British north-south proposal

Could this ever happen? Lots of people think so but where would the money come from?
http://society.guardian.co.uk/communiti ... ?gusrc=rss

Britain's north-south divide could be bridged by a new £30bn high-speed rail link that would reduce journey times from London to Scotland to three hours, according to a new study.
The report by the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) said the link would provide a huge boost to regeneration in the cities on the route.
Presenting the report's findings Graeme Montieth, the chairman of ICE's high-speed rail committee, cited the example of Lille in northern France, which has been transformed since the construction of the Channel Tunnel rail link.
He said: "Lille has benefited greatly since it became a stop on the route. 20 years ago it was a rundown industrial town, but it is now booming because of the link.
"If a high-speed rail route were to be built it should have a similar effect for the northern cities in the UK, with businesses choosing to move on to cities along the route."
The report said that the link could be constructed over a period of 10 years, with the private sector contributing to its cost.
The line would see trains travelling up to 200mph and cut journey times to Manchester and Leeds to 90 minutes.

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinb ... 2477022005

BUSINESS chiefs today threw their weight behind calls for a high speed rail link between Edinburgh and London.
Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce said the introduction of trains travelling at more than 200mph between the two Capitals would help redress the north-south economic divide and allow Scotland to take advantage of the Channel tunnel link to the Continent. It would slash the journey time to London by two hours to just two-and-a-half hours.

Graham Birse, Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce's deputy chief executive, said the investment required would be significant, but high-speed rail held out the prospect of alleviating congestion and freeing up domestic capacity at Scottish airports for growing international travel. Internal flights would become redundant on routes competing with high-speed rail. And he urged businesses to back the campaign for the high-speed rail link.
Mr Birse said: "HSR offers two-and-a-half hour journey times from Edinburgh to London with onward connections direct to the Continent. It would at last give Scotland significant value from the huge investment in the Channel Tunnel, which we were promised, but then denied."

Highly unlikely in my humble opinion.

Leaving aside the obvious issues of land availability, such a Project would require massive public finance and guarantees.

This is something that Labour will not support, given their current and increasing 'anti-rail' stance.

In any case there is currently insufficient railway construction experience now available and that which is, is being sucked into CrossRail and the East London Line.

This whole issue is just something previously floated by Branson in his failed attempt to get hold of the ECML, and sounds like it has been resurrected now that he is again bidding for the WCML/CC route franchise.

Well, we do need it. It would transform large parts of the country. A lot of the north is stagnating, while the south is overheating and overcrowded.

I'd love to travel through the UK via high-speed trains.

CROR410 wrote:I'd love to travel through the UK via high-speed trains.

As I am getting to be an old geezer I don't expect it to happen in my lifetime. Certainly not while Tory Blair is PM.

But the CTRL will open next year, and that's a High Speed line from St Pancras to Folkestone.

depends what you call high speed , britain already has plenty of 125 mph services . abit better than the 50 -60 mph trains we have here .

David Benton wrote:depends what you call high speed , britain already has plenty of 125 mph services . abit better than the 50 -60 mph trains we have here .

In European terms these are moderately high speed, standard for second grade lines. In American terms they are fabulously fast. But Britain needs something faster for the longer distances - London-Edinburgh and Glasgow. Virgin's fastish trains to Manchester are already cutting into air traffic but a true high speed train could do what has happened to Paris-Brussels and Paris Lyon - cut the air traffic completely.

Too bad they'll never do something like that in the US. We're too busy driving cars, wasting fuel, and then saying we need to find other types of fuel. The cycle is perpetual evil.

That being said, I've always like using trains in the UK. It's much more convenient. But isn't there already the West Coast Main Line? I guess they need more capacity.

-Phil

geoking66 wrote:Too bad they'll never do something like that in the US. We're too busy driving cars, wasting fuel, and then saying we need to find other types of fuel. The cycle is perpetual evil.

That being said, I've always like using trains in the UK. It's much more convenient. But isn't there already the West Coast Main Line? I guess they need more capacity.

-Phil

Both the East Coast Mainline and the West Coast are very near to capacity. The authority decided to allow another train operating company on the East Coastline but that meant that the main user could nt increase the number of trains. Only a new line could free some space. Moreover, there is now no extra space for freight.

It seems the proposal will be abandoned before anything was done.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0, ... 43,00.html

Mr Eddington was formerly in charge of British Airways, so is not on the face of it likely to endorse a proposal that would end most internal air travel.

The Tories are talking about MagLev, their spokesman having ridden on the Shanghai airport line and visited the Japanese experimental line. But the Germans concluded it was not worth the money to link Hamburg and Berlin. I suspect that even if the Tories win the next election they will not go ahead, once the Treasury tells them how much it will cost.