HS3 and More

Simon Morley Sun Nov 18, 2007 at 11:23:56 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

Greengauge21, the campaign group led by Jim Steer a former head of strategic planning for the Strategic Rail Authority, has recently released on its website a document outlining a feasible strategy for developing a UK wide high speed rail network.



It seems to me high speed rail could help the EU really connect with ordinary Europeans if it shifted some funding from agriculture to help build a high speed rail network across the member states, building on the recently formed Railteam alliance, in the UK but also into the newer member states.
 
Is this something that could go forward to the NPF, or is it too late for the second year of the “creating sustainable communities” commission? A new town the size of Sevenoaks is being built around the new Ebbsfleet station on HS1 in Kent and major new, or more likely re-developed, station developments combined with existing rail and road links and possibly new (light rail?) links could provide a whole variety of ‘bullet train’ commuters into London and ‘middle office’ commercial office space, building on existing and expanded community infrastructure, providing a real economic boost to areas across ‘middle Britiain,’ both creating new employment and easing the pressure for new houses in and around London. As well as quick, convenient and environmentally friendly links for Europe-wide business and tourism to the new stations, and nearby city and town centres with existing rail links, both outward and inward. Maximum benefits need a combination of national and local working, but overall both directly and psychologically could be huge.



tags: , (all tags)

Display: Sort:
HS3 and More | 12 comments (12 topical)

Re: HS3 and More (#1)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 12:15:57 AM GMT

Thanks for that Simon - it was an interesting read. I think a high-speed rail route connecting Manchester and Birmingham to London and the Continent is absolutely vital to our economy. An even larger network could build on from there.

I like your idea of the EU spending money on creating a European high-speed network rather than wasting money on agriculture. Preferably I'd like them to scrap the CAP completely.


Re: HS3 and More (#2)

by rwendland on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:05:47 AM GMT

This is certainly an area that warrants study, but it is not clear TGV-style high speed rail is the best solution within the UK. In per passenger-km CO2 emissions, high speed rail has several times the emissions of Inter-City trains, and nearly as much as car travel - by some studies.

Even if you put investment costs and finding an acceptable route aside,  TGV-style high speed rail in the UK doesn't seem to be a no-brainer environmentally best solution. I doubt its ready to go to NPF yet - needs preliminary discussion. Greengauge21 does seem to be a lobby group: "an umbrella under which all those with an interest in supporting and promoting a High Speed Rail network can come together" - we need to evaluate what they suggest.

One issue is that a Edinburgh/Glasgow- London high speed rail link would have more capacity than all current flights, so its economics might well depend on increasing travel demand - and its not clear this would be an environmentally good thing. (But this is a complex issue, which needs careful study.)

If we are most concerned about green issues, we should be considering funding tracks that suit wide bodied, double deck trains at more modest speeds, on shorter routes, rather than flagship high speed rail.


Re: HS3 and More (#3)

by swatantra on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:14:37 AM GMT

So, what would YOU do with that extra 20 mins? B****r all. Whatever happened to leisurely travel taking the stress out of Rail? Saving the environment actually comes at a price, and we have to be prepared to pay it.


[ Parent ]

Re: HS3 and More (#4)

by rwendland on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 02:32:51 PM GMT

Hi swatantra, were you meaning to respond to NorthernMonkey's comment rather than mine? If it's mine, I don't follow. I'm happy to debate, if you can explain. I tend to agree that the 15 mins saved London-Birmingham doesn't justify building such a short high speed line.


[ Parent ]

Re: HS3 and More (#5)

by swatantra on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:10:19 PM GMT

Yes its NMonkey I was having a go at. The point I was getting at was that saving the Environment must come at a price , in terms of both money and time. We have to look seriously at doing things differently. Energy from N-Power or taking the long way round and not cut swaves across the countryside just to get us from A to B more quickly. In the end its impossible to squeeze as much effiecency as you can from a 'system', there is an optimum. I'm thinking of traffic jams witch occur on motor ways for no explicable reason, and yet 2 miles on its absolutely clear. I'm thinking that an Easyjet flight from Stansted to Glasgow takes about an hour and yet you have to go to the airport 2 hrs before because of security checks and when you arrive its another hour on the journey time checking out your baggage. If we are to reduce our carbon then do things differently.


[ Parent ]

Re: HS3 and More (#8)

by NorthernMonkey on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 06:49:56 PM GMT

What on earth are you going on about swatantra?

