Home
Dear Dusty The Cat,
High Speed 2
You assert that many of us are “whinging” about HS2 without anything to put in its place, I wonder if more information regarding high speed railways and their limitations in use may be of help. I personally feel that UFT systems are unsuitable for UK conditions and note that, regrettably, the government and HS2 Ltd do not tell the entire truth, when putting their case. If you doubt anything with-in this letter, I ask that you confirm it, but I would not approach the government or HS2 Ltd.
Initially I should explain the terminology I shall use to avoid confusion. I will split passenger transport into two systems, High Speed Transport (HST) and Ultra Fast Transport (UFT), present descriptions used by the government can only cause confusion due to the prior description used to define express passenger travel, the “Inter-City 125” High Speed Train.
High Speed Transport
HST – the present system seen in the UK.
Operational maximum capability of 100-140mph, such as could be provided by the WCML with a signalling upgrade.
This a robust system which can sustain considerable wear and tear before safety is compromised.
It can be used to move express trains, local services and freight transport.
Ultra Fast Transport
UFT – The system proposed by the government. Operational maximum capability of 180-300+mph.
This could be described as a more delicate system and requires considerable maintenance to ensure that trains may operate safely at very high speeds.
Used to move express passenger trains or 140mph local services if speed were compromised, but not suitable for freight.
An anomaly: HS1 (South Coast to London) was constructed as a UFT but due to financial collapse
and lack of customers now operates as an HST.
May I offer the following information:-
Our problems are freight not passenger orientated. If freight could be removed from our main passenger arteries the existing mainlines could achieve 140mph and services intensified. Present passenger trains remain relatively short when compared to the old steam operated systems (4-9 coaches compared to the 10-16 then), the idea that insufficient seating could be provided is erroneous, as much present overcrowding is the result of ticket pricing arrangements and the coach/seating arrangements provided, rather than incapacity.
HS1: Long distance super fast trains abroad, gave the construction industry an excuse to lobby the government into thinking “we must have one of those as a prestige project”, after which High Speed 1 was constructed using dubious figures to “sell” the project. The result was a disaster. The franchisee was forced into effective liquidation in a matter of months. The government (who were announcing plans to build a far more expensive 2nd UFT line) were informed, that HS1 had been economically disastrous. London & Continental Railways (the franchisee) was said to “restructure” it’s affairs and surrender the franchise. “Restructuring” amounted to the taxpayer giving the LCR £6+billion pounds to prevent the company going into formal liquidation and embarrassing the government, while “queering the pitch” for High Speed 2. HS1 was then sold lock, stock and barrel to a Canadian pension consortium as a 30 year lease, for £2.1 billion (The city felt that £1.5billion was the best value that could be expected, due to its future prospects, which was why Mr.Hammond was so pleased with the sale). This removed the prospect of further government financial embarrassment, but it did mean that the lessor had to make ends meet by any means, even running local services (at 125-140mph) and providing freight services (75-90mph) on a 200mph+ line (UFT), while damaging the track and track-bed due to freight trains and their potential weight! (HS2s Chief Engineer Professor Andrew McNaughton confirmed to me that freight would not be allowed to run on HS2 because that type of traffic would damage the billiard table like track required to run high speed trains safely). HS1 was built at great expense to serve as a 200+ mph (UFT) line. It presently serves as an over-engineered classic express line; now used as is the WCML or would be with a signalling upgrade. This will be the fate of HS2. I quote Mr. Rob Holden (Chairman of HS1) “We need to examine why we need a 400kph railway. I my view, the UK doesn’t need it”, while recently our only other UFT service (Eurostar) has also expressed similar sentiments.
HS2 will have to operate largely in isolation, because of its very nature. It should not be linked to the classic system except at limited access points.
HS2 will provide a very limited number of stations for its customers, because of the limitations of high speed travel and the operational costs involved. In UK conditions, it should be a London-Manchester-Glasgow service only, while the eastern/central line should be London-Sheffield-Edinburgh. The UK is very small compared to Europe, .
A UFT system is very expensive to operate. It consumes over twice, or more, as much energy as standard 25kv trains, most of which is used to start and obtain cruising speed, as UFT trains are only financially viable when cruising at high speed and low power consumption.
