Dominic Hinde is a Scottish Green Party Activist and a doctoral research student at the University of Edinburgh investigating the social capital of environment from a Scandinavian perspective. He is also Convenor of the Edinburgh Young Greens and a freelance journalist writing about the Nordic countries.
As you may have noticed, the respective governments in Edinburgh and London are not the best of friends. What with the SNP pushing the paradox of a simultaneously low and high carbon economy as magic bullet for our problems and the Westminster government struggling to understand how the economy works in the first place, the time might seem wrong for a sound piece of mutual common sense investment. Yet the royal wedding which would unite the two warring kingdoms is right under their noses – high speed rail.
Nothing says unity like a railway line, just look at China which is building high speed rail lines faster than anyone ever has before. If you glance through European Union literature on the continent’s economic infrastructure high speed trains are everywhere. Everywhere except Britain that is.
There is a pressing need to expand Britain’s general rail network already. Successive governments have boasted about how more people now use rail than at any time since the Second World War, which sounds inspiring until you realise that Britain’s population then was less than half of what it is today. Rail fares are extortionate for anybody who does not have the prescience to book a journey six months in advance, and many people choose to fly on the core routes from Glasgow and Edinburgh to any one of London’s five major aiports (soon to be six with the expansion of Southend) because of both price constraints and the fact that cheaper planes don’t fly more slowly.
We’ve been here before of course: in the early eighties when Britain was on the cusp of deploying one of the world’s most advanced passenger trains, the creatively named Advanced Passenger Train (APT), into service between Glasgow and London. It had the potential to reduce journey times to a very respectable four hours but the carpet was pulled from under the feet of British Rail by the Thatcher government; politicians were put off by bad publicity and the up front cost in an era where public infrastructure was seen as an attack on the rights of the individual and the taxpayer.
If you want to see what high speed Britain may have looked like take a trip to Crewe. The original APT has for the past twenty years sat on a disconnected piece of track at a railway museum and is available for children’s parties at very reasonable prices.
If the SNP are serious about kick starting the Scottish economy and the Westminster government want to keep hold of Scotland then high speed rail would be a sound economic and environmental investment. Even countries with far lower population densities such as Sweden and Spain are investing heavily in high speed rail. Earlier this year the Swedes for example showed some impressive vision and a more expansive grasp of economics by building a high speed line to connect the populous middle of the country with the coastal cities in the Bothnian gulf which were in dire need of infrastructure improvements.
The last few years have also seen the birth of ‘very high speed rail’, which surprisingly enough is a recognised technical term. The world record for conventional trains is 357 miles per hour, set last year by a specially adapted French TGV train. At that speed London to Edinburgh would take less than two hours centre to centre. Even at the average commercial speed of around 186 miles per hour it would be possible to make a journey from Edinburgh to Brussels in under five hours.
Neither is this experimental technology. The handling of the UK’s plans for high speed rail has so far been carried out with an air of apprehension over this great leap into the unknown. Just as a reminder of how ridiculous this reluctance to try something new is, the first high speed railway in the world, Japan’s Tokaido Shinkansen line, was built in 1964. Even the US. which has an almost willfull aversion to rail travel, is pumping money into high speed infrastructure. At the same time all Britain looks set to get is a connection between London and the far flung shores of Birmingham.
If the government in London is serious about making the UK work then these kind of infrastructure projects are desperately needed. With the right backing they can be energy smart, carbon efficient and accessible to the majority of the population. They could also do wonders for Scotland’s ability to interact economically with the European mainland and perhaps even more so with the huge cities of Northern England.
In eight to ten years time I want to be sipping a cappucino as I speed past Sheffield at two hundred miles an hour on my way to Paris. If the current lack of ambition in rail planning continues however it’ll more likely be a lukewarm cup of Nescafe on the way to Prestwick.
#1 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 14, 2011 - 10:48 am
I agree with you but one of the first groups you might need to persuade is the English Greens who are against the HS2 rail line.
I do most of my holidays by rail and love leaving Edinburgh in the morning and arriving in Paris for an early dinner. If I can get there in time for a late lunch that would be great.
#2 by James on October 14, 2011 - 11:16 am
I agree that GPEW have gotten out of the wrong side of bed on this issue. James in “agrees with Douglas rather than Caroline” shock.
#3 by Jeff on October 14, 2011 - 11:32 am
To be fair to GPEW, is there an argument that, by the time High Speed Rail is built from Edinburgh to London, travelling by air will be clean and sustainable? And, as a result, investment in railways can be directed towards villages and towns that will save us from living in large, dirty, cramped metropolises a few decades from now?
