Paul Kehoe
I first visited Birmingham over thirty years ago, and at the time it shared the facets of many great Industrial cities with industry in decline, the financial services revolution still a glimmer in Maggie Thatcher's eye, and the oft-heralded 'White Heat of technology' had become a dull grey.
However, it did have a first-rate InterCity service to London - and for many years there was a huge sign at Curzon Street proclaiming 'Birmingham to London in just 89 minutes'.
The completion of the Midlands 'Motorway box' meant that Birmingham had a Motorway Ring before both London and Manchester. Greater connectivity, and a central location, drove the renaissance of not just the Second City, but the wider West Midlands region. Connectivity is the key to Business.
With the National Exhibition Centre came new transport links and in 1976, a new station - in the form of Birmingham International. As a destination it was 'state of the art' - and, linked with a 15-minute frequency of InterCity services to London, the 1978 Motor Show at the NEC truly showed that the Midlands meant business.
Then, in 1984, the new Birmingham International Airport was opened, with a direct 'Maglev' link to International Station.
There was a new confidence. Birmingham lured the D'oyly Carte from London, and a stream of redevelopment (including the International Convention Centre, Symphony Hall, Brindley Place, The Bull Ring and much more). This has not abated since the 1980s, and today people of Birmingham and the wider region celebrate renewal and innovation.
We have to evolve and welcome the World - and make it easy for the World to reach us - and we have made some big leaps forward. But it has to be recognised that what was good in the 1960s and tolerable in the 1970s is not good enough in the 21st Century.
Birmingham International is now a tired Parkway for travel towards London, rather than the exciting gateway to the Midlands that it once was. Journey times from Birmingham to London are just 5 minutes faster than they were in the 1970s - despite the introduction of 125mph running on the route, 33 years after it was pioneered between Paddington and Bristol.
There will be those techie-types who point to the clever technology needed to operate at 125mph on the London-Birmingham railway - but they miss the point. Customers are not interested in hardware, but in the journey time and customer service. Despite the fanfare of new trains, and some very well-meaning and innovative people, Birmingham to London has been relegated to the second division as far as high speed rail travel is concerned. This is because there is an ultimate limit to what can be achieved on existing infrastructure - and that limit appears to have been reached. It is time to look towards the next technology, and the current vision for a 250 mph High-Speed Rail line would place the Midlands 'back on the map'.
There are those who might think it odd that an Airport supports what is often portrayed as a competitive transport mode; however I take the view that all transportation modes are complimentary.
That's why I support the concept of 'Birmingham International Hub' in addition to a central Birmingham station.. Located at or very close to Birmingham International Airport, the NEC and the existing station and tyransport interchange, the 'Hub' would not only provide additional connectivity to those locations; it would also 'plug in' to the M42 corridor - acknowledged by the Regional Development Agency as a major economic driver of the region and the only significant location in the Midlands which outperforms a major national economic indicator.
It would also provide a route to additional aviation capacity in the event that the third runway at Heathrow did not go ahead (Birmingham Airport runs at less than 50% capacity and thus is a valuable resource to be exploited).
Such a stop would not preclude a route into a central Birmingham station. It is continental practice for the last few miles of high-speed routes to parallel 'classic' lines, as this often produces a cost-effective solution.
The Birmingham International Hub would provide connectivity over and above that provided in central Birmingham. For instance, North Warwickshire and Coventry would be economic beneficiaries, as well as those located around the Midlands 'Motorway Box'.
Without the 'Hub', there is a risk of long-term economic decline across one of the most successful parts of the Midlands. There is also a risk of unintended consequences. Our Airport Master Plan to 2030 envisages the creation of many thousands of jobs - both at the Airport and in the wider region. The same situation applies at the adjacent NEC. A High-speed line that runs direct from central Birmingham to Heathrow and bypasses the Airport/NEC could 'siphon off' job opportunities to the South East, and also exacerbate the volume of needless journeys to Heathrow.
A London-Birmingham High-Speed Rail Link via the Birmingham International Hub could be the single most important thing to influence the West Midlands economy since the London to Birmingham Railway arrived in Curzon Street, back in 1837. That's why we have to do it right.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
If we could four track the route from Rugby to Birmingham that would really be something, apart from the closure of metro stations & demolitions, that is.
