HS1 - The “Must Have” Railway

I shall try and keep this short as I have included most of the details in other HS2 bumpf. I must put my hand aloft here and say I thought HS1 was potentially a good idea if only to provide a swift ground link between London and the European capitals.

A quick history of the “Great Success”  - High Speed 1.

HS1 cost £6 billion to build, drove its operator into effective liquidation to the tune of some £6.7billion in a matter of months, and was rescued by the taxpayers who paid £12.7 billion to cover the cost of the debacle. The leasehold rights were then sold for £2.1billion in order that running costs, maintenance and lack of customers could become a 3rd parties problem the 3rd party being a Canadian Pension consortium). This is why Mr Cameron and Mr Hammond were so keen to sell the HS2 system even before it is built!

Required information

HS2s Chief Engineer Professor Andrew McNaughton confirmed to me personally that freight would not be allowed to run on HS2 because freight traffic would damage the billiard table like track required to run high speed trains safely.

Recently, DB Schenker were proposing to run freight on High Speed 1 (South Coast to London), with the intent to remove long distance lorries from the roads of Europe and with them the pollution and road surface destruction which they represent. They now do so.

43%+ of the total rail freight in the UK uses the WCML at some point in their journeys around the UK.

Freight locomotives are geared down to haul heavy loads (50-80mph), while express locomotives are geared up to run at high speed 125-140mph. One is slow, one is fast; they are not operationally compatible as slower traffic holds up faster (ever been stuck behind a caravan, when overtaking places are limited?). .

Heavy freight trains make track-work deteriorate rapidly, as heavy lorries do our motorways and “A” roads.

HS1 now carries an increasing amount of freight (DB Schenker) regardless of track damage. Do track damage and slower high speed trains (remember the WCML) mean that the Canadian lessors have now found how few customers wish to travel and are now desperate to run anything to make money? It seems that they are prepared to accept higher maintenance and running costs, slower high speed trains and greater potential danger to the travelling public?

 

A recent letter to a young BBC researcher covers most of it so I have merely reprinted most of that letter:-

I watched “Inside Out” tonight to see what the HS2 “for” and “against” lobby’s latest theories regarding high speed trains would provide to aggravate me. I was not disappointed!

Virtually the opening titles were inaccurate. The program cited Japan, Germany etc. as the original creators of the principals of high speed travel and trains, in the first half of the 20th Century. Totally wrong, but a common misconception. The precepts of a high speed railway, (as flat as possible, as straight as possible and as stable as possible) were formulated in the England during the 1830s, by a Mr I.K.Brunel who fully appreciated the potential of a railway system in the UK. He considered that a railway-track should be flat, free from sharp curves and as stable as possible to provide maximum advantage to the concept of a railway. He decided that a 7ft rail gauge would be very stable and  provide considerable capacity for traffic both passenger and freight. He built such a railway for the Great Western Railway Co. from London to Bristol through open green-field sites. It was the fastest, safest and most easy to develop line ever built in the UK. It should have been the progenitor of the worlds rail systems.

Due to penny-pinching railway “barons” and a politically expedient decision by the UK government during the “gauge war”, during which a government committee closely examined the benefits of both rail systems and found Mr. Brunel’s to be superior in all respects, the government then adopted the 4ft 8¹/₂” (wagon-way) system as the UK

standard. Brunel had realised the real potential of a railway system, while others did not consider what a railway could potentially be, but merely sought to build a steam extension of their horse drawn wagon-ways. These wagon-ways are still with us and the rest of the world. We do not have railways, only highly developed horse-drawn wagon systems.

The Victorian railways, praised in the program, were merely the best of a bad job. We could have had a “high speed railway” system in the 1860s, it then being built largely through open country, however, construction of such a system through today’s crowded infrastructure is ludicrously expensive (even by European standards), most invasive, and subject to so many compromises in its route and potential destinations (high speed trains are only best as city centre to city centre projects) that it “isolates” itself from the travelling public, as the British do not like changing trains or having to hike from station to station to achieve a destination, it therefore loses what small advantage it has in speed. The UK missed the “high speed” boat in the 1830 -1860 period, when it could and should have been built. The comparatively limited disruption which would then have been caused would have been acceptable, while the benefits huge and future development potential enormous. Our politicians are, as usual, trying to “shut the door after the horse has bolted”.

During the transmission, the “for” case merely repeated the party line of hoped for figures on employment and financial benefits and train overcrowding on all lines, which, allegedly, can be cured by HS2. A statement suggesting that HS1 had had some minor problems initially, but was now doing a grand job as a high speed railway was supported by a passenger (whether or not he used HS1 was not advised) who did not appear to be aware of the current situation on HS1, when it seems logical that HS1 could well again be in financial difficultly and is having to run freight trains to keep its head above water.

HS2 is to allow a considerable increase in freight traffic on the WCML, which is already struggling for space on that line and now turning HS1 into a general purpose railway and which traffic will potentially increase considerably courtesy of the Channel Tunnel and Schenker freight. I was greatly depressed when the spokesman for Jaguar announced that he supported HS2 as it would be good for his business; how! Of all people, he will need to move his product and components; more freight HS2 cannot carry. Is he aware that more freight on the WCML will require more short distance expresses to be cancelled? Is he hoping skilled workers for his expanding company will commute from the North on HS2, at considerable expense?

 

The “against” case was no better. They continued to play the environmental card and harped on the cost of the line, neither is relevant except for the sheer amount and continuing cost of scarce energy which will be consumed by these trains, something which in no way fits the proposals for a “low carbon economy”, while the potential sound foot-print will impinge on the lives of many thousands. I could go on, but I wont; I despair.

We need to spend billions in the UK to boost the economy, the railways should provide the best return in both future use, as fossil fuels expire and the ability to move product quickly when lorry freight becomes even more undesirable and unsustainable. We need greater track mileage and capacity but not in such a limited system as high speed rail.

 

Which ever side wins the argument it will be in a negative result for the UK’s future. Can the BBC do anything to get a sound and logical message across?

 

I support the “against” campaign because I can at least then fight for the proposed expenditure to be made on a rail system which will be of most benefit.

MPT