"We need to kick-start HS3"!

[Edwin_m]

The problem with solutions like HS2 or HS3 is that they don't address this demand problem at all, instead carrying on the old 'predict and provide' model that's been used for 50 years with ever expanding CO2 emissions. We need to turn it all on its head and say "what does a transport system in keeping with the Paris Agreement look like?" We are still looking for tiny savings in time at great economic and environmental cost, still trying to provide increasing mobility instead of looking to demand reduction. The idea of "transport demand management" has been around for a long time and, alongside energy demand management, is vital to ensure we can meet our climate change obligations and ensure we don't run out of energy for all the other things we need to do!

 

The environmental logic behind public transport schemes is that even though they themselves use energy and produce CO2, they provide an alternative to environmenally worse options, principally cars and planes.  Unless people are to be compelled or priced off using these more damaging modes the only way is to provide a better choice. 

 

Although HS rail doesn't drastically reduce CO2 compared with cars, there is still some valid environmental reasons to use it:

- Its energy needs can be supplied from any source that is convertible to electricity

- transporting the same people the same distance in electric road vehicles creates more noise, congestion, accidents, and still creates particulate emissions due to tyre wear

- for longer distances, particularly if we get a 3hr journey between London and Glasgow/Edinburgh, high speed rail is proven to reduce air travel which is likely to remain the most environmentally damaging mode for the foreseeable future

 

There is of course the "deep green" view that we need to do less of many things including travel, and those who subscribe to that would logically oppose most transport investment of whatever form and would logically also be in favour of severe restrictions on cars. 

[Arpster]

Couldn't agree more, Edwin. Use of HS rail is clearly preferable to flying or driving, and has all of the benefits that you list there (this holistic view of all the environmental factors that are usually treated as 'externalities' is important). The problem is that it is difficult to switch all of the current demand for travel from car and air to rail whilst electricity demand is also rising in other sectors, and whilst trying to stay without our carbon budget to meet the Paris Agreement. To do that were really do have to reduce demand for travel, which means more local services and activities, more walking and cycling where viable, and making better use of the public transport we have available (e.g. flattening out the 'peaks' of demand during the day by thinking about different working or school hours). It's not easy, but it is certainly feasible. What is needed is political will!

One thing for sure though, rail travel is definitely part of the solution to the problems we face.

Arp

[lmsforever]

Have a look at France as said earlier on in this thread only 2percent actually use TVG and the standard lines are falling apart this will happen here I don't doubt as HS lines are pet politician projects. 

[black and decker boy]

Couldn't agree more, Edwin. Use of HS rail is clearly preferable to flying or driving, and has all of the benefits that you list there (this holistic view of all the environmental factors that are usually treated as 'externalities' is important). The problem is that it is difficult to switch all of the current demand for travel from car and air to rail whilst electricity demand is also rising in other sectors, and whilst trying to stay without our carbon budget to meet the Paris Agreement. To do that were really do have to reduce demand for travel, which means more local services and activities, more walking and cycling where viable, and making better use of the public transport we have available (e.g. flattening out the 'peaks' of demand during the day by thinking about different working or school hours). It's not easy, but it is certainly feasible. What is needed is political will!

 

One thing for sure though, rail travel is definitely part of the solution to the problems we face.

 

Arp

The starting point in that equation isn't to stop building rail \ public transport. Its to stop building vast housing estates with no viable public transport links and no local economy (the housing typically being built in what historically would have been a factory \ business park). You also have the problem of the major cities where you have the employment but not enough room to support the necessary workforce at affordable prices meaning commuters from the suburbs - that isnt going to be a problem you can solve so low CO2 public transport will always be necessary.

 

We haven't even touched on the Freight distribution networks of our major shopping & retail brands and the fleets of HGVs chugging relentlessly around the country, something you cannot hope to reduce if Freight Train operators cannot get paths on a congested, passenger dominated railway. This conflict is looming on MML where Thameslink are getting priority over EMT who have priority over freight and there aren't enough paths to suit everyone at peak times (some suggestion its a problem across the whole day).

[luckymucklebackit]

One undeveloped feature of high speed rail is connectivity at the stations, especially for business travelers.  I travel a lot on business, in the UK that usually means air, because I can drive to the airport, park up and walk to the terminal, board the plane and fly to my destination where my hire car will be waiting for me to drive to the company I am visiting, which may be around 50 miles from the airport.  That connectivity is rarely available with rail, few if any stations have hire car facilities, car parking is limited and not very secure and it is still more expensive so my company will not sanction it.

 

Jim 

[Reorte]

One undeveloped feature of high speed rail is connectivity at the stations, especially for business travelers.  I travel a lot on business, in the UK that usually means air, because I can drive to the airport, park up and walk to the terminal, board the plane and fly to my destination where my hire car will be waiting for me to drive to the company I am visiting, which may be around 50 miles from the airport.  That connectivity is rarely available with rail, few if any stations have hire car facilities, car parking is limited and not very secure and it is still more expensive so my company will not sanction it.

