High-speed rail: Time to make tracks
* Editorial
* The Guardian, Saturday 2 January 2010
As the old year ended, China launched the fastest train service in the world. As the new one begins, Britain gets a chance to catch up. The government, belatedly, wants to build a north-south fast line. Over Christmas the High Speed Two company presented Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, with detailed plans for the first section. But 250 mph trains dashing between big cities remain just a computer-modelled fantasy. If they are ever to run, this is the moment Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives must agree common terms and make it a shared national project – before the costly, argumentative and muddy part of the project gets under way.
A new line is not a project for this government, and not only for the next one. Its construction will outlast several parliaments and prime ministers. Paradoxically, that is why delay or division now could derail the project. If the current impetus is not used to the full, opposition will grow. Some will worry about the cost, others about the disruptive effects of slicing a line through the countryside from London to Scotland. The railway might end up as one of those good ideas which almost everyone wanted but which, in Britain, turned out to be too hard to do.
No one doubts the opposition's enthusiasm – the Tories backed the principle of a new line a year ago, before the government, and George Osborne singled out high-speed rail for support in an interview recently. The test will be whether the party pushes ahead quickly if it wins the election. It makes sense for the Tories to let Labour do the heavy lifting and win a shared mandate for a specific new route on polling day. Planning is advanced. The government will issue a white paper in March which could become, by the autumn, a detailed hybrid bill to gain permission for the route. (The bill, announced last month, intentionally keeps the project clear of the new Infrastructure Planning Commission, which the Tories oppose.) But even on this timetable, passing the law will take at least three years, followed by financing. Construction is unlikely to start until 2017, with trains running in 2025.
Any hesitation after the election – perhaps to map out an alternative route, as the Tories say they may do – would push the project into the parliament after next. What the project needs is a heavyweight champion to keep it on track. The shadow transport minister, Theresa Villiers, lacks clout. This is the moment for the Tories to appoint someone who believes in great national projects and has a record of making them happen quickly. So step forward, Lord Heseltine. Britain's transport revolution could be your lasting monument.
UK High-speed rail: Time to make tracks
Moderator: John Ashworth
-
John Ashworth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23606
- Joined: 24 Jan 2007, 14:38
- Location: Nairobi, Kenya
- Contact:
-
John Ashworth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23606
- Joined: 24 Jan 2007, 14:38
- Location: Nairobi, Kenya
- Contact:
Re: UK High-speed rail: Time to make tracks
Let's steam ahead with high-speed rail for all our major cities
* The Guardian, Monday 4 January 2010
A cross-party commitment to the development of high-speed rail will certainly be required for such a long-term and costly project to succeed (Editorial, 2 January). However, a clear shared vision of precisely what the project should set out to achieve will be equally important. Too often, the debate seems to be solely about how cities in the north can be better linked with London, as if this is all those cities want or need. This narrow London-centric approach ignores the fact that the rest of Europe has for years been busily and successfully developing an integrated high-speed network linking major cities, not just capitals. The economies of the regions thus served have flourished accordingly.
London, of course, can already access this network directly via Eurostar, but the rest of the country cannot, nor can the rest of Europe access the rest of Britain directly – conveniently profitable though this undoubtedly is for London's taxis, restaurants and hotels.
The original plan was that the cross-channel service would extend to the north and Scotland, with some services bypassing London (sleeper trains were even built for the purpose). But once the link reached London, the government reneged on its commitment to the rest of the country. We have all thus paid for a high-speed link to Europe which directly benefits London alone. If any new high-speed network does not rectify this betrayal and integrate the regions directly into the wider European network, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will have been squandered, and the unhealthy economic imbalance between London and the rest of the country will continue.
Chris Haslam
Threshfield, North Yorkshire
• I found your editorial rather depressing. It is a poor reflection on our decision-making processes if construction on the proposed high-speed rail network is not expected to start until 2017 and that trains will not run until 2025. It sound like the slow progress of the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link all over again.
Surely things can be speeded up. True that laying track cannot begin until approvals have been achieved. But in parallel the trains could be built and operated on existing lines, to gain practical experience, and if temporary links were made between the new system and existing lines, then the new lines could be brought into operation progressively, and at full speed, as sections are completed.
