Train in vain?

Published: 25 June 2008  10:30 AM
Source: The Engineer Online

France did it, Japan did it, and now Britain is considering it: linking the countries’ cities together with a network of high-speed train lines.

Following the success of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, or HST-1, Network Rail is to commission a study into five new lines, to run alongside the existing routes of the East Coast mainline, from London to Edinburgh via York and Newcastle; the West Coast mainline, from London to Glasgow via Birmingham and Manchester; the Midland mainline, from London to Sheffield via Nottingham; the Great Western line, from London to Cardiff and Penzance; and the Chiltern Line, from London direct to Birmingham. If built, the scheme will see 180mph trains carrying passengers alongside the existing lines, which would be dedicated to freight.

It’s an exciting prospect, certainly in engineering terms. HST-1 aside, the last major new rail line built in Britain was in 1899, and the creaking infrastructure is definitely in need of attention. According to Network Rail, there’s a real need for it as well: passenger numbers have increased by 40 per cent in the last decade, with more people travelling by train now than at any time since 1946, and numbers are expected to swell by another 30 per cent in the next ten years. Improving rail infrastructure could also help get people off the roads, the argument goes, by reducing congestion, fuel use and carbon emissions; it could also make rail a definite alternative to flying, for domestic services and for short hops to Europe.

But there is a danger of getting carried away. As we all know, the existence of a rail line is no guarantee of there actually being a train. The speed of the services is only one factor: people will only consider the train if the service is reliable and affordable — and that means that it’s going to have to be cheaper and more comfortable than flying as well as offering the other advantages of unlimited luggage and lack of airport hassle. The huge cost of the project — surely a problem in these times of possible recession and definite credit crunch — is going to make it difficult to keep prices down.

And there are other factors to be considered. Even if the new lines halve the journey time from London to Cardiff or Glasgow, is it really going to be practical for anyone further north than Birmingham, or further west than Swindon, to use the Channel Tunnel to get to Europe, travelling via London, rather than flying there direct? And if the bulk of rail investment over the next half-century is directed at these lines, what does that mean for the creaking, packed and overstretched commuter services which carry the majority of Britain’s rail passengers?

Like all infrastructure issues, the more you look at it, the more complex it gets. There are clearly a whole series of delicate balancing acts ahead, and that’s before we even get to the thorny issues of planning and public consent for the construction work. From our travels around the country, The Engineer staff have a gut feeling that there’s a definite need for faster and more reliable train services. But making it happen, on our crowded, fractious and risk-averse island? That’s going to be an interesting and far from smooth ride.

Stuart Nathan

Special Projects Editor

Comments

I suppose I shouldn't complain - but late and behind the times! We needed high speed trains several years ago to stave off the environmentally unfriendly low-cost (very) short haul airlines, and I believe that the TGV (and others) are already running at considerably more than 300k/hr. In twenty or thirty years (I'm being optimistic here), when Network Rail's proposals enter service, the rest of the develped world will surely be moving faster than 180mph!
David Fergusson: 26 Jun 2008

Fantastic prospect, but what about the other 80% of the population that don't live in London. We need a real rail network, not one that demands that you go through London when travelling east/west. As an example, try travelling from Milton Keynes to Norwich.
Bob Hart: 26 Jun 2008

This old chestnut is exciting, optimistic and at this time opportunistic and political from Network Rail. The timescale is such that, as with future CO2 reductions, any statement or promise can be safely made. Practicality, reliability and price are a thousand times more valid than further reduction in journey times. Realistically, considering the long lengths of suburbia and the terrain in the north, only about 200 miles of high speed track upgrade (125 to 175mph) would be feasible on any one route, saving a maximum of 30 minutes. It is true, rail traffic could be increased, but at present, away from the suburbs, the system is very under-utilised with short trains. Most routes' bottlenecks are being upgraded to four tracks and single tracks re-upgraded to two. Flexible traction and interoperability are essential to allow other routes in the north to practically form four tracks, and to allow failed trains to rapidly be moved and trains to divert around temporary rail closures. Night traffic could be vastly increased both for freight and low cost passengers. As regards suburban congestion; longer trains and off-peak season tickets are vital. Quite literally, vast swathes of existing network could double traffic; as epitomised by Network Rail's promise of "Thameslink 2000" where 24 trains per hour, each way, up to 12 carriages long, with no restrictions on passenger numbers, stopping every two miles, in tunnels, will pass under London. If this is achieved, the rest is a piece of cake.
peter field: 26 Jun 2008

The solution has been staring us in the face for decades now. France (and other countries) have the space and political will to just get on with it, Japan had little space but had the political will and regeneration capital from others. Meanwhile, the country in which passenger and freight trains were actually invented and developed struggles on with an antiquated and much diminished rail network which was necessarily based on parochial requirements, and the road transport lobby just keeps pushing and pushing ... towards grid-lock. Do I expect anything to happen in my lifetime? Are you kidding? It might actually cost something! P.S. What about a light mass-transit system for the Bristol/Bath conurbation?
Dave Bethell: 26 Jun 2008

The idea of high speed trains is very good, but the prices of the trains in Britain are already exorbitant compared to continental Europe. If the government wants to get people off the roads and onto the trains, it will have to subsidise the train prices, as is done in more enlightened countries. They could use the tax of petrol and the road tax to provide that subsidy.
John Hadfield: 25 Jun 2008

The missing major issue with the concept of having dedicated high speed passenger railway links in the UK is the provision of electrical power. Unlike France and Japan, the vast majority of our electricity is derived through fossil fuel based power stations. This means that whilst a railway train may be more energy efficient when compared to cars, the issue of carbon dioxide emissions is still being missed. This means that no matter which way you turn in the UK, you return back to the use of fossil fuels. In terms of the present Channel Tunnel Rail Link, terminating in central London at St. Pancras railway station, surely this is an opportunity to link with the West Coast Main Line, East Coast Main Line, and Midland Main Line, where the East Coast and West Coast Main Lines are already fully electrified to Edinburgh and Glasgow, with running speeds already set to 125mph, and use trains already designed for at least 140mph. However, this can only be an interim idea even though St. Pancras, Euston and Kings Cross stations are neighbours, as the main line railways, in the UK, persist in being used as mixed traffic routes. Perhaps a central high speed route from London northwards, with a starting point that links to the existing Channel Tunnel Rail Link, would be a way forward, with lines diverting off to major cities such as Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, York, etc, with the end of the route being split between Glasgow and Edinburgh through a northern based high speed junction. Finally, the crowded island is one excuse often given for not considering a dedicated UK high speed railway. However, the Japanese have managed with an notably higher population density, 339 people per square kilometre, compared to 246 people per square kilometre in the UK, to not only build dedicated high speed railways in the 1960s, but to continue to pursue this further with magnetically levitated trains, and brand new routes.
Andrew Porter: 25 Jun 2008

• Jobs Home
• Search
• Jobs by Email
• My Profile
• Agency A-Z
• Employer A-Z

Miscellanies

• About Us
• Contact Us
• Site Map
• Advertising
• T&C's
• Privacy Policy

• Where's e4engineering?
• Engineeringtalk - Engineering product news

Quick Search Form