To put this into perspective, just 100 UFT trains per day on the London/Birmingham part of the route only, will require the same annual energy input as 36,500 homes, a reasonably large town. Or more importantly the output of about 36 onshore wind turbines, a reasonably large development. A huge amount of scarce green energy. We will have to go nuclear! Would you wish to inform anyone that they are to have a nuclear power plant nearby, (say near or in your constituency) and that they wish to bury the waste underground in the North East in what seems to be an area more prone to seismic activity than most, while it is intended to seek gas by potentially large scale “fracking” (the first attempt produced an earthquake, all be it relatively minor).
The energy consumption required is out of all reason to that which can be provided by the scarce green alternates, and UFT trains will have to run in conditions in which they are least cost effective, least energy efficient and most eco-unfriendly!
*HS2 will cost between 3-4+ times as much as its European equivalent because of the sheer amount of existing infra-structure it must overcome, will be economically unsound, should not carry freight and whose target clientele are a decreasing number of company executives whose companies are turning to the internet!
When finished, it will be of no use in removing heavy traffic from roads. It will be suitable for only a few travellers because of its limited stops, or hopelessly uneconomic if more and more stops are desired. Classic short distance express lines will remain, attempting to service the majority and increasing numbers of travellers whose destination is not HS2 linked and those who do not wish to break journeys, while rail-freight operators will be very little or no better off and still struggling for paths for their services and ensuring that the transfer of freight from road to rail is stifled.
Francois Hollande regards the TVG network as “ extremely expensive and of disputed socio-economic efficiency”. This opinion has resulted in the next 20 year investment of €245 billion being slashed by approximately 90%. The construction costs or the destruction of country-side seem not to be the problem, more the running and maintenance cost of the present TGV(UFT) system requires continuing subsidies of more than €12 billion per annum, just to keep them going.
Spain is also suffering, the flag-ship Barcelona-Madrid line struggles to cover its operating costs alone, with a number of the stations along the line hardly used, while the line has with no hope of covering construction costs. Why? The ordinary Spanish traveller finds the fares too expensive and travels by car, despite the large hike in fuel costs over recent years, it remains better value, ie cheaper.
We would do well to remember that HS2 is to be, effectively, built through an urban landscape (by European standards), which is the worst possible and most expensive of all scenarios. Our costs will be 3-4+ times that of the French (above*), which was built and runs in optimal conditions and which the French now regard as too expensive and not worthwhile. UK running and maintenance costs will be far worse for HS2 as it will be forced to run in conditions in which it is “least cost effective, least energy efficient and most eco-unfriendly! I apologise for the repartition, however, we are assured that a ticket for UFT travel will be no more than our HST lines????
This project is of little or no value to the long term financial future of the UK. It matters not one jot if they flatten North London, The Chilterns, Birmingham and Manchester; this is not a system that is suitable for the UK. We would be far better off reviewing North/South/East/West routes which were abandoned by Messrs Marples and Beeching and reinstating them as far as is possible as continentally gauged 100mph freight and alternate routes. Consider the old GCR London to Sheffield/Leeds route and the GWR Paddington/Birmingham/Wolverhampton/Crewe. The latter would also link to the “Heathrow Express”, and provide that direct line (via the GWR Old Oak express link to Birmingham ) to the North for Heathrow, which was one of the main excuses for building HS2 and forcing it through North London.
In the 1990s Virgin offered a 60 minute service to Euston on then existing track and vehicles, both of which have now been upgraded for faster operations. The problem existing is overcrowding by slower traffic, remove the slow heavy traffic (freight) and passenger services can be faster and more intensive, track wear will decrease and all existing towns and cities would experience better services, rather than the limited stops offered by HS2.
Does the PM really believe what he says, or is he at the beck and call of the construction industry? Consider this;
The Heathrow problem, it is argued that:-
London and its infrastructure are near or at breaking point.
Failing a considerable overhaul of Heathrow, a further major airport to the east of London will be required.
We must have HS2 to move passengers around the UK and link airports so that executives from the North may have quick access to a major international airport, international trade and foreign investors.
The North needs considerable investment to stop the “North/South” divide and encourage further trade and expansion of the northern economy.
If we accept that the figures being used to promote government projects are at all accurate, that the governments desire to end the “North/South Divide” is real, while their intent really is to promote the business aspirations of northern businesses and businessmen and not just political lip service, the answer becomes more and more obvious. The second major international airport (to the scale of Heathrow, ie capable of servicing the largest aircraft now existing and those yet on the drawing-board) should be built in the North to promote industry and international trade and ensure that there is an alternative to Heathrow and the south-east and moving both passengers and freight up the length of the UK. It will provide a long-term choice! Remember, many air passengers to Heathrow merely change aircraft, need they do it at Heathrow?
