A919 (4) HOC/00388/0005 A919 (8) HOC/00388/0009 A919 (5) HOC/00388/0006 High Speed Rail Bill Select Committee
Petition no 388: Yarlet School, Yarlet, near Stafford ST18 9SU
Evidence of Mr Ian Raybould, headmaster of Yarlet School
1. Access
- School has strict rules concerning access of vehicles onto the campus
- Children’s safety requires control right across the campus
- A34 disruption would be a serious deterrent to parents
2. Impact of cutting construction
- Approximate distances from edge of proposed cutting:
School facility Metres
Southern border of campus 75 Outdoor study and play area 75 - 120 Outdoor swimming pool 125 Art School 75 Chapel 175 Main School building 225 Main sports grounds 250-450 Junior School building and play area 300 Northern border of campus 500-600 Note: see Exhibit D ( photograph ) and E ( campus plan )
- Noise ( Petition paras 8.1 and 12 ) – Govt guidelines for schools – WHO
- Dust ( Petition para 8.2 )
- Environmental damage due to loss of protective woodland ( Petition para 8.3 )
3. Tunnel construction
- Prefer a bored tunnel c 250m either side of A34
- Cut and cover tunnel would be second choice – would still cause noise and dust, but should preserve protective woodland and increase the distances in above table by c 40m ( assuming perpendicular shaft construction )
IR 26 February 2015
A919 (3) HOC/00388/0004 INGESTRE HALL
A924 (3) HOC/01388/0004 ST.MARY’S CHURCH
A924 (4) HOC/01388/0005 OLD STABLES NEW STABLES ORANGERY
A924 (5) HOC/01388/0006 A924 (10) HOC/01388/0011 Ingestre & Tixall Saltmarsh
A920 (24) HOC/01614/0025 SUBMISSION TO THE SELECT COMMITTEE CONSIDERING THE HIGH-SPEED RAIL (LONDON TO WEST MIDLANDS) BILL – Jeremy Lefroy MP (also on behlf of my constituents Mr Russell Maingay and Mrs Jane Maingay of Colwich)
I wish to address the main points in which the Bill affects my constituents and me as their representative in Parliament – namely the route, compensation and access.
The route affects my constituents as set out in paragraph 10 of my petition. The Bill as it stands provides for the junction with the West Coast mainline (WCML) at Handsacre. Throughout the process of bringing this Bill forward, it has been made clear by the Secretary of State that this junction would be essential so that HS2 classic compatible trains would be able to use both the HS2 and WCML tracks to serve Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent.
However the recent proposal by HS2 that the first part of Phase 2 of HS2, as far as Crewe, would be brought forward in time has reopened the question of the junction at Handsacre. Although I have been given verbal assurances that the junction would be necessary even if the stretch to Crewe was brought forward, there remains uncertainty.
The promoters have stated in the response to my petition:
‘If the Bill is enacted including powers to construct the junction of the HS2 railway with the West Coast Main Line at Handsacre (the Handsacre Junction), the Promoter will require the nominated undertaker, if it constructs any part of the railway authorised by the Bill, to complete the construction of the Handsacre Junction. This is subject to any amendment of the Bill by subsequent legislation to remove the requirement to construct the Hanscacre Junction. (My bold type)
The Promoter will require the nominated undertaker to complete the construction of the Handsacre Junction before any part of the railway to the north of delta junction (as shown on figure 9, page 43 of volume 1 of the Environmental Statement deposited with the Bill) is opened for scheduled services.’
This junction is essential if Stafford, in my constituency, and Stoke-on-Trent, the major centres of economic activity in North and Mid Staffordshire, are to benefit from the connectivity of HS2 as was envisaged in the initial proposal of HS2. Without the junction at Handsacre neither Stoke-on-Trent nor Stafford will have direct connectivity with HS2. In the case of Stoke-on-Trent, it will mean a lengthy (in time terms) diversion via Kidgrove to Crewe. In the case of Stafford, it will mean either travelling nearly 20 miles North to Crewe before retracing the journey on HS2, or a slow journey through Penkridge, Wolverhampton and Birmingham to Birmingham International where there is an interchange with HS2.
I put forward two reasons why the Handsacre Link is essentially if Government policy on HS2 is to be fulfilled.