A high speed rail route helps the environment, it does not hinder it. I'm interested to hear your logic as to why building extra railway routes is damaging to the environment. Explain away.


[ Parent ]

Re: HS3 and More (#9)

by Simon Morley on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 10:28:27 PM GMT

A few responces. Technically, if more people travel because it is more convenient the effect is environmentally detremental, but how you travel is a factor, and electrified rail can be very low carbon, though not very low energy. But I see it as a question of priorities. Relatively short travel time differences can make a big difference when it is everyday commuting. Longer commuting distances (to places as far away as Crewe and Grimsby for the sake of argument) by themselves are not so good, but if it means less green belt building, generally I would say it is a good thing. The proposal itself recommends a combination of new lines, upgraded lines and distinctions where there are multiple lines between fast and slow use. New lines in particular not right next to existing ones, but on new routes. The problem with existing lines is they can be very expensive and disruptive to upgrade (lots of low bridges for example), and better signalling is probably the best way to improve capacity.

 
For me one big issue is not simply looking at it as a transport issue, but in conjunction with housing and regeneration. Rapid access to London would facilitate new businesses, and create jobs accessible wholly or partly by local rail. A combination of a commercial base of everyday or frequent London commuting from areas currently with relatively low house prices and unemployment, and Eurostar trains that continue from the high speed lines through a handful of relatively close-by stops going to for example Liverpool, Manchester and Sheffield should help financial viability. I think the current policy of focused improvements to improve the existing network makes a lot of sense, and new track could distract policymakers and managers from that, but that is not a reason not to do it, but a factor to take into account. The Greenguage21 proposal (I only know what I read about them on the web, but lets take the proposal at face value at least initially) also points out the benefit of design accounting for future expansion, not completely ad-hoc which means significant avoidable costs in the future.


[ Parent ]

Re: HS3 and More (#11)

by Group51 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:35:36 PM GMT

Double-deck trains are unsuitable for and provide little additional capacity to the UK network.  It is a side-show diversion.

If you want more capacity, look at electrification, and longer/more trains. 


[ Parent ]

Recent White Paper (#6)

by rwendland on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 04:09:15 PM GMT

The recent white paper "Delivering a Sustainable Railway" view on handling future rail traffic growth is "At present the balance of advantage would appear to favour new services running at conventional speeds and operating on an existing disused alignment."   The proponents of TGV-style high speed train do have to make a good case before we set about reversing a recent white paper thru the NPF.

Fig 11.1 of the white paper offers a nifty comparative CO2 per km table, which shows up the problems as you make high speed trains faster, e.g. the old InterCity 125 HST are nearly twice as CO2 efficient as the latest faster Virgin Super Voyager. Electrifying lines seems a good win though - regenerative braking maybe.


Re: HS3 and More (#7)

by Lorin on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 06:46:52 PM GMT

As a trainspotter (well sort of), I'm quite annoyed with the government's desicion to invest more money in new diesel trains, rather than electrifying the lines, as is common in modern EU countries. Now with rising fuel prices and global warming it's not the wisest thing to do.

Our railways aren't as bad as sometimes portrayed, it's just the operators who have a monopoly over the railways.

Yes of course we should have new HS rail-links, In order to provide quick and efficient services, and stop people from using domestic flights.


HS2 and Heathrow (#10)

by rwendland on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:05:03 PM GMT

The HS2 proposal has a Heathrow branch, which is said to "improve the overall business case for north-south high-speed rail".

The main effect of this seems to me to increase Heathrow cachment area, and is associated with the third runway proposal. It claims green aims like diverting tourist traffic from London to the north, and allowing Heathrow passangers to go by train onto Brussels & the north rather than taking a second flight. But I'm dubious about that being effective enough. I'm sure BAA would love it though, as it would help restrain the idea of having a another south-east airport competitor.

 


Re: HS2 and Heathrow (#12)

by Group51 on Sun Nov 25, 2007 at 03:53:12 PM GMT

No, well, the aim should be to reduce domestic mainland flights, many of which connect to Heathrow for long-haul connections.

The West Coast mainline upgrade has already brought Manchester into the 2-hour club that Eurostar does for Paris-London.  As with Eurostar, Virigin now has the majority of the London Manchester market, and quite right too, but it doesn't go to Heathrow, so I very much support that part of the proposal.

But I think it's even more important to do more regional light rail projects (trams) and regulating the busses so that rural communities are linked together better (less reliance on cars, less isolation).

 


[ Parent ]

HS3 and More | 12 comments (12 topical)