I make no pretence to being Einstein but it appears that all the proposals seem to be specifically designed to make the South East’s problems far worse, rather than improve matters! Surely, we should plan to alleviate those problems and promote business in areas which desperately need a boost to their economy and not promoting long-distance commuting.
We must accept that, in the future, travel may become more limited as costs and scarce energy reduce the national appetite to move around unnecessarily, both from a private and business point of view. Also long distance heavy freight is the main problem blocking our main roads. How much rail space will be required when fuel costs really start to bite the transport industry? Where will our local express trains or commuter services go when the predicted 40% increase in rail freight occurs in the next 2-3 decades (An estimate which I believe may be lacking).
Is HS2 the real answer, or is it just another drain southward for the best and the brightest? Are we to construct a real “millstone” around the neck of the UK, as operational limitations and costs make UFT systems of dubious benefit?
I do hope that this may clarify matters for you despite Mr Cameron’s’ seemingly desperate propaganda.
Yours truly,
Mike Turner
A copy of an article which is destined for the internet.
Railway Traffic: The Problem: Too many trains chasing too little rail space, while fast expresses are slowed by freight traffic.
Modern express trains can now travel at much higher speeds than their freight counterparts (125-140mph & 60-90mph).
A slow train will delay any following faster trains (note plural).
The old axiom that any line of vehicles can only travel at the speed of the slowest is very relevant.
In the 1960s Messrs Marples and Beeching did away with a large number of alternate and freight routes, thereby forcing freight onto our present mainlines.
While freight and expresses trains could be run at vaguely similar speeds this was not a problem, but express speeds are now increasing, while freight has remained largely static. Therefore freight now impedes the speed and intensification of passenger services.
Recent events have resulted in rail freight traffic becoming one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy, and given the drive towards a cleaner and pollution free environment, lorries will be under increasing pressure as a poor alternative, while the drive toward long-distance rail freight will only exacerbate the present capacity/speed problems. Schenker (EWS) has proposed a train link to China.
This governments proposals to charge/tax European lorries using UK roads can only propel far more lorries onto the railway system much quicker than current estimates of growth of 33-40+% increase in rail-freight traffic over the next 3 decades. Where will we be if this charge reduces the time period to 1 decade?
Our main express routes are now drowning under growing welter of slower traffic and the problem is set to get far worse.
The government seems to have identified the problem, which effectively has two fairly obvious solutions:
Remove the expresses from the main express routes
Remove the freight from the express routes.
The governments choice is the former, which owes more to pressure of vested interest than common sense.
It is proposed to remove some of express services from the “classic” railway (HST) and place them on to an “Ultra Fast Transport” (UFT) system. On the face of it this is a wonderful idea. However there is, as usual, a fly in the ointment, or in this case several flies. The major fly being that, in the UK, a UFT service is not suitable to build or run cost effectively.
Even when constructed and run in optimal conditions, a UFT system is very expensive and is only cost effective within very small parameters.
Construction costs are huge and require that the line be constructed through wide open spaces with few obstructions to ensure costs are to kept to a reasonable level.
A worst case scenario for construction of such a railway would be through an urban landscape. Unfortunately, compared to its’ European counterparts most of England is an urban landscape.
UFT locomotives consume huge amounts of energy to reach cruising speed and require long distances (120 –150 miles or more) between stops to be cost effective. Starting and stopping at regular intervals produces very high running costs. In the UK the distances between our major towns and cities is far too small to allow UFT systems to operate cost effectively, while if the trains do travel sufficient economic distances passenger loadings would be poor.
UK conditions require a system which is flexible and allows as many convenient departure points as is reasonably possible for passengers to alight or access the services available. A UK UFT system would avoid town centres because of the cost of construction, or if thought essential, tunnel, a costly option.
If a UFT system is adopted, what would happen to our present express systems?
A number of express services would be cancelled or “moved”, if you will, to the UFT system with its limited access points. This is the euphemism known as “freeing up the WCML” and presumably the ECML as well.
Their place will be taken by increasing amounts of slower freight traffic, which will make the remaining standard or “classic” express services even slower than now and increase journey times for the majority of passengers (those who wish to reach most of the cities and towns on the present system, even if they use the UFT and change train to reach the destination they require). This is a scenario which even the freight operators themselves have confirmed
My choice, which is to me the only logical choice: we must take freight away from express services.