Firstly, HS2 from the very beginning has highlighted faster direct services from both Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent using classic compatible trains (see HS2 Phase Two document published in January 2013).
On 12th November 2013, the Under Secretary of State for Transport wrote in response to my parliamentary question:
A923 (1) HOC/01168/0002 The Department's aim is that all towns or cities which currently have a direct service to London will retain broadly comparable or better services once HS2 is completed.
Without the Handsacre Link, the aim of the Department will in no way be possible in respect of Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent, which together handle some 3 million passengers a year.
Secondly, the Department for Transport in its document announcing Phase 2 in January 2013 wrote:
The transformational rail links that HS2 will bring, particularly if combined with other transport improvements, could play an important role in helping enhance the potential of the Midlands and the North to act as a counterweight to the economic strength of London and the South East.
Without the Handacre link, the economies of North and Mid Staffordshire will be adversely affected as our rail services will deteriorate compared with those we have at present.
It is clearly the prerogative of Parliament to amend any Bill while it is progress or any Act once given Royal Assent through future legislation.
However I am asking the Committee to consider a statement that any future proposal to Parliament by HS2 for an amendment to remove Handsacre Junction (a door which the promoters have clearly left ajar) would have such a major impact on the economy of Central and North Staffordshire (through the deterioration of services to Stafford and Stoke-on-Trent) that it would do the opposite of the Secretary of State’s intentions for broadly comparable or better services and for enhancing the economic potential of this part of the Midlands.
While this would not prevent such an amendment, it would give any Government considerable pause for thought before introducing something which flew in the face of its expressed intentions for HS2.
The issue of compensation is of great moment for my constituents. I have had experience of its operation through supporting constituents in their claims.
The impact upon my constituents and others who live close to the proposed Phase 2 is very considerable. The Initial Preferred Route was first published in 2013 and the anticipated end date for construction of Phase 2 is currently 2033. My constituents are therefore subject to blight for a period of up to 20 years. Given that most people could reasonably expect to move at least once, in the course of 20 years, it is essential that there is a compensation scheme which is fair, effective and efficient for all. This is not a short-term problem affecting a few but a long-term problem affecting five villages and very many households in my constituency alone.
I have already seen the detrimental impact on the health and well-being of many people, especially, but not only, the elderly (for whom this scheme may currently cause blight for the rest of their lives) and disabled. The situation has not been helped by the inadequate operation of the only scheme currently available, the Exceptional hardship Scheme.
The uncertainty has not been helped by the Government’s delay in responding to the consultation on the Initial Preferred Route. It is more than a year since it closed. A response
A923 (2) HOC/01168/0003 ³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
³1 ³1
³2 ³2
³3 ³3
³4 ³4
³5 ³5
³6 ³6
³7 ³7
³8 ³8
³9 ³9
³10 ³10
³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
Legend High Speed Two HS2 Ltd accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, Country North Petitioner Location Plan amendment or abbreviation or if it is issued in part or issued Phase Two Western Leg proposed alignment July 2013 Phase One hybrid Bill alignment November 2013 Westminster Constituency ! BIRMINGHAM Reference Drawing incomplete in any way. At Grade Cutting I Hybrid Bill Limits Cutting Embankment Registered in England. Registration number 06791686. Amendments to Hybrid Bill Limits as a result of AP1 SC-02-3662 Registered office: One Canada Square, London E14 5AB. © Crown copyright and database rights 2015. Scale at A3: 1:104,570 Embankment Retaining Wall Petitioner Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100049190. Hybrid Bill Limits removed as a result AP1 0 1,100 2,200 3,300 4,400 Jeremy Lefroy MP This material was last updated on [date] and may not be copied, distributed, sold or published without the formal permission Green Tunnel Viaduct of Land Registry and Ordnance Survey. Only an official copy of a Metres title plan or register obtained from the Land Registry may be used for Petition number legal or other official purposes. © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. Viaduct This is not a copy of a title plan issued by LR. ! HS2-HS2-HY-PET-001167 Doc Number: LWM-HS2-HY-MAP-030-000731-P02 Date: 19/02/15 P5024 LONDON HOC/01167/0002 ³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
³1 ³1
³2 ³2
³3 ³3
³4 ³4
³5 ³5 Petitioner's property !
