Posted 22nd July 2011 | 4 Comments
Engineers back plans for High Speed lines in Britain
The ICE is concerned how the London Underground would deal with an additional 80,000 passengers a day using the new High Speed terminus at Euston
THE INSTITUTION OF CIVIL ENGINEERS has announced that it is in favour of building a High Speed rail network in Britain, saying that the HS2 project supports a 'more structured transport strategy'. But it has warned that the business case needs to be kept under review.
The ICE has been evaluating the government's proposals for a line between London and Birmingham, which would then be continued on two corridors to Manchester and Leeds. The Leeds route would also serve the East Midlands and South Yorkshire.
Its report concludes that building the new lines would release capacity on the existing rail network, parts of which are becoming overloaded, and also regenerate the economies of city regions outside London.
Steven Hayter, who chairs the ICE's High Speed Rail working group, said: “The opportunity should be taken to invest in growth by providing a new railway that is fit for the 21st century – significantly increasing capacity, strengthening connectivity between Britain’s city-regions and linking up with the Trans-European rail network. The time to invest is now, and we endorse the Government’s strategy."
He added: “Faster, more reliable connections to London could propel a city-region’s economic competitiveness and act as a catalyst for regeneration as city developers, planners and businesses alike take advantage of the opportunities – especially in the Midlands, the North and Scotland.
“But we believe the benefits are not limited to those cities served by HS2. Many will benefit from released capacity and significantly improved services on the existing lines, such as communities that are currently not well served by the West Coast Main Line. Those not directly served by HS2 will also benefit from reduced journey times providing their nearest HS2 station is easily accessible by road or public transport. The key to growth is in the regions’ hands – they are best placed to devise how to use this infrastructural asset to their advantage and ensure economic development is evenly spread.”
He stressed that the business case must continue to be reviewed as the proposals develop. Additionally he is urging the government to make sure that national benefits are realised, by committing itself to the full route extending to Leeds and Manchester, and also by giving serious consideration to future extensions.
One issue raised by the ICE is the planning of interchanges, and it is particularly concerned how the London Underground would deal with an additional 80,000 passengers a day using the new High Speed terminus at Euston. It is also urging the government to realise the maximum environmental benefits, by making sure that more electricity is generated from low carbon sources in future.
Reader Comments:
Views expressed in submitted comments are that of the author, and not necessarily shared by Railnews.
Peter Davidson, Alderley Edge, NW.England
@Tony Pearce, Reading, UK: "More tunnels. lower speeds, more stations and possibly a route alongside the M40 and I might start to be convinced."
Have you thought this one through Tony?
Firstly what do you mean by "lower speeds"? Do you mean trains travelling at lower speeds than the headline figure always quoted in the media, ie. 250mph or do you mean a lower speed design of the line? If it's the former, no problem because the trains will only travel (for the duration of the first generation of technology currently available, so at least first fifteen years?) between 320-350km/h (200-218mph). However you probably mean running speeds below 200mph, both in terms of trainset technology and engineering design of the line?
Secondly using a route next to the M40 will actually result in more homes being blighted, demolition of more property (residential and commercial) than the currently proposed route
Thirdly, extensive use of cut and cover tunnels is already a feature of the existing route, no route through the Bucks, Oxon, Northants sub-Region can every completely avoid close proximity to some communities - perhaps the line should be in tunnel all the way from London to Birmingham but then you run into another big obstacle - COST!
Fourth, reducing running speeds significantly, say below 200mph, will reduce the theoretical capacity of the new line and capacity is the single biggest benefit flowing from HS2 - so lowering the speed will merely result in a stronger case against the line.
Finally, reduced running speeds will reduce the claimed improvements in overall journey times and impact negatively on the ability of the line to drive modal shift from car and more importantly short haul airtravel, of the cross border kind. It is this modal shift that forms a key part of the environmental case for HS2, so yet more damage to the case in favour of HS2
All in all, your plan will materially damage the prospects for HS2 (but then maybe that was your aim all along?)
Tony Pearce, Reading, UK
Who is going to make money out of HS2 ? Civil Engineers for sure !
The line is going to punch a big hole through London and Birmingham, involving the demolition of over 400 properties, homes, businesses, hostels etc.
I would be more impressed if the Civil Engineers were calling for tunnels to be created to take the line when it meets the 2 cities out-skirts.
Railways are always considered to be 'environmentally friendly'. This one is not.
More tunnels. lower speeds, more stations and possibly a route alongside the M40 and I might start to be convinced.
Watcherzero, Wigan
Existing lines = Full
WCML upgrade program demonstrates expensive failure of upgrading existing lines
Annual Construction Cost = Same as Crossrail, £2bn per annum.
Construction starts when Crossrail finishes so no overlap causing skills shortage
Simples, yes?
Robin Powell, Tamworth, UK
What a non-story! Of course ICE is going to back HS2... It would guarantee its members with 20 years of highly paid work at the taxpayer's expense. What we need is independent analysis as to whether HS2 is worth borrowing another £32 billion and carving up more of our precious countryside for. I haven't seen any convincing evidence so far.