We need in part to reverse the political decision of the 1960s and re-expand into some of the old lines (if it is still possible) which provided alternate routes for rerouted express trains and freight services. Railwaymen pleaded for the GCR line from London to Sheffield to be retained as a freight only route. They were ignored. However, much of that route still exists and could be reopened or new sections “grafted in” if required. The GWR line from Paddington to Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Crewe and North has been severed in Birmingham and while not closed was reduced to an effective branch line. This line should be opened throughout to provide (according to the government) a direct link from the North to the “Heathrow Express” airport services at Paddington or Old Oak Common and remove some of the strain on the WCML. I would recommend that all such “new” or reopened lines be reconstructed or altered to accommodate the larger European freight wagons.
The removal of freight from the WCML would mean that passenger services could be faster and more intensive, while increasing train lengths to 10, 12 or 16 cars would vastly increase capacity. It seems to have been forgotten that prior to the considerable increases in freight traffic now seen, Virgin Trains operated a 60 minute schedule from Birmingham to Euston in the 1990s, then using equipment which has since been greatly surpassed. There is no reason why, if slow traffic were removed, that time could be reduced to 45-50mins now.
We do need a considerable increase in capacity, it is the only way forward, but what form should that huge increase in capacity take?
Do we build a hugely expensive separate system for Ultra Fast Passenger Trains with limited potential?
Do we hugely expand the “old” system to give freight a separate “play” ground, where it cannot affect increasingly fast and intensive passenger services, which link to all or towns and cities.
Do we provide industry with a modern and effective way of moving goods right across Europe at speed, thereby increasing their ability to trade their product?
Do we provide something which will remove lorries from our roads, while cutting pollution and road maintenance costs?
The answer to me is so obvious that I have to call the governments stance into question and wonder what else may be behind
their illogical insistence that UFT is the only way to cure our problems?
DURST THE CAT
OCT 14, 2013 AT 8:34 PM
Mike,
I merely questioned whether some of the opposition to HS2 hinders rather than helps the cause. Take Christian Wolmar the self proclaimed leading transport journalist, his ambition to be a Labour candidate for Mayor of London and his opposition to HS2 have been hand in hand most in the rail industry take it that Christian wants to spend HS2 money in London itself and therefore he falls within the status quo faction of keeping transport spending in and around London only. My old MP Lembit Opik lost his seat in Mid Wales as he became a standing joke to his electorate, he’s written in his column in our local paper against HS2 and was replied to in the letters column and accused of being a little Londoner only wanting money spent in London where he still/ once harboured ambitions of being Mayor.
On the WCML moving freight off it will not create many new 125 mph paths, as the slow lines also have all the commuter traffic on it. A stopping train takes up much more capacity than a non stop express, you’d have to flight services meaning the number and frequency of commuter trains would have to be reduced. Again I will point out that organisations like Greenguage 21 looked into these scenarios at great depth years ago the alternatives put forward from desktops have already been looked into.
KINGSNEWCLOTHES
OCT 15, 2013 AT 5:51 PM
Well Durst or Dusty or whatever your name is , I question the motivations of some of the people who have the loudest voices for HS2.
Companies and their lobbyists in the construction and rail industry who hope to make a killing from the largest single piece of government spending in years.
Local businessmen and councillors who hope to leverage some marginal advantage at the expense of other areas.
Politicians who started out wanting to make a name for themselves , with money to be paid by future governments after they have gone , and have now put themselves into a position from which they can’t back down from even if they wanted to .
Meanwhile our National Debt continues to rise, despite the austerity measures which we have now been told will go on for another 7 years.
2. PAUL
OCT 9, 2013 AT 11:40 AM
A while ago I wrote to the then Shadow Transport Secretary passing on information on various flaws in HS2 Ltd’s work. I did not get any response from her, not even an acknowledgement of my letter. I doubt if it got “lost in the post” as I sent copies of the letter to Opposition Leader Ed Milliband and the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls who you would have thought would be only to happy to have information which they could use against the government.
If Mary Creagh does get round to speaking to you, could you point out to her it is a good idea to respond to people’s letters, not just out of politeness but also because it looks like the Labour Party are too confused to actually come up with an firm position on HS2.
I would aslo like to add that I think you should have kept the first sentence of your fourth paragraph simply to say “As new Shadow Transport Secretary, you will be looking closely at what the country needs.” I think you have fallen for HS2 Ltd’s line that we are in desperate need of a new north-south link. It is bad enough people jumping to conclusions but HS2 Ltd makes things worse by jumping to assumptions.
