UK - High-speed rail travel not green?

Other railway topics related to Europe.

Moderator: John Ashworth

Post Reply
User avatar
John Ashworth
Site Admin
Posts: 23606
Joined: 24 Jan 2007, 14:38
Location: Nairobi, Kenya
Contact:

UK - High-speed rail travel not green?

Post by John Ashworth »

High-speed rail travel is not a green option, say ministers
Ben Webster, Transport Correspondent
The Times
June 6, 2008

Britain is to be left out of Europe’s high-speed rail revolution because the Government has decided that 200mph trains are bad for the environment.

Despite repeated promises to consider the benefits of a dedicated new line capable of carrying passengers from London to Scotland in less than three hours, ministers are thinking again.

In a letter obtained by The Times, Tom Harris, the Rail Minister, said: “The argument that high-speed rail travel is a ‘green option’ does not necessarily stand up to close inspection. Increasing the maximum speed of a train from 200kph [125mph – the current maximum speed of domestic trains] to 350kph leads to a 90 per cent increase in energy consumption.”

Mr Harris was responding to an appeal by Chris Davies, the Liberal Democrat MEP for the North West of England, asking the Government to make its position clear. Mr Davies pointed out that France had already built 1,000 miles of 190mph line, was planning another 500 miles and was considering raising the top speed of trains to 225mph.

Mr Harris claims that Britain has less need for high-speed rail than other European countries. He said: “The economic geography of the UK is very different from other countries with high-speed lines. The main challenge for the UK’s transport network is congestion and reliability, not journey times and connectivity.”

Mr Harris’s comments contrast sharply with Labour’s 2005 election manifesto, which pledged to “look at the feasibility and affordability of a new North-South high-speed link”.

In March, Atkins, an engineering consultancy, published a study of the costs and benefits of two high-speed lines between London and Scotland along the East and West coasts. It found that the lines would cost £31 billion, but provide £63 billion in economic benefits, including helping the regeneration of northern cities.

Next week, Greengauge 21, a rail industry lobby group, will publish a report showing that businesses in the West Midlands alone would benefit by £2.2 billion from a high-speed line to London.

Mr Davies said that Mr Harris had failed to acknowledge the environmental benefits of persuading domestic air passengers to transfer to high-speed rail. He added: “It is very disappointing to see the minister scrabbling around for excuses for the Government’s inaction on high-speed rail, especially when those excuses are so weak.”

A high-speed train produces about 90 grams of carbon dioxide per passenger-kilometre, compared with just over 50g/km for a conventional electric train. But a domestic flight produces 225g/km.

Inter-city lines are severely overcrowded and there is strong evidence that future demand has been underestimated. The total distance travelled by train is growing by about 10 per cent a year, but over the next five years the Government is planning to increase capacity by only 22.5 per cent.

In January Iain Coucher, the chief executive of Network Rail, told The Times that by 2020 Britain needed at least three domestic high-speed lines to add to the 68-mile link between London and the Channel Tunnel.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “Europe - Other Railway Topics”