Photo by Irargerich
I was quite shocked this morning to discover that during their party conference at the weekend, the Green Party of England & Wales has voted to oppose plans for High Speed 2 (HS2), the proposed new high-speed rail line between London and Birmingham.
I joined an intercity rail company in 1997, just months after privatisation. Since then, I’ve seen many grandiose schemes come and go with varying degrees of enthusiasm. From relatively small-scale plans to electrify the Edinburgh to Glasgow route, to fanciful notions of tunnelling between Ireland and Wales, most of them come up against the reality of economics.
One dream has remained throughout most of the last 30 years - a proper high-speed network serving Britain’s cities. The West Coast and East Coast Main Lines are not that solution. The WCML is far too hilly and bendy - Network Rail and in their previous incarnation, Railtrack, have both failed in an attempt to provide a track fit for Virgin’s Pendolino trains to run at 140mph for the journey from Glasgow to London. As for the ECML, straight lines mean that 125mph is common but there are pinch-points that regularly see intercity trains compete with regional trains compete with freight trains for the same piece of track. Both routes are close to capacity, indeed creaking at the seams.
What is needed is a dedicated high-speed line that runs through the spine of the country. HS2 will be the start of this process, so it’s disappointing to see the GPEW claim that they remain dedicated to high speed rail, just not this project.
While I agree that it has flaws - I think if it was ever realistically to reach Scotland then they would have built it from the north southwards to guarantee that - to see the Greens turn their back on the only game in town, and likely to be the only game for a long time to come, is quite annoying.
They cite economic reasons. I’ve never seen a consultant’s report about the railways that was proved accurate yet. Every single new scheme that has come to fruition has vastly underestimated how much the public will use the railways. The last one I saw, for the brand new Laurencekirk station in Aberdeenshire, estimated only 36,000 passengers a year would use it. In fact, 64,000 people used it in it’s first year. Many of those first franchises after privatisation were overwhelmed by the increase in passenger numbers when they bought new trains - close to 50% in some cases. The government are estimating another 40% rise in rail passengers by 2050, although I bet that’s surpassed quite quickly.
As for environmental factors, electric trains are more silent than diesel of course, and you can mitigate the impact on the countryside by having the tracks placed in cuttings in sensitive areas - although anecdotally, I’ve talked to people who choose to go day trips to places they’ve never considered before after seeing them from a train window.
The big plus for the environment, of course, is the reduction in plane and car travel associated with high-speed rail. In Spain, airlines had a 90% market share for the Madrid to Barcelona route until the new railway line opened. Today, it’s less than half that and falling.
The more we extend HS2 north of Birmingham, the greater the environmental benefits. In 2004, rail had a 38% share of the Manchester to London air/rail market. Today, it’s over 70%.
But we can’t extend something that’s not there in the first place, and we can no longer just “make do and mend” with our existing railway. Like I’ve previously said, HS2 is not perfect and I have my differences with some of it, but I can’t see wholesale changes being made to the plans after the consultation.

4 comments:
"I despair" I think that sums up my feelings too.
I really can't understand why people can't/won't see how HS2 can be green. Epsecialy when the only alternatives are more runways which equals more planes and wider motorways encouraging more car journeys.
Yes HS2 trains will emit slightly more Co2 per passanger km than a pendolino but a plane emits much more than any high speed train will ever do.
HS2 will be a single 2 track line which will be no wider than HS1 (22m) and will be hidden behind trees, cuttings and in tunnels. Now if you consider a motorway widening scheme have you ever seen anything more destructive and ugly? I think not.
People don't seem to be grasping the full picture with critics hiding behind basic GCSE maths regarding speed to hide the real benefits of HS2 which are reduction in car and air journeys with a transference of freight from out busy motorways onto a freed up WCML.
Please see
caseforhs2.yestohs2.co.uk
It is scary that people are slow to realize teh damage we are doing to our planet. The reasons I am against HS2 are:-
1/. The traffic forecasts are too large. New energy saving teleworking technology is coming online enabling more than 30% of the population to work from their well insulated homes.
2/. The proposed route goes through areas of land that are kept for the national interest including The Chilterns and later (as the line heads North) the Peak District.
The Green Party is right to question the HS2 project.
Chris, the line has to go somewhere, but once built is far less destructive than a motorway (or indeed an airport!). Wildlife happily lives alongside existing railway lines, HS2 should be no different.
As for teleconferencing and teleworking, we've been hearing these predictions since the 80s. It's yet to happen, and I don't think it ever will to any great extent.
Please do read the Green's briefing note - the intended speed is one of the key reasons HS2 is not sustainable. You can see Hammond's letter here confirming it should be carbon neutral http://stophs2.org/news/1350-response-ph-letter-mps. Both he and HS2 Ltd clearly state this.
Yes to HS2's comments seem to indicate he knows more about the construction of the line than HS2 Ltd's own engineers! Please do research the reasons behind the Green Party's decision. It was the right decision that's why it was finally voted through after long discussion. I was there - I know.
Post a Comment