Jeff <- clearly slavishly loyal to the political party he happens to give a couple of quid to each month
#4 by Indy on October 14, 2011 - 12:12 pm
Will hot air balloons every really be that fast?
#5 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 14, 2011 - 12:15 pm
I dont know if air travel will ever be clean. Not unless there is some kind of carbon capture built into jet engines.
Also, I dont know if having many more live in towns and villages is possible. That would require some houses to be built in those places and the environmental lobby really really dont like it when fields are turned into houses.
But rural public transport is indeed an issue that needs looked at. There are older people in Scotland who get a free bus pass but have no buses to catch and go somewhere.
#6 by setindarkness on October 15, 2011 - 8:37 pm
Travelling by air will be clean and sustainable when we can use Piggy Airlines
#7 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 14, 2011 - 12:11 pm
Oooh. That is a total shock! lol.
#8 by Despairing on October 14, 2011 - 10:54 am
What hope for High Speed Rail when we can’t even build an ultra-low-speed line to Galashiels?
I’d like to eventually see Scotland have it’s own high-speed network. 50 minute for the 45mile trip between our two biggest cities is a ridiculous amount of time that should be an embarrassment to us all. But the SNP seem content to wait the 20-30 years it will take to possibly get the English High Speed Line north of Birmingham.
#9 by oldchap on October 14, 2011 - 11:05 am
I couldn’t agree more. While I think the SNP have on the whole been doing a good job of government, their liking for road transport over rail is quite disappointing. We should be building a line south now, and improving the network within Scotland too – more commuter stops around Aberdeen, Dundee and Inverness – faster running times and proper long-distance coaches over the longer inter-city routes.
As for speeding past Sheffield within ten years – I can’t see a line being built that quickly through
so many marginal constituenciessuch a crowded part of England. Obviously similar roads projects get completed much faster, than the super-quick “maybe next decade to Birmingham”, but roads are much less intrusive aren’t they? Oh wait…#10 by oldchap on October 14, 2011 - 11:13 am
Another thing on this – at my temporary home in England, my house is five minutes’ walk from the former great central railway – specifically designed to carry continental traffic up the middle of Britain at high speed and lifted 70 years after it was built. A frustrating reminder of the UK’s ability to almost do strategic thinking.
#11 by Jeff on October 14, 2011 - 11:20 am
Love this post.
The past couple of elections my two top policies of interest have been free school meals and high speed rail, both sadly lacking from manifestoes save for the vaguest of nods in their direction.
My initial delight that high speed rail is getting up and running was curtailed and soon reversed when I realised just how unnecessary a speedy link to Birmingham is. It’s the ~3 or 4 hour journeys that most now take by cheap planes that need to be invested in.
On a slightly separate note, I was very disappointed to learn of a parliamentary comment from Tom Greatrex in Westminster last night. His words were to the effect of ‘Is it not the case that any UK Government would not build a High Speed Rail link to an independent Scotland?’. How utterly disappointing. As if the need for fast, clean travel across Europe is not a necessity to beat down the amount of short-distance air travel that is taking place, irrespective of borders. As Dom points out, why can other countries combine to invest in this technology but Britain is still stuck in the past?
(PS Apologies to Dom for taking so long a time to post this one up, we’re usually a lot sharper in turning around submitted guest posts!)
#12 by oldchap on October 14, 2011 - 11:32 am
I think the motivation for getting the line to Birmingham is mainly to increase capacity on that highly congested route – the high speed bit is a bonus.
As for Tom Greatrex’s comment – really disappointing – and completely forgets the money that the French contributed to the channel tunnel. Why did they do that? Was it because it’s good to be well-connected to their neighbours or because they were part of a union with the UK?
(look, three posts on from me on one topic! Looks like we’ve found one of my big interests…)
#13 by Despairing on October 14, 2011 - 11:41 am
The point about the line, thought, is that it won’t just benefit travel between Birmingham and London. Faster trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh will join the line at Birmingham, decreasing journey times from more northern latitudes as well.
#14 by Jeff on October 14, 2011 - 11:53 am
To that I would say that high speed rail should be built in a straight line in order to maximise the advantages. I suppose I’m thinking too much in terms of Edinburgh to London but even travelling through Birmingham when going from Glasgow to London seems a bit of a detour. (heads off to check Google Maps in case I have that horribly wrong)
#15 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 14, 2011 - 12:24 pm
I would say that you have got that a wee bit wrong. Not much though.
