Readers letters
In his letter about HS2 Mr Lucas is correct in stating that trains can maintain a speed of 400km/h in a modern tunnel and the TGV was altered to serve two French airports but he ignores the wider and more important issues affecting this project.
The main benefit of the high-speed network would be derived by connecting it directly to the over 1000 miles of existing TGV track. The government HS2 proposals start building the line from Euston. So it will be cut off from the existing HS1-european network. This drastically reduces the destinations available to the British high-speed network and postpones the monetary return. Mention is made of a non high-speed track connection from Old Oak Common to HS1 that might be built later. It seems strange to have a half-speed section in the network when potentially this could be the busiest section of the UK high-speed network!
Also in confirming the obsession of the government’s proposed HS2 scheme with making a high-speed line direct to Heathrow airport, Mr Lucas seems unaware that Birmingham airport is now being developed to handle a further 27 million passengers. So that next year it will serve long haul flights to any destination, just like Heathrow. After May 2014 most midland airline travellers would be using their local airport at Birmingham. Constructing a high-speed link to Heathrow, which will open over ten years after this date is locking the stable door after the horse has bolted! Also unfortunately Heathrow is not near a sensible north south route. So a high-speed line to Heathrow would be a dead end.
Taking the track distance for the Euston to Birmingham route supplied by the government, the alternative HS2 route from London to Birmingham from Stratford via Luton is very similar in length. Also the route via Luton has many large towns along it so it is not appropriate to consider it as unspoilt countryside. At the same time there is enough space between these towns for a railway line to be fitted relatively cheaply with much less disruption and cost than would be caused in suburban or more hilly areas. Also stations built near these towns would be of great benefit to the million or so local people who live near them.
Stratford station has some spare capacity that could be used to extend the high-speed line northwards. This has been confirmed by Dick Keegan, a former director of projects at British Rail who suggested using it as the London terminus for HS2. Extending the high-speed line northwards up the Lea Valley would be less disruptive and cheaper as so much of the route is filled by reservoirs.
The best development method is to progressively extend the existing high-speed line from Stratford, opening stations every 20 miles or so. Thus getting a return on the investment progressively in a much shorter period of time. HS1 has slower trains on the same track which use more stations. HS2 should operate in a similar way to utilise spare track capacity. Lines should only be extended into the centre of towns when the system has run for 10 years or so and shown that it will generate income. We would do well to follow the example of the French who firstly built lines between major cities. After 10 years they linked up the direct north-south line which connected easily to Charles de Gaulle airport. We should note their pride that they made their TGV lines with minimal cost!
Large population growth is a fact of life all over the world today, even in the UK. It would make much sense to plan large housing developments or even a new town near a planned high-speed station. The station could then be sensibly sited near the centre of the town. Demolishing so much of our towns to get a high-speed station near the centre is a great waste of money. Once the system has shown its popularity it could then possibly justify the extra cost of creating a high-speed station near the middle of an existing town.
All of these reasons show up great defects in the government’s proposed HS2 scheme and show that a route from Stratford up the Lea valley to Birmingham would be better for future travellers and the country.
Mark Hardinge Next letter: Philosophy for engineers