HSR in the UK
For all that high-speed rail opponents in the United States like to cite misleading statistics about population density, I don’t think anyone can seriously deny that the United Kingdom is a densely populated country. And yet, the land from whence the railroad originates doesn’t have a proper high-speed rail network. Plans are afoot, however, to remedy that:
Network Rail’s proposed new line linking Glasgow and Edinburgh with London, on which trains could travel as fast as 200mph, would also serve Manchester, Liverpool, Preston and Birmingham.
A spokesman for one of Manchester’s biggest employers, Kellog’s cereals, said: “This is great news for business in Manchester, just as London is going to be more accessible for us, Manchester will be for those in the South East.”
The new line would cut the journey between London and Birmingham to 45 minutes, from a best time of one hour and 22 minutes currently.
One thing to note here, and something that’s generally the case with HSR, is that there will benefits to this scheme even for people who never take the train. Right now there are tons of London-Glasgow flights taking up space on runways. Developing a better rail link between those cities will reduce the need for air travel between them and allow airport resources to be focused on those routes that really can’t be served adequately by train. And that, of course, is a lot of routes—especially for a country located on an island.
41 Responses to “HSR in the UK”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
August 26th, 2009 at 11:31 am
“And yet, the land from whence the railroad originates ”
Interesting use of the past tense.
Sigh.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:34 am
And that, of course, is a lot of routes—especially for a country located on an island.
Chunnel!
But more seriously, even if Great Britain wasn’t an island, the fixed costs of takeoff and landing (including land use, noise, and environmental issues) are what make short routes increasingly less economic, and therefore more ripe for replacement by HSR where possible.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Thanks a lot. Now I have the Pistols singing “HSR in the UK” stuck in my head.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:40 am
But more seriously, even if Great Britain wasn’t an island, the fixed costs of takeoff and landing (including land use, noise, and environmental issues) are what make short routes increasingly less economic, and therefore more ripe for replacement by HSR where possible.
Not to mention that with the fixed time delays involved with security and runway taxiing the time advantage of Air compared to HSR is reduced a lot for shorter routes.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:41 am
It is an awesome plan, no question. I would point out that our infrastructure projects generally take 20-30 years to come to fruition, if they ever get off the drawing board.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Matt, this is a pet peeve of mine, but take it in a gently critical light. Whence should not have “from” in it. The directional is already in the word. If you are going to use cool archaic words use them correctly please. From whence is redundant and ugly. So it should be: “And yet, the land whence the railroad originates…”
August 26th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Not to mention that with the fixed time delays involved with security and runway taxiing the time advantage of Air compared to HSR is reduced a lot for shorter routes.
Indeed–my parenthetical list focused on externalities, but obviously this is why HSR is increasingly competitive versus air travel among consumers as routes get shorter.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
London-Edinburgh is already competitive by rail, even without HSR: if you’re going city centre to city centre, it’s about 4 hours by train plus maybe 15 minutes to get to and from stations. Flying, you’re looking at 20 minutes to the shuttle bus or train station, half an hour out to the airport, at least an hour check-in at the airport, an hour or so in flight, and then a good 35 minutes from Turnhouse back into the centre of town by shuttle bus and another 15 to get to your destination – 3 hours 40 minutes at least. Flying wins by half an hour…
August 26th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
According to the article that Matt linked to, they plan to spend 55 billion dollars to build this high speed line. Given that it’s only saving about half the time of driving, it doesn’t seem to be worth the cost to me.
Perhaps they could find a better use for that 55 billion in their glorious state run health service. From a story in the Daily Mail that Drudge links to “Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets.”
Oh and the story about the British man almost dying from a ruptured appendix three weeks after it supposedly removed is a real hoot as well.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
Ooh, Chico thinks that Great Brittan should spend more money on their healthcare because, unlike in the United States, people die there. It’s almost as if this fuckwit was too stupid to realize that some people in the United States have infinite wait times for all but the most extreme health care issues.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
Ah, yes, Chicounsel, and the Daily Fail is less fair, balanced and accurate than our Fox. Somehow I’m not inclined to get a read on how the NHS is faring from them. Also, medical malpractice never happens in our market-based system because of spontaneous organization or something. Get a brain transplant, moran.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:23 pm
From a story in the Daily Mail–
A newspaper that has been less supportive of the NHS since 1948 than it was for the Nazis in 1938. You lose, asshole.
If the Daily Mail were to use the same standards to report on healthcare in the US, it would be the size of a phone book every day. So really, fuck off.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
” Given that it’s only saving about half the time of driving, it doesn’t seem to be worth the cost to me. ”
As someone who doesn’t have a car, something I share with two thirds of households in my London borough, it seems worth the cost to me.