³6 ³6
³7 ³7
³8 ³8
³9 ³9
³10 ³10
³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
Legend High Speed Two HS2 Ltd accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, LEEDS ! Country North Petitioner Location Plan amendment or abbreviation or if it is issued in part or issued Phase Two Western Leg proposed alignment July 2013 Embankment Reference Drawing incomplete in any way. ! Petitioner's property MANCHESTER ! I At Grade Green Tunnel Registered in England. Registration number 06791686. Cutting SC-02-3686 Registered office: One Canada Square, London E14 5AB. Viaduct © Crown copyright and database rights 2015. Scale at A3: 1:35,000 Petitioner Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100049190. 0 375 750 1,125 1,500 David Cook This material was last updated on [date] and may not be copied, distributed, sold or published without the formal permission of Land Registry and Ordnance Survey. Only an official copy of a title plan or register obtained from the Land Registry may be used for Metres legal or other official purposes. © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. ! Petition number BIRMINGHAM This is not a copy of a title plan issued by LR. P5020 HS2-HS2-HY-PET-001370 Doc Number: LWM-HS2-HY-MAP-030-000848-P02 DHOC/01370/0002ate: 11/02/15 ³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
³1 ³1
³2 ³2
³3 ³3
³4 ³4
³5 ³5 Petitioner's property !
³6 ³6
³7 ³7
³8 ³8
³9 ³9
³10 ³10
³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
Legend High Speed Two HS2 Ltd accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, LEEDS ! Country North Petitioner Location Plan amendment or abbreviation or if it is issued in part or issued Phase Two Western Leg proposed alignment July 2013 Embankment Reference Drawing incomplete in any way. ! Petitioner's property MANCHESTER ! I At Grade Green Tunnel Registered in England. Registration number 06791686. Cutting SC-02-3749 Registered office: One Canada Square, London E14 5AB. Viaduct © Crown copyright and database rights 2015. Scale at A3: 1:35,000 Petitioner Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100049190. 0 375 750 1,125 1,500 Mr Steven Smith This material was last updated on [date] and may not be copied, distributed, sold or published without the formal permission of Land Registry and Ordnance Survey. Only an official copy of a title plan or register obtained from the Land Registry may be used for Metres legal or other official purposes. © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. ! Petition number BIRMINGHAM This is not a copy of a title plan issued by LR. P5021 HS2-HS2-HY-PET-001614 Doc Number: LWM-HS2-HY-MAP-030-001124-P02 DHOC/01614/0002ate: 11/02/15 ³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
³1 ³1
³2 ³2
³3 ³3
³4 ³4
³5 ³5 Petitioner's property !
³6 ³6
³7 ³7
³8 ³8
³9 ³9
³10 ³10
³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
Legend High Speed Two HS2 Ltd accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, LEEDS ! Country North Petitioner Location Plan amendment or abbreviation or if it is issued in part or issued Phase Two Western Leg proposed alignment July 2013 Embankment Reference Drawing incomplete in any way. ! Petitioner's property MANCHESTER ! I At Grade Green Tunnel Registered in England. Registration number 06791686. Cutting SC-02-3693 Registered office: One Canada Square, London E14 5AB. Viaduct © Crown copyright and database rights 2015. Scale at A3: 1:35,000 Petitioner Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100049190. 0 375 750 1,125 1,500 Andrew Wilkinson This material was last updated on [date] and may not be copied, distributed, sold or published without the formal permission of Land Registry and Ordnance Survey. Only an official copy of a title plan or register obtained from the Land Registry may be used for Metres legal or other official purposes. © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. ! Petition number BIRMINGHAM This is not a copy of a title plan issued by LR. P5022 HS2-HS2-HY-PET-001378 Doc Number: LWM-HS2-HY-MAP-030-000876-P02 DHOC/01378/0002ate: 11/02/15 Petitions of
David Cook 1370 Steven Smith 1614 Andrew Wilkinson 1378
A920 (3) HOC/01614/0004 Proposed Safeguarding of Route, Ingestre and Tixall
A920 (4) HOC/01614/0005 Ariel view Ingestre Golf Course
A920 (5) HOC/01614/0006 Topics to be covered
• Clause 50 (and other similar clauses) • Blight and Compensation • Phase 2 route and Geography
A920 (6) HOC/01614/0007 Extent of the Bill
• We believe that the contents of Clause 50 and 62 provide the ability to take powers within the bill beyond those needed for the construction and operation of HS2 Phase 1. • The term High Speed rail is not defined in the bill and does not appear in the glossary of terms within the bill. (Clause 63)
A920 (7) HOC/01614/0008 Definition of High Speed Rail
The international Union of Railways provide a definition of High Speed Rail under directive 96/48/EC as follows;
• (a) The infrastructure of a High Speed system will be:
• Those built specially for High Speed travel, • Those specially upgraded for High Speed travel. They may include connecting lines, in particular junctions of new lines upgraded for High Speed with town centre stations located on them, on which speeds must take account of local conditions.