High Speed 2
You assert that many of us are “whinging” about HS2 without anything to put in its place, I wonder if more information regarding high speed railways and their limitations in use may be of help. I personally feel that UFT systems are unsuitable for UK conditions and note that, regrettably, the government and HS2 Ltd do not tell the entire truth, when putting their case. If you doubt anything with-in this letter, I ask that you confirm it, but I would not approach the government or HS2 Ltd.
Initially I should explain the terminology I shall use to avoid confusion. I will split passenger transport into two systems, High Speed Transport (HST) and Ultra Fast Transport (UFT), present descriptions used by the government can only cause confusion due to the prior description used to define express passenger travel, the “Inter-City 125” High Speed Train.
High Speed Transport
HST – the present system seen in the UK.
Operational maximum capability of 100-140mph, such as could be provided by the WCML with a signalling upgrade.
This a robust system which can sustain considerable wear and tear before safety is compromised.
It can be used to move express trains, local services and freight transport.
Ultra Fast Transport
UFT – The system proposed by the government. Operational maximum capability of 180-300+mph.
This could be described as a more delicate system and requires considerable maintenance to ensure that trains may operate safely at very high speeds.
Used to move express passenger trains or 140mph local services if speed were compromised, but not suitable for freight.
An anomaly: HS1 (South Coast to London) was constructed as a UFT but due to financial collapse
and lack of customers now operates as an HST.
May I offer the following information:-
Our problems are freight not passenger orientated. If freight could be removed from our main passenger arteries the existing mainlines could achieve 140mph and services intensified. Present passenger trains remain relatively short when compared to the old steam operated systems (4-9 coaches compared to the 10-16 then), the idea that insufficient seating could be provided is erroneous, as much present overcrowding is the result of ticket pricing arrangements and the coach/seating arrangements provided, rather than incapacity.
HS1: Long distance super fast trains abroad, gave the construction industry an excuse to lobby the government into thinking “we must have one of those as a prestige project”, after which High Speed 1 was constructed using dubious figures to “sell” the project. The result was a disaster. The franchisee was forced into effective liquidation in a matter of months. The government (who were announcing plans to build a far more expensive 2nd UFT line) were informed, that HS1 had been economically disastrous. London & Continental Railways (the franchisee) was said to “restructure” it’s affairs and surrender the franchise. “Restructuring” amounted to the taxpayer giving the LCR £6+billion pounds to prevent the company going into formal liquidation and embarrassing the government, while “queering the pitch” for High Speed 2. HS1 was then sold lock, stock and barrel to a Canadian pension consortium as a 30 year lease, for £2.1 billion (The city felt that £1.5billion was the best value that could be expected, due to its future prospects, which was why Mr.Hammond was so pleased with the sale). This removed the prospect of further government financial embarrassment, but it did mean that the lessor had to make ends meet by any means, even running local services (at 125-140mph) and providing freight services (75-90mph) on a 200mph+ line (UFT), while damaging the track and track-bed due to freight trains and their potential weight! (HS2s Chief Engineer Professor Andrew McNaughton confirmed to me that freight would not be allowed to run on HS2 because that type of traffic would damage the billiard table like track required to run high speed trains safely). HS1 was built at great expense to serve as a 200+ mph (UFT) line. It presently serves as an over-engineered classic express line; now used as is the WCML or would be with a signalling upgrade. This will be the fate of HS2. I quote Mr. Rob Holden (Chairman of HS1) “We need to examine why we need a 400kph railway. I my view, the UK doesn’t need it”, while recently our only other UFT service (Eurostar) has also expressed similar sentiments.
HS2 will have to operate largely in isolation, because of its very nature. It should not be linked to the classic system except at limited access points.
HS2 will provide a very limited number of stations for its customers, because of the limitations of high speed travel and the operational costs involved. In UK conditions, it should be a London-Manchester-Glasgow service only, while the eastern/central line should be London-Sheffield-Edinburgh. The UK is very small compared to Europe, .
A UFT system is very expensive to operate. It consumes over twice, or more, as much energy as standard 25kv trains, most of which is used to start and obtain cruising speed, as UFT trains are only financially viable when cruising at high speed and low power consumption.