John Chubb
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
* The Guardian, Monday 4 January 2010
A cross-party commitment to the development of high-speed rail will certainly be required for such a long-term and costly project to succeed (Editorial, 2 January). However, a clear shared vision of precisely what the project should set out to achieve will be equally important. Too often, the debate seems to be solely about how cities in the north can be better linked with London, as if this is all those cities want or need. This narrow London-centric approach ignores the fact that the rest of Europe has for years been busily and successfully developing an integrated high-speed network linking major cities, not just capitals. The economies of the regions thus served have flourished accordingly.
London, of course, can already access this network directly via Eurostar, but the rest of the country cannot, nor can the rest of Europe access the rest of Britain directly – conveniently profitable though this undoubtedly is for London's taxis, restaurants and hotels.
The original plan was that the cross-channel service would extend to the north and Scotland, with some services bypassing London (sleeper trains were even built for the purpose). But once the link reached London, the government reneged on its commitment to the rest of the country. We have all thus paid for a high-speed link to Europe which directly benefits London alone. If any new high-speed network does not rectify this betrayal and integrate the regions directly into the wider European network, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity will have been squandered, and the unhealthy economic imbalance between London and the rest of the country will continue.
Chris Haslam
Threshfield, North Yorkshire
• I found your editorial rather depressing. It is a poor reflection on our decision-making processes if construction on the proposed high-speed rail network is not expected to start until 2017 and that trains will not run until 2025. It sound like the slow progress of the Channel tunnel high-speed rail link all over again.
Surely things can be speeded up. True that laying track cannot begin until approvals have been achieved. But in parallel the trains could be built and operated on existing lines, to gain practical experience, and if temporary links were made between the new system and existing lines, then the new lines could be brought into operation progressively, and at full speed, as sections are completed.
John Chubb
Cheltenham, Gloucestershire
-
John Ashworth
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23606
- Joined: 24 Jan 2007, 14:38
- Location: Nairobi, Kenya
- Contact:
Re: UK High-speed rail: Time to make tracks
Britain needs high-speed lines, not Victorian-era railways
Building a new network is cheaper and less disruptive than upgrading the existing track, says Mark Bostock
o Mark Bostock
o The Guardian, Tuesday 19 January 2010
By focusing on the perceived mismanagement of today's rail system, Simon Jenkins blinds himself to the opportunities presented by high-speed rail (High-speed rail will bleed us all for a few rich travellers, 6 January).
History proves that connectivity drives economic prosperity. Yes, gargantuan projects "cost a lifetime of money", while privatisation and over-regulation have left railways "wildly expensive to build and run". The danger is that the difficulty of moving around our congested little island may push us into a spiral of economic decline.
"Upgrading the existing track, eliminating bottlenecks and improving reliability" is not a better option. Consider the west coast mainline upgrade. Its eventual cost of almost £9bn dwarfs its benefits. The Department for Transport agrees, stating in a 2007 report: "The disadvantages of undertaking major new construction work alongside a working railway outweigh the advantages."
This argument was central to my company Arup's successful lobbying of government in the early 1990s, resulting in the selection of our route for the Channel tunnel rail link. Building a new railway is actually cheaper and less disruptive than fiddling with the existing network – though it requires an un-British, strategic view of national spatial and economic planning.
France exemplifies the potential success. Despite labour market inflexibility, hourly productivity in France stands at $54, compared to $45 in the UK, which is recognised as largely due to its excellent infrastructure. Do we really want, as Jenkins suggests, an economy reliant on Victorian railways – often built on the cheap? He calls Crossrail a "disaster that would eat money, time and effort". This remains to be seen, but it cannot be compared with high-speed rail. Arup and partners delivered the Channel tunnel link on time and within budget.
Jenkins demands "independent rather than interest-dominated analysis". The British Chambers of Commerce and CBI unanimously back the idea of a national high-speed network; and elected bodies nationally are now Âadding their support.
And if Jenkins believes the "comparison of high-speed trains to competitive air travel is fantasy", he should visit Spain, where travel between Madrid and Barcelona has been transformed. Within a year, as your website reported, trains stole 46% of the market from "fuel-Âguzzling, carbon-emitting aircraft".
