Well, the public consultation phase has arrived for the initial phase of the UK's proposed High Speed 2 line from Birmingham to London. And the outcry is massive!
Plenty of groups are up in arms over it. The environmental cost, economic cost when the UK is in massive debt, disruption, and the basic level of NIMBYism.
The environmental cost is obvious. A strip of steel will be laid across some of Britains beautiful countryside from London to Birmingham, all the way, eventually to Scotland. It will destroy a lot of land. It will be noisy. However, there are mitigating consequences. The railway will be better in the long run for the environment, than the equivalent number of cars, or plane flights. also, by using cuttings, and barriers, a lot of the sound problems can be mitigated. And unlike a motorway, the noise is intermittent. And using modern technology, a high speed train is not as loud as it could be.
Look at Japan's E700 Shinkansen, currently running hell for leather from Tokyo to Osaka. It looks like a duck. That "beak" is designed to be aerodynamic, as well as reduce the shockwave as the train pushes through the air. This lessens its audio signature, and really reduces its "boom" as it enters and exits tunnels.
A concept taken to a more extreme level with the introduction of the newest E5, with a stupidly long nose. Again, designed not just to allow the train to push through the air more quickly, but also to reduce its noise footprint.
Economically, will it make sense. Er, yes. Reducing the time from the north to London, will allow companies better access to the London financial market, as well as allowing international companies to locate outside London (cheaper), but still be a player in the big money markets.
Right now, the country is in hock, but with the Government slashing spending to reduce the debt, it should be in a position to be able to shoulder the financing required to pay for it. Also, governments are the only option to be able to shoulder such debt for massive infrastructure development. Infrastructure development like this is always front loaded. Massive investment in the front, and the benefits to be felt later. Looking at Japan (I live here, OK!) again, the estimate is that while the line from Tokyo to Niigata has been phenomenally expensive, it has allowed Niigata to develop 10% a year faster than if there was no line. And along the line's corridor. '
A lot of people have said that the West Coast line should be upgraded. Problem is, the West Coast line is full! Expanding it will only delay the inevitable by a decade or so, and still result in the destruction of property. With HS 2, the line can be routed to avoid built up areas as much as possible. Such a development of the West Coast line would result in more disruption than HS 2 will be (not that HS 2 will be disruption-free!)
The other thing with the West Coast line, it is a mixed service line, with high speed trains running alongside freight! That is not sustainable in the long term!
At the end of the day, HS 2 will free up capacity on the West Coast line. It is far better for the environment than the alternatives of car or bus, or plane. It is quite efficient. A high speed train sucks up a lot of electricity, but through regenerative braking, it dumps a lot of energy BACK into the network for the next train!
Also, it will bring Britain up to date with the rest of the world. Pretty much every nation that is "advanced" has one. Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Spain. The Dutch, in such a small nation, they have a high speed train! The Koreans have one, Taiwan, heck, China has more lines than anyone else! Brazil is bringing in a line, as is Argentina. India is also looking at it. Even the US has more line than the UK! And the US is not a rail nation. A new line would allow the UK to prove it can deliver on big engineering projects!
I travel from Niigata to Tokyo, which is more than Manchester to London. I do the journey in less time than from London to Manchester, in the worlds biggest trainset.
That is cool.
No comments:
Post a Comment