“From a story in the Daily Mail that Drudge links to…”
An introduction more likely to be followed by bullshit I could not imagine. I should also add that I was born in a car in New York.
That said, it’s worth bearing in mind that:
a) This is Network Rail’s plan, not the government’s.
b) The government has only recently got behind true HSR, and even then only for London to Manchester
c) The government is going to be voted out next year, and the chances of the Tories spending serious money on HSR are next to nil.
So I’m pretty skeptical that Britain will have 200mph trains any time soon.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Chicounsel is indeed an asshole, but in his first para he does at least raise an issue worth addressing – is the time saving actually worth all those £££s?
August 26th, 2009 at 12:32 pm
If runway space is in short supply, build more runways. Sounds a lot cheaper and easier than building HSR.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
What the U.K. has now is what the U.S. should work on: that is upgraded conventional rail, with in service line speeds of 200 km/h or 125 mph, maximum “controlled environment” i.e no signalling issues of maybe 150 mph. Notice London – Glasgow as the crow flies is >350 miles, driving distance maybe 400 miles? No U.S. train I have heard of would cover that in 4 hours 10 minutes. HSR makes sense, but it is a different commitment. New tracks, widely spaced, very long radius turns…
August 26th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
“According to the article that Matt linked to, they plan to spend 55 billion dollars to build this high speed line. Given that it’s only saving about half the time of driving, it doesn’t seem to be worth the cost to me”
No, the other times are the current times it takes to get a train.
Anyone who claims that they can drive from edinburgh to London in 4 hours 23 minutes is either a liar or a maniac who’ll have lost his driving license due to his speeding convictions. 7-8 hours would be reasonable.
If this link is built then the London – central scotland flights will be history.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:45 pm
not to be nitpicking but I thought it is incorrect to use the phrase ‘from whence’, since whence derives from the phrase ‘from hence’. Otherwise, (and maybe I am wrong, anyhoo) great news from train travel in the UK.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
is the time saving actually worth all those £££s?
See, the funny thing about righties reflexively opposing any investment in mass transit because it involves government spending and makes environmentalists happy is that it has enormous commercial benefits. Imagine the Northeast as a business environment without even pokey, miserable Amtrak. Just try.
If people in Glasgow or Manchester can get to London to do business in less time than it takes to commute by car from Edge City, IN to Chicago in the morning, that’s a huge long term regional economic boost.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
To think…only an hour for a Chelsea Supporter to get to Anfield or Old Trafford. And vice versa. Build it now!
August 26th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Chunnel!
The Channel Tunnel was an economic disaster. HSR would be too.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Your final comment seems the most salient to me – that short/medium haul HSR will actually improve air service for business and leisure travelers is often overlooked. (Though I’m sure not missed by the many airlines for their potential lost short-haul revenue.)
Imagine O’Hare at peak travel time without the flood of flights from places like Madison, WI, Minneapolis, Peoria, etc. If HSR connected seamlessly with mega-hubs like O’Hare, Atlanta, Phoenix, etc, we’d have great feeder service, far fewer airport delays, and less carbon emissions to boot!
August 26th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
I wonder if those London-Scotland flights will totally recede into history with the rail link. The only times I’ve flown London-Scotland was because I had just landed in London and needed to proceed onto Scotland. If you’re in that situation, it’s still quicker (and much much cheaper) to fly than take the train.
That’s a small market, and it’s easier to fly to Scotland from overseas than it was a few years ago, but it might still be enough of a market to keep BMI in business. (Not that I’m entirely sure how BMI stays in business as it is, but that’s another issue.)
August 26th, 2009 at 1:35 pm
I’m with HSR plans for the UK entirely, but MYs point about the advantage of freeing up runway space is way off beam. Building new runways costs pretty well minimal money relative to HSR, and that argument cancels all environmetal arguments, so we’re left with nothing pro railways.
Also to Ginger Yellow – there are many plans around, Tories hav thier own, certainly we won’t have 200 mph trains anytime soon whatever happens but govenment/opposition/Network Rail plans aren’t really relevant at this point, every new advocate helps momentum towards actually doing something HSRey and that would be good. Don’t be so negative! And on the Tories not spending money on it, don’t forget we have PFI, so infrastructure can be built entirely for free!
August 26th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Chicounsel is probably unaware that the Mail should only be read back to front, and only the back three pages about sport. It’s a terrible rag and eliminates serious consideration of any argument that uses its commentary to bolster it. A fish-wrapper is too kind an assessment.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
wow Matt does respond to comments!