If Britain does not have "the long distances and dispersed destinations of France or Spain", we should tell the Glaswegians. A trip from their home city to London is a comparable distance to Paris to Marseille.
And "cars, coaches and jets are today's low cost, mass market transport"? Perhaps – but the reality of worsening road congestion and accelerating climate change will force us to change.
The biggest danger to delivering the high-speed network is not funding but cynicism. We need confidence to get this major investment right, giving the next generation the benefit of a rail Ânetwork we do not currently enjoy.
Building a new network is cheaper and less disruptive than upgrading the existing track, says Mark Bostock
o Mark Bostock
o The Guardian, Tuesday 19 January 2010
By focusing on the perceived mismanagement of today's rail system, Simon Jenkins blinds himself to the opportunities presented by high-speed rail (High-speed rail will bleed us all for a few rich travellers, 6 January).
History proves that connectivity drives economic prosperity. Yes, gargantuan projects "cost a lifetime of money", while privatisation and over-regulation have left railways "wildly expensive to build and run". The danger is that the difficulty of moving around our congested little island may push us into a spiral of economic decline.
"Upgrading the existing track, eliminating bottlenecks and improving reliability" is not a better option. Consider the west coast mainline upgrade. Its eventual cost of almost £9bn dwarfs its benefits. The Department for Transport agrees, stating in a 2007 report: "The disadvantages of undertaking major new construction work alongside a working railway outweigh the advantages."
This argument was central to my company Arup's successful lobbying of government in the early 1990s, resulting in the selection of our route for the Channel tunnel rail link. Building a new railway is actually cheaper and less disruptive than fiddling with the existing network – though it requires an un-British, strategic view of national spatial and economic planning.
France exemplifies the potential success. Despite labour market inflexibility, hourly productivity in France stands at $54, compared to $45 in the UK, which is recognised as largely due to its excellent infrastructure. Do we really want, as Jenkins suggests, an economy reliant on Victorian railways – often built on the cheap? He calls Crossrail a "disaster that would eat money, time and effort". This remains to be seen, but it cannot be compared with high-speed rail. Arup and partners delivered the Channel tunnel link on time and within budget.
Jenkins demands "independent rather than interest-dominated analysis". The British Chambers of Commerce and CBI unanimously back the idea of a national high-speed network; and elected bodies nationally are now Âadding their support.
And if Jenkins believes the "comparison of high-speed trains to competitive air travel is fantasy", he should visit Spain, where travel between Madrid and Barcelona has been transformed. Within a year, as your website reported, trains stole 46% of the market from "fuel-Âguzzling, carbon-emitting aircraft".
If Britain does not have "the long distances and dispersed destinations of France or Spain", we should tell the Glaswegians. A trip from their home city to London is a comparable distance to Paris to Marseille.
And "cars, coaches and jets are today's low cost, mass market transport"? Perhaps – but the reality of worsening road congestion and accelerating climate change will force us to change.
The biggest danger to delivering the high-speed network is not funding but cynicism. We need confidence to get this major investment right, giving the next generation the benefit of a rail Ânetwork we do not currently enjoy.
Re: UK High-speed rail: Time to make tracks
London to Newcastle now is about three hours which compares well in my opinion to getting the plane. Which when you take into account getting on the plane security baggage checks is not much quicker.
Just how fast do we want or need to get from A to B? What we need to be doing is forgetting about all these graduate schemes and addressing the live issue which is capacity. For a start we should be extending platforms and adding cars to the existing long distance services. Then grasp the real tricky nettle which would be bi level cars, for the commuter services, tunnel heights bridges lowering track beds now that’s a challenge.
Of course the other issue would be getting a ticket at a price you can afford so you can catch a train tomorrow not need to be a clairvoyant to work out when you need to travel to afford it.
Just how fast do we want or need to get from A to B? What we need to be doing is forgetting about all these graduate schemes and addressing the live issue which is capacity. For a start we should be extending platforms and adding cars to the existing long distance services. Then grasp the real tricky nettle which would be bi level cars, for the commuter services, tunnel heights bridges lowering track beds now that’s a challenge.
Of course the other issue would be getting a ticket at a price you can afford so you can catch a train tomorrow not need to be a clairvoyant to work out when you need to travel to afford it.