On Friday, over a very enjoyable lunch, I had an illuminating conversation with a professional railway operator on the subject of HS2. I admitted that I failed to understand why the railway companies were so keen on HS2 when it was so costly, so distant in timescale, and seemed to me to offer so few tangible benefits.
Very kindly, he explained that the core of the railway's enthusiasm for HS2 was the fact that it provided an answer to the current and projected WCML congestion south of Rugby. There was, he avowed, no other way forward. Pressing him further, he seemed to suggest that the railways were still scarred by the WCML Route Modernisations of the 1960s and 70s and by the WCML Upgrade of the 'Noughties' and that noone wanted to go through that again. Finally, he suggested that Birmingham was an irrelevance as a destination and that the prize was capacity relief not end-to-end journey times.
Whilst the above reasons for HS2 (which are my interpretations of the conversation) are no doubt valid they still do not answer my key objections...
1) Why are we planning for 2026 using 2010 assumptions about growth in railway traffic when technological, especially communication, developments are now happening at such a pace that we can't foresee how then worlds of work and leisure will look in 2026.
2) Why are we assuming that these same technological and communication developments won't increase line capacity dramatically through better signalling control, route planning, and rolling stock capabilities
3) Why are billions to be spent when millions will bring immediate capacity enhancements at key pinch points on the WCML and on the alternative freight and passenger routes (Chiltern Mainline showing the way here).
4) Why the stubborn belief that the extra speed will benefit Birmingham rather than suck yet more jobs down to London as Birmingham becomes a dormitory city for the capital.
Sorry, HS2 seems to me to be simply one of those grandiose schemes dreamt up and supported by those who know that they won't have to pick up the bill as they will have all retired by 2026!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You ask questions, you get answers :-)
ReplyDelete1) You may or may not be aware that Network Rail did a long-range intercity traffic growth forecast, looking at four very different scenarios for the future of the country, and the resulting demand for inter-city rail travel. The four sceanrios produced different outcomes, and these were used to create lowr and upepr bounds for demand.
You point out that we can't know what the world will look at 2026... correct, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and predict as best we can. Otherwise, we'd never do anything for the future, because we can't know exactly what will happen.
2) With any railway line, the number of trains per hour is dictated by the minimum time between trains. That in turn is dictated by the minimum time for a set of points to change position and be detected as being in the right position, plus an allowance so you can stop a train in time if the points fail mid-change. The allowance is in turn dictated by the line speed and maximum possible decceleration. The latter is limited by the co-efficient of friction of steel wheels on steel track.
No matter what signalling technology you use, you cannot stop a train any faster than friction allows.
Of coure, you can also have longer trains (hence Virgin's desire to lengthen the Penolinos to 12 cars), but that appoarches a limit due to space for platforms at key stations.
3) Those capacity enhancements in the WCML will only bring so much additional capacity. (see (1)). Chiltern is a longer route, and so will always take longer than the WCML for B'ham-London trips.
4) Sure, improving B'ham-London journey times will increase the number of B'ham-London commuters. So? It means if you have to work in London, then at least you can live somewhere cheaper. However, the better journey times will also increase the chance of companies choosing B'ham over London.