To put this into perspective, just 100 UFT trains per day on the London/Birmingham part of the route only, will require the same annual energy input as 36,500 homes, a reasonably large town. Or more importantly the output of about 36 onshore wind turbines, a reasonably large development. A huge amount of scarce green energy. We will have to go nuclear! Would you wish to inform anyone that they are to have a nuclear power plant nearby, (say near or in your constituency) and that they wish to bury the waste underground in the North East in what seems to be an area more prone to seismic activity than most, while it is intended to seek gas by potentially large scale “fracking” (the first attempt produced an earthquake, all be it relatively minor).
The energy consumption required is out of all reason to that which can be provided by the scarce green alternates, and UFT trains will have to run in conditions in which they are least cost effective, least energy efficient and most eco-unfriendly!
*HS2 will cost between 3-4+ times as much as its European equivalent because of the sheer amount of existing infra-structure it must overcome, will be economically unsound, should not carry freight and whose target clientele are a decreasing number of company executives whose companies are turning to the internet!
When finished, it will be of no use in removing heavy traffic from roads. It will be suitable for only a few travellers because of its limited stops, or hopelessly uneconomic if more and more stops are desired. Classic short distance express lines will remain, attempting to service the majority and increasing numbers of travellers whose destination is not HS2 linked and those who do not wish to break journeys, while rail-freight operators will be very little or no better off and still struggling for paths for their services and ensuring that the transfer of freight from road to rail is stifled.
Francois Hollande regards the TVG network as “ extremely expensive and of disputed socio-economic efficiency”. This opinion has resulted in the next 20 year investment of €245 billion being slashed by approximately 90%. The construction costs or the destruction of country-side seem not to be the problem, more the running and maintenance cost of the present TGV(UFT) system requires continuing subsidies of more than €12 billion per annum, just to keep them going.
Spain is also suffering, the flag-ship Barcelona-Madrid line struggles to cover its operating costs alone, with a number of the stations along the line hardly used, while the line has with no hope of covering construction costs. Why? The ordinary Spanish traveller finds the fares too expensive and travels by car, despite the large hike in fuel costs over recent years, it remains better value, ie cheaper.
We would do well to remember that HS2 is to be, effectively, built through an urban landscape (by European standards), which is the worst possible and most expensive of all scenarios. Our costs will be 3-4+ times that of the French (above*), which was built and runs in optimal conditions and which the French now regard as too expensive and not worthwhile. UK running and maintenance costs will be far worse for HS2 as it will be forced to run in conditions in which it is “least cost effective, least energy efficient and most eco-unfriendly! I apologise for the repartition, however, we are assured that a ticket for UFT travel will be no more than our HST lines????
This project is of little or no value to the long term financial future of the UK. It matters not one jot if they flatten North London, The Chilterns, Birmingham and Manchester; this is not a system that is suitable for the UK. We would be far better off reviewing North/South/East/West routes which were abandoned by Messrs Marples and Beeching and reinstating them as far as is possible as continentally gauged 100mph freight and alternate routes. Consider the old GCR London to Sheffield/Leeds route and the GWR Paddington/Birmingham/Wolverhampton/Crewe. The latter would also link to the “Heathrow Express”, and provide that direct line (via the GWR Old Oak express link to Birmingham ) to the North for Heathrow, which was one of the main excuses for building HS2 and forcing it through North London.
In the 1990s Virgin offered a 60 minute service to Euston on then existing track and vehicles, both of which have now been upgraded for faster operations. The problem existing is overcrowding by slower traffic, remove the slow heavy traffic (freight) and passenger services can be faster and more intensive, track wear will decrease and all existing towns and cities would experience better services, rather than the limited stops offered by HS2.
Does the PM really believe what he says, or is he at the beck and call of the construction industry? Consider this;
The Heathrow problem, it is argued that:-
London and its infrastructure are near or at breaking point.
Failing a considerable overhaul of Heathrow, a further major airport to the east of London will be required.
We must have HS2 to move passengers around the UK and link airports so that executives from the North may have quick access to a major international airport, international trade and foreign investors.
The North needs considerable investment to stop the “North/South” divide and encourage further trade and expansion of the northern economy.
If we accept that the figures being used to promote government projects are at all accurate, that the governments desire to end the “North/South Divide” is real, while their intent really is to promote the business aspirations of northern businesses and businessmen and not just political lip service, the answer becomes more and more obvious. The second major international airport (to the scale of Heathrow, ie capable of servicing the largest aircraft now existing and those yet on the drawing-board) should be built in the North to promote industry and international trade and ensure that there is an alternative to Heathrow and the south-east and moving both passengers and freight up the length of the UK. It will provide a long-term choice! Remember, many air passengers to Heathrow merely change aircraft, need they do it at Heathrow?
