Now we have discussion of a so called "HS3" proposal for the north of England - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29779134
OK - there are a few problems with the terrain - a few small hills in some parts, but one feature of the TGV trains in France is that they are more or less unaffected by gradients (allegedly) as they have so much power that the speed doesn't reduce significantly by going up and down hills. Perhaps British trains would not have so much reserve power to make that possible.
As usual the UK is miserably slow to pick up any ideas like this, and the idea that a "high speed" service in the north would only achieve the same sort of speeds that the 125 mph HS 125 trains on other lines which have been operating since the 1980s.
Why can't we be aspirational, and try for Liverpool to Hull in 1 hour (that would be around 130 mph average), with Liverpool to Leeds in 40 minutes (about 120 mph average), and also try to find ways (infrastructure!) to link in Sheffield and York into a high speed northern network?
I don't feel the "HS3" proposal is anything like aspirational enough, and is perhaps a sop to some of the electorate before an election.
However, it's possible that I am being unduly harsh, as the terrain might make really high speed operation difficult - though without an aspirational plan to achieve that we'll never find out. One line which I am now beginning to know quite well, from Glasgow or Edinburgh to Inverness does go through difficult terrain, and with a distance of around 160 miles it might be difficult to reduce journey times to (say) 2 hours, giving an average speed of 80 mph. Current journey times along these routes are over 3 hours - about 50 mph average. I don't think the area round Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds is as challenging though, and operation at higher average speeds might be possible, and definitely worth investigating.
Apart from speed, capacity is an issue on northern lines, and some recent suggestions to improve the rolling stock on the northern lines are to be welcomed. It's hardly surprising that many journeys are done by road once one has experienced some of the capacity and service issues on rail networks, though for longer journeys rail travel is usually far less stressful. People will not divert from roads to rail if the infrastructure, connectivity, capacity and service levels are not significantly improved. However, driving conditions on the UK's roads continue to worsen as more and more people are using the roads, so that travel by car is often unreliable, stressful, and sometimes takes far longer than travelling by train - for example for journeys of 150 miles and over.
OK - there are a few problems with the terrain - a few small hills in some parts, but one feature of the TGV trains in France is that they are more or less unaffected by gradients (allegedly) as they have so much power that the speed doesn't reduce significantly by going up and down hills. Perhaps British trains would not have so much reserve power to make that possible.
As usual the UK is miserably slow to pick up any ideas like this, and the idea that a "high speed" service in the north would only achieve the same sort of speeds that the 125 mph HS 125 trains on other lines which have been operating since the 1980s.
Why can't we be aspirational, and try for Liverpool to Hull in 1 hour (that would be around 130 mph average), with Liverpool to Leeds in 40 minutes (about 120 mph average), and also try to find ways (infrastructure!) to link in Sheffield and York into a high speed northern network?
I don't feel the "HS3" proposal is anything like aspirational enough, and is perhaps a sop to some of the electorate before an election.
However, it's possible that I am being unduly harsh, as the terrain might make really high speed operation difficult - though without an aspirational plan to achieve that we'll never find out. One line which I am now beginning to know quite well, from Glasgow or Edinburgh to Inverness does go through difficult terrain, and with a distance of around 160 miles it might be difficult to reduce journey times to (say) 2 hours, giving an average speed of 80 mph. Current journey times along these routes are over 3 hours - about 50 mph average. I don't think the area round Manchester/Sheffield/Leeds is as challenging though, and operation at higher average speeds might be possible, and definitely worth investigating.
Apart from speed, capacity is an issue on northern lines, and some recent suggestions to improve the rolling stock on the northern lines are to be welcomed. It's hardly surprising that many journeys are done by road once one has experienced some of the capacity and service issues on rail networks, though for longer journeys rail travel is usually far less stressful. People will not divert from roads to rail if the infrastructure, connectivity, capacity and service levels are not significantly improved. However, driving conditions on the UK's roads continue to worsen as more and more people are using the roads, so that travel by car is often unreliable, stressful, and sometimes takes far longer than travelling by train - for example for journeys of 150 miles and over.
Comment