• b) High Speed lines shall comprise:
• Specially built High Speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h, • Specially upgraded High Speed lines equipped for speeds of the order of 200 km/h, • Specially upgraded High Speed lines which have special features as a result of topographical, relief or town-planning constraints, on which the speed must be adapted to each case.
We ask the committee to require the promoter to properly define ‘high Speed’ for the purposes of the bill and thoroughly re-evaluate all relevant clauses to ensure that’s its use is constrained to matters relevant to HS2 Phase 1.
A920 (8) HOC/01614/0009 Scope of the Bill
• In respect of Clause 51, subject to the conditions within it, this would permit entry to any land anywhere in Great Britain for the purpose of any high speed railway which ministers might wish to propose in the future. • This is outside the long title and scope of the Bill, not being a purpose connected with HS2.
A920 (9) HOC/01614/0010 Clause 51, ‘Access to Land
• We believe that access to land should be limited to:
• For the construction of the new HS2 Phase 1 line. • On existing rail lines where they connect with the new HS2 Phase 1 line.
A920 (10) HOC/01614/0011 Clause 51 (6)(a)
• When access is granted for the purpose of survey, the activities must be limited those applicable to the construction of HS2 Phase 1. • The additional permissions to determine “the presence of minerals or other matters in it” could be used for other purposes. • We request that the committee seek amendment to this clause to ensure that the depth and nature of investigations is limited to that necessary for the construction of the HS2 Phase 1 and not other reasons.
A920 (11) HOC/01614/0012 Clause 51, (10) (a)
• In respect of this sub section, we believe that there must be safeguards added to prevent unwarranted and unnecessary blanket extensions to the current proposed distance. We believe that any alterations must be for a specific purpose, on a case by case basis and restricted to the area(s) concerned. • We also believe that the decision maker in respect of any such matters should not be the promoter but an independent body.
A920 (12) HOC/01614/0013 Clause 52
• We believe that compensation should also include other losses, such as the owner or occupier being deprived of the use of the land or incurring extra costs to manage the entry onto their land. • We seek clarification from the promoter that the early access agreement document will still be in force and if not that additional compensation arrangements will be put in place.
A920 (13) HOC/01614/0014 Blight and Compensation
• The initial preferred Phase 2 route was first announced in January 2013. • This resulted in immediate and severe property blight. • The consultation in respect of this route concluded in January 2014. the results are still awaited. • Phase 2 is currently due to be completed and in operation by 2033 = 20 years of property blight.
A920 (14) HOC/01614/0015 Phase 2 Compensation
• At present the only recourse to Compensation for Phase 2 is the EHS. • EHS is not fit for purpose and has recently been replaced on Phase 1 by NTS. • We request that the committee direct the Government to abandon EHS on Phase 2 and replace it with NTS immediately.
A920 (15) HOC/01614/0016 Safeguarding Fradley to Crewe
• The results of the Phase 2 route consultation have not been announced • Despite this the Government are seeking to safeguard this section of the route, which includes Ingestre and Tixall as early as spring 2015. • Government state no decision on route but find case for a station at Crewe compelling. • Government have published papers suggesting that Crewe will be an intermediate station • We ask that the promoters immediately clarify this situation.