I make no pretence to being Einstein but it appears that all the proposals seem to be specifically designed to make the South East’s problems far worse, rather than improve matters! Surely, we should plan to alleviate those problems and promote business in areas which desperately need a boost to their economy and not promoting long-distance commuting.
We must accept that, in the future, travel may become more limited as costs and scarce energy reduce the national appetite to move around unnecessarily, both from a private and business point of view. Also long distance heavy freight is the main problem blocking our main roads. How much rail space will be required when fuel costs really start to bite the transport industry? Where will our local express trains or commuter services go when the predicted 40% increase in rail freight occurs in the next 2-3 decades (An estimate which I believe may be lacking).
Is HS2 the real answer, or is it just another drain southward for the best and the brightest? Are we to construct a real “millstone” around the neck of the UK, as operational limitations and costs make UFT systems of dubious benefit?
I do hope that this may clarify matters for you despite Mr Cameron’s’ seemingly desperate propaganda.
Yours truly,
Mike Turner
A copy of an article which is destined for the internet.
Railway Traffic: The Problem: Too many trains chasing too little rail space, while fast expresses are slowed by freight traffic.
Modern express trains can now travel at much higher speeds than their freight counterparts (125-140mph & 60-90mph).
A slow train will delay any following faster trains (note plural).
The old axiom that any line of vehicles can only travel at the speed of the slowest is very relevant.
In the 1960s Messrs Marples and Beeching did away with a large number of alternate and freight routes, thereby forcing freight onto our present mainlines.
While freight and expresses trains could be run at vaguely similar speeds this was not a problem, but express speeds are now increasing, while freight has remained largely static. Therefore freight now impedes the speed and intensification of passenger services.
Recent events have resulted in rail freight traffic becoming one of the fastest growing sectors in our economy, and given the drive towards a cleaner and pollution free environment, lorries will be under increasing pressure as a poor alternative, while the drive toward long-distance rail freight will only exacerbate the present capacity/speed problems. Schenker (EWS) has proposed a train link to China.
This governments proposals to charge/tax European lorries using UK roads can only propel far more lorries onto the railway system much quicker than current estimates of growth of 33-40+% increase in rail-freight traffic over the next 3 decades. Where will we be if this charge reduces the time period to 1 decade?
Our main express routes are now drowning under growing welter of slower traffic and the problem is set to get far worse.
The government seems to have identified the problem, which effectively has two fairly obvious solutions:
Remove the expresses from the main express routes
Remove the freight from the express routes.
The governments choice is the former, which owes more to pressure of vested interest than common sense.
It is proposed to remove some of express services from the “classic” railway (HST) and place them on to an “Ultra Fast Transport” (UFT) system. On the face of it this is a wonderful idea. However there is, as usual, a fly in the ointment, or in this case several flies. The major fly being that, in the UK, a UFT service is not suitable to build or run cost effectively.
Even when constructed and run in optimal conditions, a UFT system is very expensive and is only cost effective within very small parameters.
Construction costs are huge and require that the line be constructed through wide open spaces with few obstructions to ensure costs are to kept to a reasonable level.
A worst case scenario for construction of such a railway would be through an urban landscape. Unfortunately, compared to its’ European counterparts most of England is an urban landscape.
UFT locomotives consume huge amounts of energy to reach cruising speed and require long distances (120 –150 miles or more) between stops to be cost effective. Starting and stopping at regular intervals produces very high running costs. In the UK the distances between our major towns and cities is far too small to allow UFT systems to operate cost effectively, while if the trains do travel sufficient economic distances passenger loadings would be poor.
UK conditions require a system which is flexible and allows as many convenient departure points as is reasonably possible for passengers to alight or access the services available. A UK UFT system would avoid town centres because of the cost of construction, or if thought essential, tunnel, a costly option.
If a UFT system is adopted, what would happen to our present express systems?
A number of express services would be cancelled or “moved”, if you will, to the UFT system with its limited access points. This is the euphemism known as “freeing up the WCML” and presumably the ECML as well.
Their place will be taken by increasing amounts of slower freight traffic, which will make the remaining standard or “classic” express services even slower than now and increase journey times for the majority of passengers (those who wish to reach most of the cities and towns on the present system, even if they use the UFT and change train to reach the destination they require). This is a scenario which even the freight operators themselves have confirmed
My choice, which is to me the only logical choice: we must take freight away from express services.
