Main Line (CML), is a 108-kilometre (67 mile) high-speed railway from London through Kent to the British end of the Channel Tunnel.

The line was built to carry international passenger traffic from the United Kingdom to Continental Europe; additionally it carries domestic passenger traffic to and from towns and cities in Kent, and has the potential to carry Berne gauge freight traffic. The line, crossing over the River Medway and underneath the Thames to London St Pancras, opened in full on 14 November 2007. It allows speeds of 230 to 300 kilometres per hour (143 to 186 mph) and cost £5.8 billion to build. There are intermediate stations at Stratford International, Ebbsfleet International and Ashford International.

International passenger services are currently provided by Eurostar, with journey times of London St Pancras to Paris Gare du Nord in 2 hours 15 minutes, and St Pancras to Brussels-South in 1 hour 51 minutes, using a fleet of 27 Class 373/1 multi-system trains capable of 300 kilometres per hour (186 mph). Other, competing, passenger operators are expected to use the line in future.

Domestic high-speed commuter services serving the intermediate stations and beyond began on 13 December 2009. The fleet of 29 Class 395 passenger trains are permitted to reach speeds of 225 kilometres per hour (140 mph).

Publishing the report on the sale and completion of the line, the Rt Hon Margaret Hodge MP, Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, today said:

“Whilst HS1 provides an efficient service, contributing in an important way to British transport infrastructure, there were costly mistakes in the history of the project. These must not be repeated with HS2.

“HS1 was supposed to pay for itself but instead the taxpayer has had to pay out £4.8 billion so far to cover the debt on the project.

“The root of the problem is the inaccurate and wildly optimistic forecasts for passenger numbers both when the line was being planned and when the Department restructured its deal with the contractor, London & Continental Railways Limited. International passenger numbers have only been a third of LCR’s original forecast and two thirds of the Department’s forecast. The Department failed to take into account the growth of low cost airlines or the competitive response of the ferry companies.

“This isn’t the first time that over-optimistic planning and insufficiently robust testing of planning assumptions has got the Department into trouble. My Committee’s report on the East Coast Mainline raised similar concerns.

“HS1 will continue to cost the taxpayer money–£10.2 billion over the next 60 years, so before going ahead with HS2 we need a robust cost benefit analysis.

“Some of the Department’s assumptions about the benefits of faster travel are simply untenable. For example, the time business travellers save by using high speed rail is valued at £54 per hour yet the time commuters save getting to and from work is only valued at £7 per hour. It is difficult to see how this can be justified. The Department also assumes that all time spent on a train is unproductive. And unrealistic assumptions about ticket prices act to exaggerate passenger demand forecasts.

“The Department also told us that it had not considered the benefits and costs of alternatives to HS2 such as investment in broadband videoconferencing or investment in alternative, more local train routes.

“It is nonsense that the Department does not have a full understanding of the wider economic impact and regeneration benefits of transport infrastructure, including HS1, to inform future investment decisions.

“All these things are crucial for proving the case for investment in long distance travel and demonstrating value for money.

“The Department must revisit its assumptions on HS2 and develop a full understanding of the benefits and costs of high speed travel compared to the alternatives.”

Margaret Hodge was speaking as the Committee published its fourth Report of this Session which, on the basis of evidence from an expert witness and the Department for Transport, examined the High Speed 1 project and the lessons that need to be learnt from it.

The high speed railway linking London to the Channel Tunnel, known as High Speed 1, has now been fully open for almost five years. Since opening, the line has had a good performance record and the Department for Transport (the Department) can be proud of some aspects of the project. A revised timetable and budget were established in 1998 and the line was constructed within this revised timeframe and revised budget. In 2010 the Department managed the sale of HS1 Limited, which has a concession to operate the line for 30 years, in an exemplary manner. The sale, along with the Department’s restructuring of Eurostar UK, which ran the British arm of the international train service, transferred most of the remaining operational risk relating to the line to the private sector, with the project debt being met by the taxpayer.

There have also been some costly mistakes in the history of this project. The Department originally expected London & Continental Railways Limited (LCR), (which was awarded the contract to build the line in 1996), to service the project debt from future revenues from Eurostar UK (the train operator). However by the end of 1997 Eurostar UK revenues were substantially below LCR’s forecasts. Consequently, in 1998, the Department agreed to restructure the deal and guarantee most of LCR’s debt. The Department’s debt guarantees were called upon in June 2009 and the taxpayer is now servicing and repaying the project debt of £4.8 billion.

Passenger demand for international services on the line has been much lower than forecast and that is the root cause of the failure of the original deal and of the call on the Department’s debt guarantees. International passenger numbers have only been one-third of LCR’s original 1995 forecast and two-thirds of the level the Department forecast in 1998. The Department’s planning assumptions for the line were wrong; it failed to properly consider the impact on passenger numbers of the growth of low cost airlines and the competitive response of ferry companies. Over-optimistic forecasting and insufficiently robust testing of planning assumptions is a recurring problem, as our previous report on the East Coast Mainline has demonstrated. The Department must learn the lessons from the past and ensure that cost benefit analysis is solid as it develops its plans for HS2.

The Department still does not have plans in place to evaluate fully the impact of High Speed 1. Total taxpayer support for the line, over a 60 year period to 2070, has an estimated present value of £10.2 billion. Benefits for passengers from shorter journey times over this period have an estimated present value of £7 billion. The basis of this cost/benefit analysis is open to challenge. There is a risk that the value of passenger benefits is overstated, for example because the Department’s methodology assumes that all time on a train is unproductive, and a further risk that the wider economic benefits are not taken into account because no appropriate analysis is made.

While difficult, it is disappointing that the Department has not attempted to understand the economic impact and local regeneration benefits achieved so far from High Speed 1. Also it has not assessed the impact on regeneration of decisions on where to locate stations. The Department will need to evaluate HS1’s regeneration benefits and wider economic impacts worth many billions of pounds if the project is to demonstrate value for money. To learn from past decisions and so make well-informed investment decisions in the future the Department, as well as other government departments investing in infrastructure, must improve its understanding and measurement of the economic and regeneration benefits of new infrastructure.

The Parliamentary Information Office of the Parliamentary Year book will continue to report on the progress of HS2 and Government’s response to the Committee’s comments about HS1 as we go through the months ahead.


About Parliamentary Yearbook

The Parliamentary Yearbook is a division of Blakes Media who have been publishing the definitive Parliamentary Yearbook for over 40 years; this has also been a successful on-line resource for many years. The Parliamentary Yearbook has three distinct functions: (i) To provide information on topical political, social and business issues to clients of the Parliamentary Yearbook and to members of the public, (ii) To carry out research into such aspects of public and business life that may be of interest to a wider audience for inclusion in reports and features within the Parliamentary Yearbook, and (iii) To assess the value of the publication to the potential readership in specific market sectors and ensure that the publication reaches the best possible target audience. If we can provide assistance to you please do not hesitate to contact the Parliamentary Yearbook.
This entry was posted in News, Parliamentary Information Office, Parliamentary Yearbook and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s