No, I believe existing routes could be more efficient with track improvements & better rolling stock. By that I mean, improve the Chiltern (which passes through Solihull), build some more Turbostars (that are currently in service) for both the Chiltern Birmingham route & Evergreen (Oxford to London), also allow Cross Country some more Super Voyagers, or at least, more coaches for them, & run most of them direct via Solihull rather than the bottleneck that goes through the NEC. This would allow more London Midland & Virgin services to / from the capital to Birmingham.
Chiltern could run a service to Leamington, Coventry & Nuneaton providing connections there.
I'd like to say no to HS2, not because I live near it & object, just that I don't think it's needed. We should be building on the great stock we have already, like the Super Voyagers, Turbostars & Desiros. At present, the ones we have are too short, either in formation or coach length. We could fix most of the capacity problems by simply allowing Cross Country & Chiltern to have longer trains, & while I'm on the subject, where are the mainline Desiros? They have them on the south coast, London Midland should have them for the Midlands & WCML services, complimentary to the commuter Desiro which runs local services. We already have the depots & traincrew for Desiros, so why aren't we utilising what we have now, instead of dreaming about "Hybrid IEP"?
We can have "Hybrid IEP later. But first, let's stop shutting the door on perfectly good train builds when growth & demand dictates we need more.
Lastly, let's build multiple units in HALVES, not THIRDS. If it needs twelve coaches for peak, build a six coach, FFS!. Let's be more efficient & stop the silly practice of continually adding more units. Once is enough!
Lee, Midlands
The HS2 plan needs further thought. HS2 must link to the existing network somewhere in Birmingham to allow through running to important destinations such as Wolverhampton, Telford, Shrewsbury and even Worcester, as well as facilitate interchange with Birmingham's extensive local network. The Curzon Street proposal appears to do none of these. So how about using Birmingham International as an interchange point and as a junction with the existing Birmingham New Street line, with HS2 continuing to terminus at Curzon Street, and branching north to the WCML near Lichfield as planned. This would provide the extra capacity needed, and the connections for fast London services via HS2 from the other West Midalands locations listed above..
Hugh Collins, Cheltenham, England
'All transport modes are complimentary'? Oh no they're not, we have to pay for them! Complimentary means free, whilst complementary, only one letter different, but a whole world of meaning apart, denotes that two or more 'transport modes' fit well with each other, serve each other, and enable the whole to be greater than the sum of the parts.
A slip like this from somone with such power and influence really damages his credibility. Though the rest of his piece is reasonably well argued.
Michael Nunn, Lancaster, UK
Lets be clear, Birmingham is only a way-point on the route to Manchester. If high-speed lines reach Birmingham, there is a good chance of it evolving into a dormitory suburb and auxiliary services provider to the capital.
The main destination for high-speed rail in England is Greater Manchester, a city and region that has always punched above it's weight.
The idea of an integrated hub at Birmingham International sounds wonderful, but Heathrow air passengers are not going to travel to the city airport just to catch a connection flight into Europe. At the same time, it disconnects regional rail travellers from the high-speed service to London.
Lorentz, London
I agree.
The new high speed line should create new links rather than just following existing routes. Birmingham Airport has space for bigger planes and more passengers whereas Heathrow is too overcrowded. Birmingham Airport can be used as an alternative London Airport if it is linked by high speed rail. The people of Birmingham would benefit from employment opportunities at the expanded airport, and Londoners would be spared the need for a third runway at Heathrow.
Potential high speed links from Birmingham to Leeds-Newcastle-Scotland, Bristol and Manchester would create new cross-country journey opportunities and ease congestion at New Street.
Time savings on the London-Birmingham journey are outweighed by the time taken to reach one's ultimate destination in the city, because both conurbations are so large. Therefore it may be more beneficial to have a variety of routes serving different destinations (e.g. New Street, Birmingham International and Moor Street in Birmingham; Heathrow, Paddington, Euston and Stratford in London) than a single very fast route serving only one destination in each city.
A high speed line all the way to New Street would be very expensive, and greater benefit might be gained by building a metro line between New Street and Birmingham International.
Anoop, Harrow