#16 by Douglas McLellan (@douglasmclellan) on October 14, 2011 - 12:21 pm
My limited experience of transport planning and design (Transport Tycoon & Railroad Tycoon) showed me that the best way to build the best railways was to go from large urban centre to large urban centre to get the income that allowed further expansion to allow longer express trips to be built.
London to Birmingham is the best way to start this process. The big leap will come Manchester north to Glasgow.
#17 by Daniel J on October 14, 2011 - 5:32 pm
Except these lines are so costly that waiting for HS2 to pay for itself in fares before we continued North would take a century or so… at least!
HS2 will cut at most ~30 mins off journey times (if you go via the WCML) from Scotland with the added inconvenience of a change a Manchester.
Come to think of it don’t the majority of the trains from Edinburgh go down the ECML? So for a good proportion (maybe even half) of intercity trips to London there will be no gain!
Personally I can’t see the great economic benefit of getting from London to Birmingham 30 minutes quicker.. when if we’d started Scotland-> Birmingham first there would be much bigger gains time wise and the incentive to actually finish the damned route later.
#18 by John Ruddy on October 15, 2011 - 5:15 pm
Firstly, there wont be a change in Manchester. HS2 trains will work off the HS line onto the “classic” network, therefore you wont need to change. With the 1st stage to Brum built, Glasgow trains will be about 30 minutes quicker (less than 4 hours, as opposed to 4hours 30 – and that 4hr 30 is on just a few trains a day, not every hour). Once the line is built to Manchester a further 15 minutes is cut.
Secondly, yes, a majority of trains from Edinburgh go down the ECML – but not all. And of course ALL trains from Glasgow now go via the WCML. The total Intercity Scotland-London market is actually skewed to Glasgow (unsurprisingly), but this market has grown every time the journey time has been reduced – WCML modernisation in the 2000s, ECML electrification in the 90’s, WCML electrification to Glasgow in the 70s etc.
Here is something that I think puts the journey to Brum from central London in perspective. It will be quicker to reach Birmingham from Euston than it will a typical Zone 5 station.
As for building Scotland – Brum first – why on earth would anyone do that? Spend all that money to speed up a journey for only 15% of the total market? The sensible thing is of course to start with the bit that is going to generate the most money – which sadly is always going to be London-West Midlands – NW England.Our task is to ensure pressure is brought to bear to make that happen ASAP, and encourage completion thereafter northwards.
#19 by Daniel J on October 15, 2011 - 7:17 pm
Woops, I didn’t realise we’re building them to standard gauge? We’re really not going for a European loading gauge where so we can have double-decker carriages?
Scotland-Birmingham first.. well it’s comparatively cheaper mile for mile, will lead to bigger speed improvements more quickly and for more people. Getting more people out of planes and helping the environment and economic development in the Midlands and North ahead of London.
#20 by oldchap on October 17, 2011 - 2:59 pm
Gauge means two things – the gap between the tracks and the space above them. The gap between the tracks is a fairly international standard. I gather HS2 will be European loading gauge – so double decker capable – but also compatible with our older tracks.
I would have thought a logical first move might have been for Birmingham – Manchester first, heavier traffic and benefiting more long-distance trains.
#21 by Welshguy on October 14, 2011 - 12:26 pm
I think the GPEW are against HS2 on the grounds that its environmental credentials are pretty questionable – they seem to based on the assumption that all the passengers on the new trains will be people who would previously have flown or driven, when in fact, most of the passengers are likely to be people who already get the train – i.e. they’ll be switching from a less polluting mode of transport to a more polluting one, as faster trains are less fuel efficient. The train is already much faster from Birmingham – London than driving, so I don’t see why making it even faster will convince drivers to use the train; & the numbers that fly to London from Birmingham aren’t very significant anyway (it would make much more sense, as Jeff points out, to improve the links with the places where most people do fly). Admittedly, both of these issues will apply less to a high speed network that extends beyond Birmingham to cities further north, but I personally would rather see the huge quantity of money that will be necessary for this be spent on the rest of the existing network, and expanding services to places that don’t currently have *any* trains, rather than improving connections that are already pretty good.
#22 by John Ruddy on October 15, 2011 - 5:28 pm
Dont forget, its not just passengers who travel from London to Birmingham who will be using the new line. Trains will continue north off the end of the line to other destinations.
I think the thing that objectors forget is we can already see what happens to the market when a high speed service starts up – the Javelin commuter services in Kent. The figures suggest that the overall rail market for Kent-London has gown considerably. The new services are well patronised, while the existing, slower services are still well used. People HAVE switched to rail from other modes. Though how on earth people were using cars to go into London I don’t know.