We need in part to reverse the political decision of the 1960s and re-expand into some of the old lines (if it is still possible) which provided alternate routes for rerouted express trains and freight services. Railwaymen pleaded for the GCR line from London to Sheffield to be retained as a freight only route. They were ignored. However, much of that route still exists and could be reopened or new sections “grafted in” if required. The GWR line from Paddington to Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Crewe and North has been severed in Birmingham and while not closed was reduced to an effective branch line. This line should be opened throughout to provide (according to the government) a direct link from the North to the “Heathrow Express” airport services at Paddington or Old Oak Common and remove some of the strain on the WCML. I would recommend that all such “new” or reopened lines be reconstructed or altered to accommodate the larger European freight wagons.
The removal of freight from the WCML would mean that passenger services could be faster and more intensive, while increasing train lengths to 10, 12 or 16 cars would vastly increase capacity. It seems to have been forgotten that prior to the considerable increases in freight traffic now seen, Virgin Trains operated a 60 minute schedule from Birmingham to Euston in the 1990s, then using equipment which has since been greatly surpassed. There is no reason why, if slow traffic were removed, that time could be reduced to 45-50mins now.
We do need a considerable increase in capacity, it is the only way forward, but what form should that huge increase in capacity take?
Do we build a hugely expensive separate system for Ultra Fast Passenger Trains with limited potential?
Do we hugely expand the “old” system to give freight a separate “play” ground, where it cannot affect increasingly fast and intensive passenger services, which link to all or towns and cities.
Do we provide industry with a modern and effective way of moving goods right across Europe at speed, thereby increasing their ability to trade their product?
Do we provide something which will remove lorries from our roads, while cutting pollution and road maintenance costs?
The answer to me is so obvious that I have to call the governments stance into question and wonder what else may be behind
their illogical insistence that UFT is the only way to cure our problems?
DURST THE CAT
OCT 14, 2013 AT 8:34 PM
Mike,
I merely questioned whether some of the opposition to HS2 hinders rather than helps the cause. Take Christian Wolmar the self proclaimed leading transport journalist, his ambition to be a Labour candidate for Mayor of London and his opposition to HS2 have been hand in hand most in the rail industry take it that Christian wants to spend HS2 money in London itself and therefore he falls within the status quo faction of keeping transport spending in and around London only. My old MP Lembit Opik lost his seat in Mid Wales as he became a standing joke to his electorate, he’s written in his column in our local paper against HS2 and was replied to in the letters column and accused of being a little Londoner only wanting money spent in London where he still/ once harboured ambitions of being Mayor.
On the WCML moving freight off it will not create many new 125 mph paths, as the slow lines also have all the commuter traffic on it. A stopping train takes up much more capacity than a non stop express, you’d have to flight services meaning the number and frequency of commuter trains would have to be reduced. Again I will point out that organisations like Greenguage 21 looked into these scenarios at great depth years ago the alternatives put forward from desktops have already been looked into.
KINGSNEWCLOTHES
OCT 15, 2013 AT 5:51 PM
Well Durst or Dusty or whatever your name is , I question the motivations of some of the people who have the loudest voices for HS2.
Companies and their lobbyists in the construction and rail industry who hope to make a killing from the largest single piece of government spending in years.
Local businessmen and councillors who hope to leverage some marginal advantage at the expense of other areas.
Politicians who started out wanting to make a name for themselves , with money to be paid by future governments after they have gone , and have now put themselves into a position from which they can’t back down from even if they wanted to .
Meanwhile our National Debt continues to rise, despite the austerity measures which we have now been told will go on for another 7 years.
2. PAUL
OCT 9, 2013 AT 11:40 AM
A while ago I wrote to the then Shadow Transport Secretary passing on information on various flaws in HS2 Ltd’s work. I did not get any response from her, not even an acknowledgement of my letter. I doubt if it got “lost in the post” as I sent copies of the letter to Opposition Leader Ed Milliband and the Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls who you would have thought would be only to happy to have information which they could use against the government.
If Mary Creagh does get round to speaking to you, could you point out to her it is a good idea to respond to people’s letters, not just out of politeness but also because it looks like the Labour Party are too confused to actually come up with an firm position on HS2.
I would aslo like to add that I think you should have kept the first sentence of your fourth paragraph simply to say “As new Shadow Transport Secretary, you will be looking closely at what the country needs.” I think you have fallen for HS2 Ltd’s line that we are in desperate need of a new north-south link. It is bad enough people jumping to conclusions but HS2 Ltd makes things worse by jumping to assumptions.