> "High Speed 2" has been suggested as the magic bullet to solve
> congestion at airports and to bridge the North-South divide. Some
> people think that copying countries like Japan and France will "propel
> our rail system into the 21st century". But what works well in France
> may not work well in Britain.
>
> High speed rail can certainly have great benefits if built in the
> right place, but Britain's geography isn't well-suited for it. In
> particular:
>
> 1. In the UK, major cities are only about 50-150 km apart. By the time
> a train reaches its maximum speed of 350 km/h it has to start slowing
> down again, otherwise it will just race past its destination. A 350 km/
> h train might be ideal for routes like Paris-Lyon (400km) or Madrid-
> Barcelona (600km), but for London-Birmingham or Birmingham-Manchester
> it's not necessary. A 250 km/h train would only be a few minutes
> slower, and existing lines can be upgraded to 250 km/h at a much lower
> cost. The only route that may be worth 350 km/h is London-Edinburgh,
> but ridership would be too low to warrant the investment.
>
> 2. High speed rail lines need to be built extremely straight, to limit
> centrifugal forces in curves. In France and Spain this is relatively
> easy to do because there are plateaus, wide and straight river
> valleys, and large floodplains. In Britain, the geography is dominated
> by rolling hills, which would mean a large amount of cuttings, tunnels
> and bridges, and an investment per km several times higher. High speed
> rail has had only limited success in hilly Germany for the same
> reason.
>
> 3. Britain has a high population density overall, and the countryside
> is very built-up in the South. Any new corridor would require a large
> number of compulsory purchases, adding even more costs and causing a
> large amount of disruption.
>
> Instead of building High Speed 2, it would be a much better idea to
> upgrade the existing network. Much of it could be widened to allow
> double-decker trains, for instance, which would also solve the
> overcrowding problem. Connecting Heathrow to the West Coast Mainline
> would take most passengers away from planes, even if trains "only" ran
> at 250 km/h. What is your opinion?