Although faster trains are less efficient – the effect is actually relatively slight. One of the reasons for those long sloping noses you see on the high speed trains – Alsthoms new AGVs have VERY long noses (amongst other techniques)to mean they use as much energy per passenger as the slower TGVs designed and built in the 70s and 80s. A typical AGV uses just over 3kWh per 100 passenger km, compared to 1.6kWh per 100 passenger km for a typical 8 car commuter electric train into London, and 9kWh for a diesel powered HST.
#23 by Dubbieside on October 14, 2011 - 4:26 pm
There is one glaring omission from this post, how are we going to pay for it.
The country’s mentioned all control their own finances and have the ability to sell bonds etc to cover the capitol costs. What part of our pocket money can be diverted to pay for it? what services will we stop?
I suppose the fact that the start is London to Birmingham rather than Glasgow to Manchester is yet another union benefit.
#24 by John Ruddy on October 15, 2011 - 5:59 pm
Since the High Speed line from London to Birmingham will result in a 30 minutes reduction in journey times from Glasgow, it IS a benefit of the union 🙂
#25 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 8:26 pm
Will Scotland’s block grant be (positively) affected by this, or is it the usual case that “what’s good for London is automatically good for the whole of the UK”?
Let’s face it, this is all about helping people commute into London for work. It’s about helping the economy of London, nothing else. You can already get from Birmingham to London in under 90 minutes on the train, and this will make it take about the same amount of time as getting from a London suburb into the centre of London.
I’ve taken the train from Glasgow to London a few times, and was quite satisfied to get there in about 4 and a half hours. If I’d taken the plane I’d have had to get to Glasgow airport, check in, fly, get out of Heathrow and get the tube into London (about 50 minutes) – I wouldn’t have saved much money.
However, in December I need to get from Aberdeen to London for the Manic Street Preachers’ Christmas gig. Now, on the train that’s going to take over 7 hours, so I either spend all day before the gig travelling, or I travel up the night before (adding an extra night in a hotel to my expenses). Alternatively, I can fly, for almost the same cost, and not spend 15 hours of my weekend travelling, which also allows me to take in a few London sights at the same time. I really don’t like to fly if I can avoid it, but I don’t see how I can justify such a long rail journey for such an extortionate cost.
Now, how is a high speed link between London and Birmingham going to solve that sort of predicament?
High speed rail could revolutionise intercity transport in Scotland and the UK – but it needs to be fully backed by the government from the start. That means having concrete plans in place to have Manchester, Newcastle, Birmingham, Edinburgh and Glasgow (I’m not going to pretend anyone cares about Aberdeen, the energy capital of the UK) all connected by high-speed rail from the start. Oh,and when I say “connected”, I mean connected to each other – not just quick escape routes to London.
#26 by Doug Daniel on October 14, 2011 - 8:29 pm
Sorry, when I said “I wouldn’t have saved much money” for my little Glasgow – London story, I meant “wouldn’t have saved much time” – I actually saved a LOT of money by cleverly booking my tickets in advance. THREE MONTHS in advance.
You shouldn’t have to book that far ahead to get reasonable rates for the train…
#27 by Barbarian on October 14, 2011 - 8:49 pm
We need to get rail back into public ownership first. From what I gather, the taxpayer is paying the equivalent of MORE than they ever did under British Rail.
BR was not perfect, but there was none of this nonsense with multiple fare tarrifs and goodness knows what else.
Going to be cynical here, but the SNP will be reluctant to do anything with the Glasgow Edinburgh line, not while a certain bus company (unregulated) has express coaches going between the two cities already.
High speed rail between Scotland and the south is crucial for exports to the continent. It is vital than the Scottish Government is active within all planning and discussions.
#28 by John Ruddy on October 15, 2011 - 5:58 pm
Then you are talking about rail freight, and the biggest restriction to more freight going from Scotland to London or the continent by rail, is the capacity on the WCML south of Crewe. Which will be solved by HS2 as it is currently planned.
The other problem is the high cost of providing terminal equipment etc for rail freight, which is why the Freight Facilities Grant is so important. If only John Swinney saw it that way.
#29 by John Ruddy on October 15, 2011 - 5:55 pm
Have you thought about using the Sleeper? £19 from Aberdeen if you book cleverly (and even if you don’t its still not too much more) plus it obviates the need for one night at a hotel. If the timings allow, you can get the sleeper back and not have to stay at a hotel at all in London.