A920 (16) HOC/01614/0017 Removal of the link to safeguarding
• In January 2015, new guidance on EHS for Phase 2 was announced • This guidance removed the link to statutory measures and long term discretionary compensation that was present in 2013 guidance. • Statutory measures are now expected to come into force at the end of 2016 and long term discretionary compensation at some later date. • We request that the committee direct the Government to immediately re-establish the link to safeguarding.
A920 (17) HOC/01614/0018 Property blight in Ingestre
Property Original Sold for % Loss valuation
Property A Not Known Purchased at market value by HS2 initially under Reduction in amount paid due to fact that Ingestre Extreme Hardship Scheme property had to be done up to rental standard
Property B £460,000 £335,000 27.2 % Ingestre July 2014
Property C £240,000 £180,00 Pre Auction 25 % Ingestre June 2013
Old Rectory £650,000 Advised by two separate estate agents, that due to 20 % Ingestre HS2, in current climate would expect to achieve £525,000, a loss of £125,000 which equates to a 20 % loss.
A920 (18) HOC/01614/0019 Old Stables
A920 (19) HOC/01614/0020 Old Rectory Ingestre
A920 (20) HOC/01614/0021 Context of Height of HS2
A920 (21) HOC/01614/0022 Winter view from Old Rectory
A920 (22) HOC/01614/0023 Alternative Routes
A920 (23) HOC/01614/0024 Ingestre & Tixall Saltmarsh
A920 (24) HOC/01614/0025 ³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
³1 ³1
³2 ³2
³3 ³3
³4 ³4
³5 ³5 Petitioner's property !
³6 ³6
³7 ³7
³8 ³8
³9 ³9
³10 ³10
³A ³B ³C ³D ³E ³F ³G ³H ³I ³J
Legend High Speed Two HS2 Ltd accept no responsibility for any circumstances, which arise from the reproduction of this map after alteration, LEEDS ! Country North Petitioner Location Plan amendment or abbreviation or if it is issued in part or issued Phase Two Western Leg proposed alignment July 2013 Cutting Reference Drawing incomplete in any way. ! Petitioner's property MANCHESTER ! I At Grade Embankment Registered in England. Registration number 06791686. Tunnel SC-02-3736 Registered office: One Canada Square, London E14 5AB. Viaduct © Crown copyright and database rights 2015. Scale at A3: 1:35,000 Petitioner Ordnance Survey Licence Number 100049190. 0 375 750 1,125 1,500 Bill Murray This material was last updated on [date] and may not be copied, distributed, sold or published without the formal permission of Land Registry and Ordnance Survey. Only an official copy of a title plan or register obtained from the Land Registry may be used for Metres legal or other official purposes. © Crown Copyright Ordnance Survey. ! Petition number BIRMINGHAM This is not a copy of a title plan issued by LR. P5026 HS2-HS2-HY-PET-001480 Doc Number: LWM-HS2-HY-MAP-030-001063-P02 DHOC/01480/0002ate: 11/02/15 A860 (8) HOC/01480/0009 A860 (9) HOC/01480/0010 A860 (36) HOC/01480/0037
A860 (44) HOC/01480/0045
A860 (45) HOC/01480/0046
A860 (46) HOC/01480/0047 SWYNNERTON TO MADELEY In your area July 2013
High Speed Two (HS2) is the planned new high What would I notice above ground? speed rail network connecting London with the West Only the tunnel portals would be visible above ground. Midlands and running lines on to Manchester and We would design and construct the tunnel to avoid Leeds. This factsheet, produced to accompany the perceptible effects on properties above as far as consultation on the route from the West Midlands to reasonably practicable. The engineering design of HS2 Manchester, Leeds and beyond, explains how the would build on the application of proven technologies proposed route will affect your area, including: implemented successfully in similar tunnels on High Speed One (HS1) and now under construction for Crossrail. • the proposed HS2 route proposed between Experience gained from HS1 in Kent and other high speed Swynnerton and Madeley; railways abroad has shown that potential effects from • the implications for people living between vibration and ground-borne noise (audible vibration) Swynnerton and Madeley; and in properties over tunnels can be largely avoided. • how we would manage construction. HS2 Ltd is committed to ensuring that properties above The proposed route tunnels are not affected. Where relevant, properties above tunnels would be independently surveyed before After passing Swynnerton to the east, the proposed and