Escaping the sidings of history
Share
It is time to decide whether we want to be a nation on the fast track to the future or settle for the branch line to mediocrity, stopping at cut-price parkway and second-rate central.
As you read this, Network Rail is due to reveal its preferred option for the
Keep an eye on TheEngineer.co.uk for details of the announcement. Whatever the rail operator says, however, the ultimate decision will rest with the government, which will have to fund the new line from its severely depleted coffers.
With a price tag estimated to range between £10bn and £30bn depending on how far north the line goes and what technological bells and whistles are added, will HS2 be worth it? Yes, yes and yes again.
Every time HS2 is discussed, heartfelt arguments are advanced that we cannot afford it and that the rail network is an expensive red herring distracting us from sorting out the roads.
Fair points. I would argue, however, that we cannot afford not to build it, that without a second line the UK is doomed to remain a nation divided and at the mercy of air travel and increasingly overcrowded motorway links for those who want or need to travel its length. As for the roads, a high-speed network would take thousands of journeys off the roads every week.
It is a depressing fact that a tenth of the ‘quantitative easing’ funds being pumped into the banking system and apparently vanishing without trace would buy us a rail network that generations to come could be proud of and would thanks us for. The real question is, have we got the ambition to leave those generations a legacy greater than a bunch of half-bust banks?
Talking of railway legacy, I urge you to read The Engineer’s 1888 account of a trip on the
Drivers, crew and passengers alike apparently found the trip one of abject terror. The Engineer’s journalist boarded the train to leap to its defence and praise the majesty of inter-city rail travel. We make the same claims for it today.
Andrew Lee
Editor
Readers' comments (5)
Andrew Porter - Escaping the sidings of history | 26 Aug 2009 12:11 pm
It should be noted that our privatised railways are very expensive. Network Rail charge for track access, and need to make a profit. The Train Operating Companies have to pay Network Rail, and the Train Leasing Company, whilst also making a profit. The Train Leasing Company also has to make a profit. To sustain such a triplicated profit making method, the fare paying passenger has to pay maximum fares, and the tax payer a subsidy to keep many of the routes open and working, all within a railway network inherited from the Victorians. The constant patch and repair approach becomes inevitable as, for example, National Express East Coast cannot invest in dedicated, high speed passenger trains, until Network Rail provide the infrastructure to allow this to happen, and to pay for this means increased rail fares, taxation, etc., therefore, by default, it will not happen.
The difficulty is that of having a dedicated high speed railway link from London to the Channel Tunnel, with purpose designed trains. Beyond London, going north, you face the sustained, dogmatic problem indicated above. With the 2012 Olympic Games being in London, having a dramatic reduction in railway services going north, both in terms of speed, service, reliability and quality, is an embarrassment. Having a new, north bound dedicated high speed railway link from the International part of St. Pancras has, perhaps, an element of political drive, and little else, but only if the UK backs away from assuming that the country is still to become the world centre for finance, with the intention of allowing the UK to buy its way out of trouble.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
P H Field - Escaping the sidings of history | 26 Aug 2009 1:02 pm
Good news indeed. There are too few details yet to make meaningful technical comments.
The current infrastructure however is perfectly adequate for the job over the next 25 years. How many people are clamouring to get to Birmingham in a few minutes less than now?
The main problem is the high price of train travel; the complexity of the ticketing system and prices; the lack of ease of 'turn-up-and-go'; the ridiculous intense even-interval services of long distance trains of five or less standard fare carriages, an uncoordinated rail system of numerous competing companies etc. Sort these things out and the train travel will be far more welcoming and practical and more people will stop car use and flying on the incredibly awful low cost airlines.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JG, Warks. - Escaping the sidings of history | 26 Aug 2009 4:31 pm
A great fallacy has been to restrict transport routes to the minimum possible width (some main line railways: 2 tracks). If Brunel had won with the wide gauge, we might not be in this situation.
And agreed very much with PH Field, a lot of the problems are administrative/fare structure, and those thrown up by an unwise privatisation.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
J R CHAPMAN - Escaping the sidings of history | 27 Aug 2009 8:56 am
It is very good news for a quicker journey than at present. Especially by road; air is very busy which may be just as quick but is more expensive (probably).
At the moment there is a price problem with the rail companies due to the ticket system if you just turn up.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
F Starr - Escaping the sidings of history | 28 Aug 2009 12:01 pm
Surely it is ludicrous that having spent £9bn repairing and upgrading the West Cost line, we now argue that another railway has to be built running along much the same route! Money for rail improvements would be better spent in activities such as a) Doubling the tracks, where these are proving to be a bottleneck, b) Building new commuter stations and links on the surface lines in South London, c) Improving the rail networks running from Bristol, Birmingham, Sheffield, Leeds and York d) Doing something about the overloaded interchange "Intercity""station and local network in Birmingham.
F Starr
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment