So, we're getting another High Speed Rail Link. One which will extend the existing high speed route linking the Channel Tunnel to London, onwards up to somewhere north of Birmingham; HS2 is its abbreviation, HS1 being the existing CTML, or Channel Tunnel Main Line across Kent to St Pancras. HS2 sounds nice and 'technical' (I suppose BML would sound like an obsolete nationalised industry), and it'll run, at least in part, upon the alignment of the old Great Central/LNER main line into London's Marylebone terminus, a line with the unhappy distinction of being the last main line to reach London, and the first to be closed (it was abandoned and lifted north of Quainton, Bucks., in 1966-69).
And people are quite naturally asking do we need it? and do we want it ? Its suggested that the cost will be in excess of 30 billion pounds, which is a lot of money by most standards - sufficient to add at least five Queen Elizabeth class Aircraft Carriers (without their aircraft) to the Royal Navy, build a quite few hospitals, or maybe catch up with the backlog of road repairs. But those things already have their own budgets which already dwarf the cost of HS2, spread as it will be across a dozen or more years of construction work. So would it be money spent on something worthwhile ?
There seem to be several factors that the debates around HS2 are ignoring, or perhaps under estimating. The first is the growth in rail travel itself (on whatever speed route is used). The statistics for passenger numbers continue to break all the records set in the 20th century, with rail travel in recent years exceeding anything achieved in the 1980s or 90s, and far exceeding the passenger levels of the nostalgic golden days of the steam railway. These record numbers have been delivered on a reduced network, shorn in the 60's of much of its feeders of secondary routes and branch lines, and with most track and infrastructure pared down to the minimum. Infrastructure and track miles equal maintenance costs, maintenance costs are overheads, overheads are watched by accountants etc. But reducing the costs has meant less double track miles, less relief lines, fewer points, longer signalling block sections, and fewer lay-bys and sidings, all of which contribute to a less flexible and lower capacity network overall. To achieve the passenger mileage, the network and rolling stock is now 'tuned' to faster trains, fewer stops outside of the big conurbations, and actually works only by many routes running at their maximum capacity, at least during the normal working day.
The second overlooked factor is freight. Rail freight is one of the remarkable secret success stories of the modern era. In the 1970s, freight abandoned the rails for the roads in almost every market, and Dr Beeching often prophesied a network of passenger only rail with vestigial freight services linking a few major centres and with highly specialised cargoes. The coal strikes of the early 80s seemed to kill off that traffic as well as both pits closed and the dash-to-gas accellerated at UK power stations. But today the situation has completely reversed. 2010 saw a 13% decline in road freight, while on rail, the last six years (2006-2011) have seen a steady growth of freight, running at 2% per annum each year, and with projections putting the growth nearer to 7% across this current decade. The additional traffic is partly driven by the Channel Tunnel, but more by the rise in intermodal traffic and the expanding or planned expansion of deep-sea ports such as Haven, Thames, Medway and Solent, along with Mersey and Salford opening up in the near future. But the freight traffic is starting to exceed our rail capacity. Freight cannot, and indeed has no real need to move at the speeds of passenger traffic, 60 or 75mph is more than adequate, yet even at those speeds on the trunk routes freight is too slow and blocks other (faster) traffic.
Without HS2 factored in, freight traffic is starting to demand more paths on the WCML than there is capacity to run the trains. And the same pressure will soon be felt on the GWML, the GW route north through Oxford and on the cross-Anglian route linking Felixstowe to the midlands. The solution is ether to rebuild most of the principal trunk routes south of Manchester, giving them something approaching four track capacity, or taking a significant section of the long distance passenger traffic off of those same routes, the largest of which by a long way is the WCML.
So, to me at least, that seems to make a very strong case for another route from the SE to the Midlands. HS2 may or may not be the correct or best choice, but another route of some significance does seem like a sensible idea.
And if you think its easy for me to not be a NIMBY because HS2 isn't running along my garden fence, let me herby state that I will gladly swap my property (from which the trains are frustratingly hidden by buildings and trees) for one of similar value overlooking or adjoining HS2 and commanding a proper view of the passing spectacle. Offers anyone ?
No comments:
Post a Comment