Morning:
6°c
200mph link to North will make 2.8m switch from air, say rail chiefs
Ross Lydall26 Aug 2009
Plans for a 200mph railway that would cut the journey time between London and Manchester to little over an hour were unveiled today.
Proposals from Network Rail backed the construction of a £34 billion high-speed twin-track route from the capital via Birmingham and Manchester to Glasgow and Edinburgh.
However, there were no details of who would build the line, how it would be funded, how it would link in with Crossrail — and other services from central London to Heathrow — or where the new London terminus would be constructed.
The new line — which is unlikely to open until 2024 at the earliest — would not allow services to continue on to the new Channel Tunnel line and into the Continent. Nor would it serve Leeds, which Network Rail believes should have its own high-speed link with the capital.
Today's announcement is likely to influence a separate report commissioned by Transport Secretary Lord Adonis into his wish to build “High Speed Two” — the second high-speed line, after the Channel Tunnel rail link was renamed High Speed One. The High Speed Two report is due by the end of the year.
Network Rail, which is responsible for rail infrastructure, said it was essential to plan for a near doubling of train passengers over the next 30 years. Numbers are expected to rise from 1.3 billion a year to about 2.5 billion.
Iain Coucher, Network Rail's chief executive, said there was a “capacity crisis” looming on the West Coast Main Line, which was expected to be full by 2020, even though a recent upgrade added 30 per cent more capacity.
By 2030, this could add an extra 9,100 seats an hour on trains arriving at Euston — doubling the number at present. This was the equivalent of 113 domestic flights.
Mr Coucher said: “If we don't provide a rail solution, what is the alternative? The [wrong] answer is to get more and more people on to roads.”
He said there was “not a business case” for running all trains via Heathrow, as this would add a 15-minute delay for most passengers heading into central London. Instead, he proposed a “spur” branch line to the airport.
He said a high-speed line would convince 2.8 million passengers a year to switch from planes. Rail journeys between London and Manchester would be cut from two hours seven minutes to one hour six minutes, Birmingham would be 46 minutes from London, and Glasgow could be reached in two hours 16 minutes.
Lord Adonis said: “This report makes a powerful case for high-speed rail in Britain.” Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Norman Baker said: “All three major parties now say they are committed to high-speed rail, but such promises need to be taken with a pinch of salt unless it is clear how they are to be funded.”
Reader views (11)
We cant afford any more rail transport subsidy follies. Labour broke the bank to pay for it all.
- Dave Davies, Basingstoke, Hants, 26/08/2009 20:52
Report abuse
Bob- why take the train if flying is cheaper? Because even today it's faster, city centre to city centre. It's also more relaxing, and you are in an environment where you can get some work done while you travel. That's if - a very big if - nothing breaks down.
With a new reliable high speed line it would become no contest. The train would be hours faster, and also much more pleasant. Well worth a few tenners more.
How many airlines still fly London to Paris or London to Brussels? Eurostar put most of them out of business on those routes, even while it still had to go slow through South London to Waterloo, and even though it can't go over 80mph in the chunnel itself.
- Nigel, London, 26/08/2009 18:05
Report abuse
2024? By the time the line opens, it would be 20 years behind, and will need weekend closures to upgrade the line.
- Ed, London, 26/08/2009 17:51
Report abuse
I notice they don't mention the prices involved, currently flying is about £60 at peak times compared to £200 on the train, remind me why I should take the train again?
- Bob, Cheam, 26/08/2009 16:51
Report abuse
This line should be built as a matter of urgency. I don't understand why we have to wait until 2030 for the line, it's now 2009, surely if we really wanted to we could have this thing up and running by 2015. Show the world that the UK still has what it takes. We are decades behind France, Japan, Germany, China, Korea, Taiwan, Italy and Spain in terms of high speed rail. Pull the finger out and get it done.
We can easily afford this, just cancel some pointless aircraft carrier and nuclear missiles (like anyone is seriously going to invade the UK and of what use is a muclear missile against a terrorist?)
- Sam, London, 26/08/2009 16:18
Report abuse
....people use the airlines because its cheaper...not quicker.
This new line will flop if it is still more than flying.
- Clive, london, 26/08/2009 16:06
Report abuse
It'll take ten years from the decision to do the planning, public enquiries, compulsory purchases, etc. If the scheme hasn't been abandoned or postponed by then, it'll take another five to actually build it.
Most probably, towards the end of the planning stage, a government will decide that we can't afford to build it. Five years later, the next government will change that decision ... but they'll then have to start ten years of planning all over again.
Crossrail and Thameslink 2000 went through this cycle two or three times, before any construction actually started. Some are still talking about cancelling Crossrail, even though they've started on he buildings.
You have to hand it to the French and other continentals. Once they have decided on a high speed rail line, they don't muck around!
- Nigel, London, 26/08/2009 14:42
Report abuse
Can´t imagine anybody wanting to get to London or Manchester at high speed. The slower, the better, I´d have thought, me.
- Graham Rodhouse, Helmond, Netherlands, 26/08/2009 14:13
Report abuse
Are the high speed links going to connect with major airports like Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton? It is no good providing links only from city centre to city centre.
- Dannyp, Egham, 26/08/2009 13:33
Report abuse
Madchester to London I can understand...but the other way round? Why?
- Peace Maker, Battersea, 26/08/2009 13:19
Report abuse
Is it only me that remembers this being announced at least twice in the past 12 months?
When are Network Rail going to actually get their shovels out and start laying some tracks, instead of just telling us what they would like to do and how important it is?
Of course we need a high-speed rail network. If Labour had done what they said they would in 1997, we would have a TGV-rivalling network already. But they squandered our money on civil servants, pensions and bankers. Oh, and free porn for Jacqui Smith's other half.
- Nobby Clark, Perth, the Scottish one, 26/08/2009 12:42
Report abuse