That being said, as someone commented above: the Tories will be elected next year. Fat chance this will see the light of day.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
That particular winger fishwrap is also the subject of a rollicking old Irish independence anthem, Man From the Daily Mail:
Every bird upon my word
Is singing treble – I’m a rebel
Every hen it’s said is laying hand grenades
Over there sir, I declare Sir
And every cock in the farmyard
Stock crows in triumph for the Gael
And it wouldn’t be surprising
If there’d be another rising
Said the man from the Daily Mail
August 26th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
This assumes that there is space available to build runways. Besides, there will be diminishing returns on additional runways because there’s still the matter of air traffic, weather conditions, etc.
August 26th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
I think some folks are not recognizing that we have a crowded airspace to begin with and even when NextGen is fully operational it will be less crowded but still crowded. By the way NextGen is not expected to be completed until 2025. High speed rail is something that works in other countries today and should be a part of a comprehensive U.S. transportation network which includes highways, freight rail, mass transit and commercial aviation.
Suffice to say, there is a role for HSR in the nation’s transportation network. I think HSR should not be as robust as what is currently proposed but to suggest that “build more runways” is the answer fails to recognize the airspace limitations of the nation’s aviation system.
August 26th, 2009 at 3:54 pm
I don’t if some of the people above are aware of how expensive a new runway is–they can easily cost $1 billion or more, and that is if your land costs aren’t too high. And they don’t solve many of the problems causing air travel congestion, nor the basic inefficiency of short flights, or so on.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
That should have been “I don’t know if . . . .”
August 26th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
I don’t know if you are aware of how expensive an HSR line is
August 26th, 2009 at 6:19 pm
The Concorde “worked.” The Channel Tunnel “works.” That doesn’t mean they are economically rational. They only “work” because of vast taxpayer subsidies. And in the case of the Channel Tunnel, huge losses to private investors also. The same is true of HSR.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
You should call it High Speed Train instead of High Speed Rail. Trains are sexier than Rail.
No really.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
I don’t know if you are aware of how expensive an HSR line is.
Sure I am–this particular system is supposed to cost $55 billion. Now take the same collection of cities being served and figure out how many runways (plus additional airport infrastructure) you would need to provide the same capacity on those routes (making sure to account for weather and such when estimating reliable capacities for your runways). I think you will find the infrastructure costs for a comparable system are closer than some above were suggesting.
August 26th, 2009 at 10:57 pm
It should be noted that while public funding is being discussed ,there will be a lot of private funding as well .Network Rail is a private company.As are the train companies that use their tracks.
It would be intersting for MR Yglesias to look at the issue of railway privatisation and the pros and cons of it.I am sure that Britain’s experience with railway privatisation would provide many examples of both.
For what it’s worth The London Times does a better story on this than does The Daily Mail.As someone who is fairly conservative i often enjoy reading The Telegraph. But i have alys found The Daily Mail to be unreadable.
Also , if anyone wants to see a very funny 2 minute video go to Youtube and search for “Who reads the papers? -Yes Prime Minister”.
It’s the best description of the British newspapers that i have ever heard.I’m sorry that i’m no good at linking.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Sure I am–this particular system is supposed to cost $55 billion. Now take the same collection of cities being served and figure out how many runways (plus additional airport infrastructure) you would need to provide the same capacity on those routes (making sure to account for weather and such when estimating reliable capacities for your runways).
Okay, then do that. Since you seem to think the rail option would be more cost-effective, show us the numbers.
August 27th, 2009 at 2:15 am
Surely worth pointing out that air from edinburgh to london is competitive with rail despite, as someone upstream points out, being only minimally faster when check-in and airport to/from city centre times are taken into account, and despite the fact that though a little longer the train journey is uninterrupted, work friendly (continuous wifi, at least on a good day) and for at least 90 minutes one of the most beautiful railway journeys in teh world. The reason that air is competitive is not that it is marginally quicker, it is that it is much much cheaper. HSR will be more expensive still. Not encouraging.
Also not encouraging is that the netwroek rail plan is very poor on inter city and transpennine connections. Making Birmingham/Manchester/Leeds connections really fast might have big positive externalities, and political advantages too (UK is too london-centric as it is).
Last point: England is a densely populated country, much more so than the UK is: Scotland and Wales largely empty…
August 27th, 2009 at 8:06 am
“Network Rail is a private company”
Technically. But its debt is guaranteed by the government.
August 27th, 2009 at 8:34 am
The Channel Tunnel was an economic disaster.
For whom?
I can be in Paris within 3 hours door to door from £59 return – beat that. And if penny-pinchers had been setting public policy back in the day when Paris was built and rebuilt, it wouldn’t be the world’s most beautiful city now.
August 27th, 2009 at 9:24 am
I wish the US was a tad more advanced than we are. We seem to bring up the rear on so many things with exception of weapons. At the rate we’re going we’ll end up back in the stone age. LOL!