Plans proposed today by Network Rail for a £34 billion new rail line between London and Edinburgh, also linking Heathrow, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow to the capital and Channel Tunnel Rail Link, should be welcomed with a mix of enthusiasm and disappointment. Enthusiasm because evidently it has been realised that such infrastructure is both needed and beneficial, and disappointment because it shows a decidedly 20th Century view of the railways.
The plans have been framed as a way of rivalling domestic air travel, indeed the proposed routes (see diagram) are specifically designed with such an aim, linking city centre to city centre. The proposed route would indeed be attractive to current domestic air passengers (it would do Birmingham in 46 minutes, Manchester in 1 hour 6 minutes, Liverpool in 1 hour 23 minutes and Edinburgh in 2 hours 9 minutes, and mean no airport hassles), but so would any decent North-South rail link. To devise a line with this trade foremost in mind, indeed solely in mind, misses the massive potential of such a construction – to compete with the roads.
Now I am a firm believer that, for long distance travel, you can never compete with the roads. Unless the train station is walking, tube or reasonable taxi distance from your destination, even those of us sympathetic to the railways and who enjoy rail travel will reach for the car keys. It’s a no brainer – it’s door to door.
But if you can’t beat them, why not join them?
Why not construct the high speed line around the motorway network - coincidentally sparring virgin countryside and saving billions - and have the stations at the major junctions, not for passengers but cars and lorries? Drive anywhere by motorway through Kent or the Midlands and North and you will see lorry after lorry heading to/from the Channel – where most get put on a train! With a proper North-South link we could just put them on that train at selected major junctions along the M25, or M1, or M6, and whisk them away to Europe at 140mph. Drivers of both cars and lorries could roll-on, retire for lunch in a buffet car and roll-off later. (Passenger only trains or metro links could still go to the city centres as well of course).
Imagine how quiet the motorways would be. How much less they would wear, how many fewer accidents there would be, how much less pollution and congestion. And that’s before we even consider the regenerative effect to the North, and the easing of pressure on the over-crowded, drought prone South East. Even haulage firms would love it, as time on the train (instead of idle time in a services or lay-by) would count as required rest for HGV drivers, they could rival some air transport on speed, and there would be less wear.
But it seems such a vision is unlikely. Indeed in addition to the High Speed 2 proposals, their views on rail freight utilising the current network demonstrate a 20th Century view of rail transport also, with their misguided attempt to build the KIG strategic rail-freight interchange in mid-Kent. The Kent International Gateway (KIG) is not only in the wrong place – why take HGVs off the road in mid-Kent to save a 30 mile journey to Folkestone when you could do so further North and save hundreds of miles of road travel? – but also the wrong thing. The government is still wedded to the shipping container model of goods haulage – unloading from HGV to train, and vice-versa – rather than the road on rail model utilised already so successfully by Eurotunnel.
So I welcome the new Network Rail study with a mixture of enthusiasm and disappointment. It shows there is a light at the end of the transport congestion tunnel, just without new thinking that light could be a train coming in the other direction.