after construction to reassure residents and ensure route goes under the A51 and A519, heading to the that in the very rare instance of any impacts on south-west of Newcastle-Under-Lyme, where it property, these could be rectified by HS2. would pass under the A53. After crossing the A53, the route would enter a deep cutting, leading to a Implications for people living section of tunnel about half a mile long through the hillside and under Whitmore Heath. It would emerge between Swynnerton and Madeley from the tunnel and head towards the West Coast Landscape and townscape Main Line, crossing it to the south of Madeley. The route has been designed to limit impacts as far as possible, but the scheme would still have an effect The route would then run approximately half a mile on the attractive nature of the local area. Deep cuttings west of Madeley, dropping into deep cutting and would disrupt countryside between Stone and tunnel to reduce impacts on Madeley Conservation Swynnerton, through the flanks of Peasley Bank and Area, before heading northwards towards Crewe, Pire Hill. A viaduct over the M6 would cause visual parallel to and west of the West Coast Main Line, impacts on the Conservation Area at Swynnerton. for approximately five miles (8km). There would be direct impacts on woodland, especially Whitmore Wood, near Whitmore Heath. Visual impacts Tunnel under Whitmore Heath would affect parts of Shelton-under-Harley and The twin tunnel would be approximately 710 Whitmore. Later designs would seek to reduce metres long and will be located between 22m and potential impacts by introducing landscaping, including 50m below ground level to avoid adverse effects earthworks and planting trees, hedgerows and shrubs. on residential property. Water The twin tunnels would be linked by cross-passages The proposed route would cross a number of rivers and built approximately every 500m, which would enable streams, as well as their floodplains. Floodplains over evacuation from one tunnel to the other in the event 100 metres in length crossed in this section include the of an emergency. River Lea and Meece Brook. Any impacts would be kept R864 (1) HOC/10024/0043 A860 (39) HOC/01480/0040 A860 (40) HOC/01480/0041 Electrical Engineering Petition 174
Denis Howroyd C. Eng MIET Dr Dan Mitchell C. Eng
1 A917 (1) HOC/00174/0002 Electrical engineering experience
• Denis Howroyd has been involved in the design of electricity supplies to electric trains in both this country and overseas. • Before retiring from the CEGB, he had 30 years developing a prediction of the interference from AC traction. • Some of his papers are listed in the following slide and he has unique expertise on this subject. • Dr Dan Mitchell has managed an Engineering division of the Electricity industry for over 20 years including a wide range of electrical engineering projects .
2 A917 (2) HOC/00174/0003
3 A917 (3) HOC/00174/0004 Three Phase Supply
• The public supplies of electricity are 240 v, alternating current, three phase • Electric motors in trains use only one of the three phases, which can lead to voltage imbalances in the three phase supply for other users • If such imbalances are greater than 2%, the effects can be drops in voltages, overheating of other customers’ electric motors and their premature ageing, erratic running, etc
4 A917 (4) HOC/00174/0005 Three Phase Supply (continued)
• Legislation currently exists to restrict three phase voltage unbalance caused by users to a maximum of 2% • HS2 trains will cause more issues as their motors are rated as 40% more powerful than those for any other passenger train in the UK and 3.8 times more powerful than a Pendolino train • It is planned to use parts of the HS2 network very intensively with up to 18 trains per hour in each direction.
5 A917 (5) HOC/00174/0006 The effects of HS2
• Most disturbance will be caused when trains start moving. 48/hour London, 19/hour Birmingham for Phase Two • Most heavily used section of track London – Birmingham with 36 trains an hour in total once Phase Two becomes operational
6 A917 (6) HOC/00174/0007 Effects on other users
• The effects referred to earlier are likely to be spread across distances of up to 10 miles on each side of the tracks • These are likely to cause overheating of three phase motors used in manufacturing and utilities.