I think the real problem with High Speed Rail within Scotland is the fact our cities are really too close to each other for meaningful high speed rail in the usual sense. As soon as you get up to maximum speed you have to start slowing down! Stations really need to be about 80 – 120 miles apart, so you would might be able to squeeze in one station on a Glasgow – Aberdeen line in the Perth/Forfar area, but doing so will probably add about 10-15 minutes to the journey time as you need to start slowing down so far before hand etc. (You start slowing from 200mph about 15 miles out). It would cost in the region of £10billion.
#30 by Barbarian on October 15, 2011 - 9:36 pm
If they could get the Glasgow – Edinburgh line up to 130 mph it would make a difference.
#31 by Stuart on October 16, 2011 - 9:20 am
I know this is slightly off topic, but what of the infrastructure between the major cities of Scotland? Double tracking and electrifying all the routes between Glasgow, Inverness, Perth, Dundee, Aberdeen and Edinburgh should really be a major priority for the Scottish Government.
But instead we get a road through Glasgow, a road around Aberdeen, and a road across the Firth of Forth, all for a bargain price of, well pretty much the whole transport capital budget for the foreseeable future…
#32 by Doug Daniel on October 16, 2011 - 6:03 pm
To be fair, the M74 should never have been left unfinished in the first place, and in Aberdeen the AWPR is already years late. I’m not convinced even vast improvements to the rail network would alleviate the need for those projects. Indeed, in the North-East, only 12% of inhabitants live within 1km of a railway station, which is why mere rail upgrades are pretty useless to us up here. I’m fairly central, and I’m still two miles away from Aberdeen Railway Station, and can only get to it by either taking a bus (and still having to walk for a bit) or getting someone to drop me off in the car. If I have to take public transport, in the time it takes to get there, I could be halfway to Dundee if I drove.
As I say, I’m not exactly living out in the sticks. If you live along the A96 (Inverurie, Insch, Keith etc) then you’re alright since you’re on the Aberdeen – Inverness line. For anyone elsewhere in Aberdeenshire (Fraserburgh, Peterhead, Ellon, Banchory, Ballater, Aboyne, Peterculter), there’s just no such thing as a railway station. Well, there were before the Beeching cuts. As a result, roads are king – be that cars or buses. You would probably need MORE than the whole transport capital budget for the foreseeable future to bring rail travel back to these communities… And even then, you’d have the whole Scottish media demanding that Glasgow and Edinburgh get their airport link routes first.
#33 by James on October 17, 2011 - 11:21 am
The AWPR isn’t about congestion or improving journey times. The congestion is on routes in and out of Aberdeen, not around it, and it’s really just a development corridor designed to increase journeys.
#34 by Richard Thomson on October 17, 2011 - 2:25 pm
James – has it never occurred to you that much of the congestion ‘in and out’ of Aberdeen is happening precisely because Anderson Drive excepted, all other main routes – the A96, A947, A93, A90 north to Ellon and south to Stonehaven – funnel traffic straight through the city centre?
#35 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 4:11 pm
Let’s be fair Richard, James clearly knows more about Aberdeen’s traffic problems than people who have lived in Aberdeen for years and experienced first hand the travails of being stuck amongst the through traffic on Anderson Drive and the Haudagain roundabout countless times.
#36 by Doug Daniel on October 17, 2011 - 4:19 pm
Right, so are you trying to say that people north of Aberdeen have no need to get beyond Aberdeen? Because I think you’ll find pretty much everyone in Aberdeenshire who wants to get to Dundee, Edinburgh or beyond has to do so via the A90, which is only accessible by… going through Aberdeen. Unless they want to take the long route and go via the A9, which has its own problems (but somehow I doubt you’d be an advocate of longer road journeys…)
That includes a lot of lorries, which is why Anderson Drive is always full of, erm, lorries.
#37 by Max on October 17, 2011 - 7:47 am
Air traffic volumes are already falling. Car traffic volumes are falling. They are falling because we have run out of cheap oil. Traffic is also falling because of unemployment, also itself related to relentless economic contraction resulting from high oil prices and credit crunch. We are firmly up against limits to growth.
Building vast high energy infrastructure in an age of contraction is not very sensible. Mass market air travel is utterly dependent on cheap and plentiful oil and will stop soon enough. Growing consumer demand is also dependendent on cheap oil, and with the end of economic growth there will be minimal investment cash available.
The top priority for rail investment has to be a freight network focussed on branch lines to ports, industry, agriculture, and forests. Before that we need to travel much less.
Pingback: Links In Darkness: Thursday 13th October – Wednesday 19th October | Set In Darkness