This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
LETTERS


justified. Greengauge 21, HS2 Limited, and the Network Rail New Lines Programme all ignored it. What value can a cost-benefit analysis have if it doesn’t even bother to look at this option?


From: Scott McIntosh FIPM, MPWI, MA Cantab., RN (Ret)


The current HS2 proposals suffer from the usual UK fault of failing to grasp opportunities and failure to plan boldly. Of course an HS2 that only goes to Birmingham won’t deliver major benefits; the time savings are small and the congestion relief benefits mini- mised.


To reap real benefits, the line must cover journeys over 300 miles long and must offer congestion relief to both the WCML and the ECML.


Time savings on longer journeys will be significant, attracting air and rail travellers, offering the real opportunity to close down much of the intra-UK air routes - with environmental benefits and the release of slots for transoceanic flights.


The cost of the bodged WCML upgrade shows that capacity and speed increases on classic routes can only be achieved at a horren- dous price - far better to create a ‘green field’ line with links into the classic network, as is done in France and Germany.


The Taxpayers’ Alliance report shows that even anti-investment, pro-road headbangers may get it right from time to time.


The problem is that the conclu- sion to be drawn is wrong - we don’t need LESS high-speed rail in the UK - we need much MORE high-speed rail to drive modal shift and to relieve a classic rail network that will be bursting at the seams in a decade.


From: Mark Jameson


The idea is good but it is to the wrong destination in the wrong fi- nancial climate. What is needed is a fast rail link from Southampton/ Portsmouth up to Aldershot – Heathrow (which deals with strategic issues) north to Watford (which links the Midlands) then Peterborough – Darlington – Edinburgh – Aberdeen. This would stop internal flights ABD/ EDI/London – too much is on the north-west axis from London


We also need BAA to lose its fran- chise on the Heathrow link and for that to become part of London Overground or FGW – no airline tickets are done on those now.


Crossrail must go to Reading, without the turn round facility of Maidenhead, leave the Marlow branch connected and later when finances ease, extend a branch of Crossrail from Maidenhead to High Wycombe, doubling track and at the same time providing extra emergency routes for get- ting round London.


From: Mike Herbert


As a ‘railwayman’ for most of the past 30 years, having worked on major projects including CTRL and Crossrail, and as a consul- tancy rail safety manager for the past nine, I have seen UK railways decline as road expenditure and investment has taken precedence throughout this period.


The HS2 proposal is an example of our national failure to imple- ment a truly integrated public transport system. The stringent requirements surrounding safety in design, provision of facilities for the ‘mobility impaired’, and the operation and vandal-proof- ing of new rail infrastructure make it wholly unable to be done at a cost acceptable by comparison with that of new road building, without taxpayers’ support.


If all you are interested in is pay- ing less tax, then look no further than to accept the decline of Britain’s railways. The compara- tive cost of running a car against that of taking the train to work


has made the train an alternative that most people simply won’t consider, thus the figures quoted in the Taxpayers’ Alliance report (i.e. 70% of the population want- ing potholes fixed compared to just 8% wanting high-speed rail) come as no surprise to anyone associated with the transport in- dustry. What needs challenging is the grotesquely uneven play- ing field that exists and ultimately drives people to think short-term like this.


Unless governments start to do substantially more than pay lip- service to environmental and health considerations, the decline in railways is going to spiral, with the exception of London com- muter routes. These though have a captive audience and are now a disgrace as we have to tolerate being herded into confined spac- es on ridiculously overcrowded trains whilst fares are constantly now rising well above inflation.


The train builders are now even designing trains to accommo- date more standing room at the expense of seating, for example on the new London Overground stock. Frankly, DfT’s suggestion that this is a “once-in-a-gen- eration opportunity to reshape Britain’s economic geography” lacks substance without far more government support for public transport. When you account for fewer people needing to travel as more and more are able to work from home given technological advances, how will a railway from the West Midlands to London re- shape Britain’s economic geog- raphy?


This also raises doubts about the accuracy of ATOC’s claim that ‘Demand for rail travel is ex- pected to double in the coming decades’.


TELL US WHAT YOU THINK opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com


rail technology magazine Feb/Mar 11 | 17


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112