7 A917 (7) HOC/00174/0008 UK compared to other countries
• The potential voltage imbalance issue will be more of an issue in the UK than elsewhere as it is planned to use the London – Birmingham section of HS2 more intensively than any other high speed line in the world. • Furthermore our high speed trains are planned to have motors which draw a greater current and to travel at higher speeds. • HS2 is likely to need 36% more current than the most intensively used high speed line in Japan
8 A917 (8) HOC/00174/0009 High Speed Train Power Comparison
9 A917 (9) HOC/00174/0010 National Grid forecasting capability
• We have sought assurances from National grid that they have the necessary capability to forecast imbalances and that they have done the necessary modeling • We have not been reassured by their non- committal response see letter in evidence
10 A917 (10) HOC/00174/0011 Difficulties
• There is no evidence of voltage unbalance in local factories of having been checked. • However motor overheating might not be noticed and would not necessarily be associated with traction supply.
11 A917 (11) HOC/00174/0012 Request
We request that this committee pursues the points listed on this slide and the following two slides • Is the HS2 load now considered to be too high for National Grid to give an assurance that the 2% voltage unbalance limit can be met at all times? • If National Grid gives that assurance, then they will be asked to provide the results of a predictive calculation showing the unbalanced voltage caused by HS2 on nearby distribution networks. • The grid system is to be that expected to exist on a specified future year at minimum plant.
12 A917 (12) HOC/00174/0013 Request continued • A repeat study is to show the effect of the worst single circuit grid outage. • Realistic simultaneous traction current would be assumed at each grid supply point • This, together with a report on the transformer balancing used, is to be made available for a peer review at the Institution of Engineering and Technology.
13 A917 (13) HOC/00174/0014 Request continued • After commissioning, with a normal HS2 service, a chart recording of voltage unbalance in a nearby factory having 3-phase motors must be disclosed, e.g. at the BMW engine factory at Hams Hall or at Severn Trent Water at Stoneleigh • If National Grid are unable to demonstrate satisfactorily that they can keep voltage imbalance caused by HS2 within 2%, prior to the start of construction, then the project should be halted until this issue has been completely resolved.
14 A917 (14) HOC/00174/0015 Detailed electrical requirements
• At the start of any engineering project it is important to establish that the utilities can provide the necessary gas, water and electricity. • We have raised several FOIs with HS2 Ltd to establish whether a formal request has been made to National Grid to detail the electrical requirements of HS2 • All the responses so far indicate that no such formal request has been made by HS2 Ltd • National Grid’s response to such a request would also provide more accurate costing information in respect of supply and connections.
15 A917 (15) HOC/00174/0016 Request
• We ask this committee to request HS2 Ltd to make a formal request to National Grid to detail their requirements in respect of HS2. • HS2 Ltd should also advise this committee when this work has been completed.
16 A917 (16) HOC/00174/0017 UK electrical capacity
• It is well known that the UK now has less spare electrical generating capacity than it used to. This is due to nuclear reactors reaching the end of their life and other generators (such as coal fired) being closed to comply with environmental legislation. • New generating capacity has very long lead times as a consequence of resolving political and planning issues even before construction commences. • It appears that we may not be building enough new electricity generating plants to match the rate at which existing ones which are being taken out of service.
17 A917 (17) HOC/00174/0018 UK electrical capacity
• We remain concerned about the adequacy of UK electrical power supply to meet the total demands of HS2. • We estimate that the total power requirements of HS2 trains will be 1,000 MW which is the size of a medium sized power station.
18 A917 (18) HOC/00174/0019 Request
• We ask that this committee explores with National Grid and HS2 Ltd the total additional power requirements for the full HS2 project and determines what additional power station needs to be built to satisfy that demand. • If an additional power station is required, it will need to be completed before HS2 phase two starts running. • If an additional power station is required then its costs must be included within the HS2 budget.
19 A917 (19) HOC/00174/0020 Summary of Requests
• In summary, our requests on this committee are as follows: . That National Grid demonstrate to the satisfaction of an independent and suitably qualified electrical engineer at the IET that voltage imbalances caused by HS2 trains will not exceed 2% . That HS2 Ltd formally advises National Grid of its electrical requirements . That National Grid determines what additional generating capacity will be required for HS2 and arranges for its build in a timely fashion.
20 A917 (20) HOC/00174/0021 P5033 (1) HOC/00174/0010 P5033 (2) HOC/00174/0011 P5073 (1) HOC/00174/0012 P5073 (2) HOC/00174/0013