A report published by HS2 finally reveals the thinking behind the decision to build a turnback surface station at Piccadilly instead of the underground option preferred by northern leaders. But the study, say its critics, fails to properly consider the broader economic case for an underground through hub or explain the maths behind the claim it will be £5bn cheaper to build above ground.
The report, developed before last week’s deposit of the Phase 2b Crewe-Manchester hybrid bill but shared only this week, explores the options for a station at Piccadilly to house both HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail services for passengers to travel east-west across the region. It compares the pros and cons of building a surface turnback station or an underground through hub, and arrives at the conclusion that an overground option on the northern flank of Manchester Piccadilly, with viaducts over Ardwick, is best.
The 166-page document considers three underground options of differing sizes and alignments. All these, it’s argued, would ‘require significantly greater volumes of material to be imported and exported…when compared to a surface station.” It also states that a delivery date would be seven to 13 years later with an underground option.
Meanwhile, it says the underground option would cost between £11.4bn and £12.3bn - although there are no calculation breakdowns to support this. The cost of a surface station, meanwhile, is estimated to be £7bn.
Citing the six-platform surface station as the ‘preferred’ option, the report, produced following consultation with stakeholders, states: “HS2 Ltd does not believe it is best placed to carry out any further work on wider benefits or commercial development outside of the construction boundary.” Further development of the options, says the report, would be ‘unlikely to significantly change’ the outcome, particularly in ‘respect to cost and programme’.
“It is therefore HS2 Ltd’s recommendation that the Proposed Scheme for a Surface Station, to integrate HS2 and NPR at Manchester High Speed Station, is retained for the Phase 2b Western Leg hybrid Bill design, on grounds of cost, construction safety and programme implications to the Delivery-into-service date of HS2 to Manchester.”
However, it's the case made by northern leaders and industry experts that the Manchester station needs to be considered outside the short-term context of cost and delivery date. More important considerations, they argue, are the future rail capacity an underground through station could bring, as well as the preservation of 500,000 sq m of valuable land, economic benefit to the tune of £330m a year by 2050 - and the creation of 14,000 jobs.
Bev Craig, Leader of Manchester City Council, said: "We are still looking at the detail of this report but it's fair to say that while HS2 Ltd have shared their estimated cost for an underground station, they have not shared the basis on which this figure was arrived at. We remain convinced that an optimised design could deliver an underground station for considerably less.
"Even allowing for this, our case remains that it's essential to look at the station's value for money over its lifetime. The fact that it will deliver £333m A YEAR more for our economy shows how much more beneficial an underground station would be for the city and the region's economy. We would encourage HS2 Ltd and the Government to take a longer term, more strategic view."
The report does look at other underground stations around the world - in Stratford, Bologna, Stuttgart, China and Old Oak Common - the £1.6bn HS2 ‘super hub’ to be built in London. It concludes that, although there is not an exact precedent for an underground station at Piccadilly, ‘it is clear that the technology exists, and it is feasible’. However, it says that without further investigation, it’s not known if the ‘Sherwood Sandstone’ below Piccadilly would be strong enough to sustain the level of tunnelling needed.
Journey times, says the report, would be quicker for NPR with an underground station because trains could continue through without having to turn around. It’s accepted that the surface station does not align with Manchester City Council’s plans for the city centre in its Spatial Regeneration Framework, noting also that this option ‘struggles to form a gateway experience’ into Manchester.
Gareth Dennis, rail engineer, told the Manchester Evening News : “This report, whilst useful, seems to have been written with the aim of excluding an underground station as an option, rather than with the intention of making an underground station work. Furthermore, it completely ignores the wider network benefits of providing the underground station and all that it enables. As the authors, HS2 have clearly been given a pretty narrow scope by government.”
What the Department for Transport say:
A spokesman said: “Right from the outset it was agreed between the Department, HS2 Ltd and Manchester stakeholders that this report would consider options on a ‘like for like’ basis looking within agreed set parameters to ensure they were fairly compared.
“The Department also went beyond this, comparing three different underground options as opposed to one to make sure that, within this agreed scenario, all avenues were thoroughly tested. In spite of this, our analysis still found that an underground station would cause major disruption during construction, take passengers longer to reach platforms, cancel out the benefits of faster journeys and significantly delay the introduction of full HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail service all at an additional cost of up to £5 billion.
“Beyond this report, we are also making provision for a future Metrolink route to the airport station and expect Transport for Greater Manchester to bring forward proposals to develop such a link, consistent with long-standing plans for an extension to the current airport rail station."
On background, they said they supported HS2 Ltd's conclusion that 'further optimisation' of the underground options was unlikely to change the conclusion that a surface station is the appropriate design solution on the grounds of construction feasibility, health and safety and cost
READ NEXT:
- The Mancunian Way: HS2 plans for Manchester are 'outdated'
- London's £19bn Elizabeth line opens today - but where's the Crossrail for the North?
- Government finally gives its reasons why Manchester can't have underground HS2 station - unlike London
- Greater Manchester unites against 'severely suboptimal' HS2 Bill in Parliament
- HS2 Manchester will 'define the north for centuries' if correct railway station built, says Andy Burnham