That's for existing stations - not much you can do about those (and not much choice other than to use them if you want city centre connections, since building a brand new one in the middle of most cities is a non-starter) but I'd hope any new ones would make provision for such facilities.

[rockershovel]

Depends where you are going. I attended a series of meetings with BP and Atkins by train, because the venues where walking distance from Kings X or Sunbury. Saipem offices are walking distance from the station. I made a series of miserable, but quite straightforward rail journeys to Hartlepool and other East Coast dog-holes, change from ECML. Aberdeen to Peterborough is not significantly longer than by air, and cheaper, by try and tell my employers that....

 

Further abroad, and Den Helder harbour is close to the station. Eemshaven is a short taxi ride from two local stations, change at Groningen.

[Joseph_Pestell]

In all such schemes, the "best" is often the enemy of the good. For politicians, HS3 is the best because it makes for a good sound bite. But is high speed what is really needed across the North of England? No, inter-station distances are short and the journey time savings by high speed are minimal. What is needed is more capacity. With what was mostly a four-track route, the existing TransPennine route via Standedge can supply quite a lot of this with some additional tunnelling to get round the bottlenecks caused by ill-considered removal of parts of the line.

 

With trains running at 100/125mph, journey times could be reduced to a level that would be sufficient to beat the competition and frequency of services to an almost metro level.

 

That is, quite clearly what is needed - common sense. But is it sexy enough to appeal to the politicians?

[Edwin_m]

One undeveloped feature of high speed rail is connectivity at the stations, especially for business travelers.  I travel a lot on business, in the UK that usually means air, because I can drive to the airport, park up and walk to the terminal, board the plane and fly to my destination where my hire car will be waiting for me to drive to the company I am visiting, which may be around 50 miles from the airport.  That connectivity is rarely available with rail, few if any stations have hire car facilities, car parking is limited and not very secure and it is still more expensive so my company will not sanction it.

 

Jim 

It depends very much on your type of business.  I also travel a lot but most of my destinations are in city centres or well-connected suburbs, when the train is usually the best choice. 

 

Car hire is more viable at airports because people tend to fly longer distances than they can drive and may need a car at the other end.  Train journeys tend to be shorter, so if someone needs a car at the other end they will probably drive all the way.  Not everyone will do this but enough do to make car hire unviable at most railway stations. 

[rockershovel]

The whole HS2/3/etc sequence is designed for political purposes.

 

It has been a goal of the EU from the very outset, to have a mainline rail network linking the regional capitals and centres to the overall centres of Brussels and Strasbourg. This is so that regional control can be exerted directly from those centres.

 

In European terms, this is all quite logical. Something of the sort was proposed to Napoleon as early as 1814. The Austrian-Hungarian Empire, newly unified Italy, rapidly unifying Germany and Russian Tsarist Empire all followed similar courses. In a continent of multiple nations with few natural frontiers, railways were and are, a powerful development tool. Abraham Lincoln insisted on the transcontinental railroad continuing construction, even at the height of the American civil war, because of its importance to the vision of a single nation, from coast to coast.

 

Australia still has a transcontinental railway which played a symbolic role in linking the disparate East and West coasts.

 

The problem is that in British terms, it has no logical function. The British Rail network doesn’t serve that purpose; it was built to serve an island nation governed from London, unified politically with Edinburgh and Glasgow and importing and exporting by sea. What HS2 etc DOES do, is puts control in the hands of the politicians, who thereby define the question in terms which those controlling the the existing rail network can’t answer.

 

There is no requirement in British constitutional terms either, to facilitate direct oversight of Manchester from Brussels; but it is an intrinsic requirement of the EU’s intended and to a large degree, current structure. Most European countries are governed in that fashion, more or less, with strong, quasi-autonomous regions exercising considerable freedom of action.

 

So Joseph_Pestell’s post (#183, above) is probably spot-on regarding providing extra capacity, but it misses the actual point of the project.

[Christopher125]

In all such schemes, the "best" is often the enemy of the good. For politicians, HS3 is the best because it makes for a good sound bite. But is high speed what is really needed across the North of England? No, inter-station distances are short and the journey time savings by high speed are minimal. What is needed is more capacity. With what was mostly a four-track route, the existing TransPennine route via Standedge can supply quite a lot of this with some additional tunnelling to get round the bottlenecks caused by ill-considered removal of parts of the line.

 

With trains running at 100/125mph, journey times could be reduced to a level that would be sufficient to beat the competition and frequency of services to an almost metro level.

 

That is, quite clearly what is needed - common sense. But is it sexy enough to appeal to the politicians?

 

That's essentially what they are proposing, and why it's officially called 'Northern Powerhouse Rail' not HS3 - a mix of new and upgraded infrastructure at conventional linespeeds (probably 140mph max as trains will be sharing stretches of HS2) rather than a dedicated 200mph+ 'high speed line' like HS2, which was never seriously on the cards.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Christopher125

[ess1uk]

i think it has been kicked well and truly