Re: Why Britain doesn't need High Speed Rail
- From: "Gizmo." <admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 23:56:17 +0100
"Chickeneer" <chickeneer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:74d5133a-e714-4127-98b8-b80465f60720@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"High Speed 2" has been suggested as the magic bullet to solve
congestion at airports and to bridge the North-South divide. Some
people think that copying countries like Japan and France will "propel
our rail system into the 21st century". But what works well in France
may not work well in Britain.
High speed rail can certainly have great benefits if built in the
right place, but Britain's geography isn't well-suited for it. In
particular:
1. In the UK, major cities are only about 50-150 km apart. By the time
a train reaches its maximum speed of 350 km/h it has to start slowing
down again, otherwise it will just race past its destination. A 350 km/
h train might be ideal for routes like Paris-Lyon (400km) or Madrid-
Barcelona (600km), but for London-Birmingham or Birmingham-Manchester
it's not necessary. A 250 km/h train would only be a few minutes
slower, and existing lines can be upgraded to 250 km/h at a much lower
cost. The only route that may be worth 350 km/h is London-Edinburgh,
but ridership would be too low to warrant the investment.
2. High speed rail lines need to be built extremely straight, to limit
centrifugal forces in curves. In France and Spain this is relatively
easy to do because there are plateaus, wide and straight river
valleys, and large floodplains. In Britain, the geography is dominated
by rolling hills, which would mean a large amount of cuttings, tunnels
and bridges, and an investment per km several times higher. High speed
rail has had only limited success in hilly Germany for the same
reason.
3. Britain has a high population density overall, and the countryside
is very built-up in the South. Any new corridor would require a large
number of compulsory purchases, adding even more costs and causing a
large amount of disruption.
Instead of building High Speed 2, it would be a much better idea to
upgrade the existing network. Much of it could be widened to allow
double-decker trains, for instance, which would also solve the
overcrowding problem. Connecting Heathrow to the West Coast Mainline
would take most passengers away from planes, even if trains "only" ran
at 250 km/h. What is your opinion?
Question:
Who exactly is going to pay for all this wonderful new infrastructure ?
.
- References:
- Why Britain doesn't need High Speed Rail
- From: Chickeneer
- Why Britain doesn't need High Speed Rail
- Prev by Date: Re: How to solve the congestion problem without spending billions and taxing the motorist
- Next by Date: Re: How to solve the congestion problem without spending billions and taxing the motorist
- Previous by thread: Why Britain doesn't need High Speed Rail
- Next by thread: Re: Why Britain doesn't need High Speed Rail
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
