New rail line could halve London-Scotland journey times
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
Journey times from London to Scotland would be halved by building a £34bn high-speed rail line, using a route preferred by Network Rail (NR).
A detailed study by the body responsible for the UK’s rail infrastructure found that passengers would be able to reach Glasgow from the capital in just two hours 16 minutes, down from the current 4.5-hour journey time.
However, the report revealed that the project would generate a net loss of more than £10bn over 60 years, making it likely that the full costs of the project would have to be met by the taxpayer, since funding from private companies would be hard to attract.
Under the proposals, the new trains would run from London and travel to Birmingham, Manchester, Warrington, Liverpool, Preston, Glasgow and Edinburgh. Passengers could reach Birmingham in just 45 minutes.
The report outlined what would be one of the biggest infrastructure projects ever carried out in Britain, with the construction of eight major city centre stations, 1,500 miles of new track, 34 miles of tunnels and the addition of 170 bridges. The new network would see as many as 16 trains an hour (carrying more than 9,000 passengers) head into London. Network Rail said it would also provide a £31.4bn boost to the economy by cutting journey times.
Iain Coucher, chief executive of Network Rail, said that a decision needed to be made urgently on increasing rail capacity as some lines were almost full. “By 2020 we will be turning away passengers,” he said. “We need to start the planning now to meet future demand and the solution is a new high-speed railway to the Midlands, North-west England and Scotland. The line has a sound business case that will pay for itself.”
Network Rail’s analysis raised doubts over the Government’s determination to link any new high-speed line to Heathrow. The addition of a high-speed hub at the airport was one of the key concessions secured by the Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, when the Government approved the addition of a third runway. Network Rail concluded that extending the line itself to the airport would “not make good financial sense”. Adding a spur to link Heathrow to the high-speed line would cost an extra £2.6bn. Network Rail also ruled out links to Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle as not cost effective.
The study will now be handed to HS2, a company set up by the Government to come up with official plans for a high-speed line to the Midlands. It will report by the end of the year.
The Transport Secretary, Lord Adonis, said that Network Rail had made “a powerful case for high-speed rail in Britain”. He added: “The potential benefits are considerable. This is why virtually every other developed country in the world is now building high-speed rail lines.”
All three main political parties are in favour of a new high-speed rail line, but huge problems remain before firm plans can be laid out. Stephen Glaister, Professor of Transport and Infrastructure at Imperial College, London, said that any line to Scotland would “inevitably cause enormous apposition” from local residents and conservation groups.
He also warned that private funding would not be forthcoming under Network Rail’s plan. “This is a loss-making venture,” he said. “That is not to say it is not worth doing, but it would mean the private sector would provide none of the funding as it is not commercially viable.” He also said that any plans to connect the line directly to Heathrow should be dropped as the extra stop would seriously affect the lower journey times.
Working out an exact route and gaining planning permission would take at least five years. Constructing the network would take much longer. The trains would be unlikely to take passengers before 2030, Network Rail said.
The dire state of Britain’s public finances has also raised concerns that other important projects would be squeezed if the plans for a major high-speed rail network go ahead. Michael Roberts, chief executive of the Association of Train Operating Companies, said: “What is vital is that investment in any new lines allows much needed investment to proceed in other projects, such as the recently-announced electrification of major parts of the network.”
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
At the time when BR was denationalised, it was claimed that the whole network could have been re-built for less than 6 billion.
At the time of the West Coast (London-Glasgow) 'upgrade', it was pointed out that the (inflated) 10 billion cost was high enough to have built a new high-speed line instead. Now they suggest 29 billion.
Sorry, but this is pork-barrel profiteering. This money is just being given over to their friends in the City.
There is a big difference between rebuilding old track and building new lines. New lines require acquiring the land (which can often be expensive and tricky in itself), clearing, building tunnels and support structures, bridges under and over for existing roads, rails, and footpaths for pedestrians, crossings etc. Pulling up and replacing existing rails does not incur most of those costs (but it does disrupt a lot of people).
Scottish Parliament building originally £40m, ended up £500m. Edinburgh tram system originally £400m, now £562m with an extra £132m just allocated.
Failed NHS computing system more than 3 years overdue and £bns over budget.
When are the monkeys in office going to respect taxpayers hard earned money and realise projects to budget?
These people are incapable of delivering on budget.
