High Speed Rail is the proverbial wet dream of politicians

What the railway requires is continued and concerted investment in new longer platforms and trains.

23rd January 2011

I believe that I am not unfair in my characterisation of high speed rail as a political wet dream. It is simply a high status project like Concorde for political kudos. For me I find the Government more concerned with their political legacy than improving the Nations infrastructure to benefit the many. I feel it is a rather more of a secondary consideration because of the prestige such project bring. If you do not believe me you only need to look at the Olympics.

The rail network in England is pathetic. Essentially the railway has been undervalued and underfinanced for so long it creeks under the smallest of extra pressure. I find the sanctimonious attitude of trains good planes bad by politicians abhorrent. But what really got me riled up concerning High Speed Two was when Secretary of State for Transport, Philip Hammond MP proclaimed on the 26 July 2010 the Government is committed to the establishment of a high speed rail network as part of its programme of measures to create a low carbon economy. Hogwash! Linking high speed rail to a low carbon economy is a greenwashing exercise to make the Government look proactive in curbing our carbon emissions.

What the railway requires is continued and concerted investment in new longer platforms and trains. In time high speed rail will become necessary for our Nations infrastructure but it is not the primary request from commuters and tourists. Top of their list is usually, I would like a seat. I would much rather see investments in those areas where I and others can see measurable improvement.

On the 9th November 2010 Michael Savage of the Independent quoted Anthony Smith, Chief Executive of Passenger Focus in response to claims made by MPs that by 2014, a 15 per cent shortfall in additional places on London peak-time services means that more people will be made to stand or take a later service.

"We need substantial long-term investment to provide longer and more frequent trains to help reduce crowding."

If we were to implement my back of the envelope transport plan for the rail network we would be investing capital and energy in the following three areas to work on resolving that issue by:

Extend existing platforms across the network to support longer trains.
Complete the electrification of the network.
Replace tired and dilapidated trains with new longer electric rolling stock to retire older diesel units.

I hope you agree that my simple three point plan is obvious, financially responsible and above all of benefit to a greater swath of the Nation rather than limited to the few that journey between London and Birmingham. To support this rather sensible idea I believe that there must be a rather large guiding principle to infrastructure policy.

Currently the National debate about the future of rail has not covered where the electricity will come from. I believe in order to power new electric trains rather than diesel trains we must construct new nuclear power stations to power electric trains and vehicles. Presently it is cool to talk about solar, wave and wind power generation but really I do not think it will measure up to the hype. I rather expect it to woefully under deliver. Yes, I believe it important to investigate other source of energy other than coal, gas and oil but in my mind nuclear is the only credible solution presently.

Nuclear power stations can deliver the extra electricity required to drive new electric trains and fulfil the future demands from other electric vehicles because fission reaction continues to work at night and with no wind. Only by produce electricity from sources which themselves do not emit carbon dioxide can we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and protect the planets biodiversitée.

Do you believe we need high speed rail? Or would you like a seat next time you travel by train?

Links

This work is licenced under a Creative Commons Licence.