The best way would be to make them more responsible and accountable. Over budget projects come out of their pockets. Fine and fire them
They way overestimate their own capabilities and are way overpaid
The £billions that were wasted in phoney wars should have paid for it.
This votecatching "announcement" is a desperate bid by a desperate government to gain votes. Where are they going to find the money for this? The private sector knows that Labour cant be trusted with the railway.
Since they are not going to be in power for much longer, we know they are just grasping for votes.
Are they making an unrealistic plan so that the Tories will be seen to abandon the fantasy plan?
Looks like they are clutching at straws.
Wait for it to be announced it again at the party conference. The 2000 announcement was "announced" again, months later.
god, f***ing unbelievable! this is what you get when you hand over responsibility for the rest of the nation to a handful of london idiots.
you london air head prat's are no different for the red neck, retard american's posting idiot statements demanding that america boycott then bomb Scotland last week.
enjoy your pig ignorant arrogance and ignorance, you're an embarrassment to England, please do keep the hell out of Scotland and continue to wallow in your embarrassing ignorance, i'm sure they're not going to be losing any sleep about the loss of your London pounds.
On a whole life basis, the emissions from a Scotland HS2 are unlikely to be any better than air travel.
£34 billion? No chance. Network Rail's record on estimating costs and benefits is lamentable. They promised a 140mph West Coast railway for £2 billion, and delivered a 125mph West Coast railway for £10 billion.
The priorities should be: reactivating the Great Central main line, and building links to it; Great Western electrification to Swansea and Penzance; Midland Main line, and cross-country infill.
No, instead, it sounds like someone said, 'We want this, how can we justify it?'
Back on Planet Earth, we know what British Rail could have done with 10 billion of investment. We remember how the East Coast Main Line (London-Edinburgh) was electrified and completely upgraded for no more than 400 million. We know the package of improvements that a couple of billion would bring, in terms of increasing capacity, removing bottlenecks, etc.
34 billion - these numbers are just incredible. British Rail never received that sort of money.
This isn't how this decision was taken.
Lots of low-cost schemes have much higher cost-benefit ratios, allowing better use to be made of existing rail capacity.
The dastardly act of the last hours of the Tory Government, to chuck our railways away to private companies with indecent haste has cost this country very dear.
Estimates for work now comes from the private companies - there are no professional project managers left in the Civil Service. This goes for any kind of Government expenditure - MoD, NHS as well.
That's why we are facing these mind-numbing figures. Hope all you greedy bastards enjoy your share dividends!
Nothing's changed in the physics, only in the claims being made.
The government doesn't have the money to secure our pensions, for about 5 billion.
But the government does have the money for this - super fast trains for the rich. Already, ordinary people can't aford to go by train.
It's all a question of priorities.
In the 1990's BR stole most of the business from National Express, on the route Newcastle-London - BR was that cheap.
In the past, competition from coaches held down rail fares; Comeititon for trains held down plane fares.
Now, competition from airlines holds down the train fares.
'cause the fact that Manchester is being connected but only so we can access london and heathrow is disgusting. the link to Liverpool is being blocked ot us. to get to Liverpool we'd have to go out of our way by 20 mins.
same with Edinburgh/Glasgow. so you can't nip out for a drink in each city, can't quickly nip over to ejoy the restaurants, do a bit of shopping etc.
anyone Scottish reading this, please tell me what you think.
mmmmhhhh - methinks a lot of hot air and bollocks being spoken here.
If you divide the 29 billion by 250 million, it comes to a capital cost equivalent to 120 Pounds per passneger journey - each way. That's the capital cost - not including the cost of running the trains, running the railway. So, how much do you think the rail fares are going to work out at? Something ordinary people could afford?
Alternatively, if you divide the claimed 'Benefits' of the line (55 billion) by 250 million passengers, this comes out at about 220 Pounds per journey. Do you think each journey from London to Glasgow brings 'Benefits' to the economy worth 220 Pounds? Or do you think it's a gross exaggeration? Or would you go further and call it an outright lie?
Peter Woodman
Is the fare coming down with the speed as the train can dock back faster?
I thank you
Firozali A Mulla
Linking to Manchester and Liverpool only costs around £7 billion of the total, and would be profitable.
The other £27billion or so is yet another present from the Labour party to Scotland, whilst England has to pay more for everything from University education to prescriptions.