UK high speed rail

Timon Singh

A high speed rail service in the UK is the dream of many a commuter and traveller. Currently, the UK's train service is plagued by delays, expensive tickets and journey times that could be made shorter if you'd chosen to drive. However, the government is planning to rejuvenate the rail service with a UK high speed rail service that will be the envy of the continent, however there are problems with the proposed plans.

Firstly, the cost of the UK high speed railways proposed by Network Rail would costs £34 billion. This would see a high speed railway line linking Scotland and London by 2030. Of course, whilst this has been welcomed by many, there are those that feel it's just a colossal waste of money.

Stephen Glaister of The Guardian gave a damning assessment of the plans in his column last week, saying that whilst the idea of a UK high speed rail system had united the country's political parties, many issues surrounding the scheme had been swept under the carpet.

Benefits?

Whilst it is clear that a high speed railway service would benefit the country in terms of infrastructure modernisation, freeing up existing west coast lines for more freight and local services and allowing travellers to reach their destinations in the same season they set off, Glaister said the £34 billion bill could be better spent on other things.

Network Rail, for example, have been quick to say how the new rail line would help the country's environmental targets by helping people give up their cars on long distance travels, resulting in 3.8 million fewer vehicle journeys, but in a report by Professor John Preston of the University of Southampton, he stated the environment improvement would be 'marginal' and not enough to justify such an expensive project.

Also, even if we do start to use less fossil fuels and more nuclear and renewable power over the next few years, then the greatest environmental impact of the scheme will occur during its construction, which, by the way will not start before 2017 at the earliest, with the first phase of the line not opening before about 2025. Glaister even says that if Network Rail are serious about offsetting carbon emissions, then the money would be better spend on buying 2.3 billion tress to offset carbon emissions or to finance the part-purchase of 27 million new, low-carbon emitting vehicles via a government scrappage scheme.

Faster journeys

Still, it seems that the project is destined to go ahead, so environmental claims be damned - it's coming, so we should look at the benefits.

Speaking to the BBC in August, Network Rail said the trains on the new railway would travel at speeds of 200 mph and that passengers would be able to get from Glasgow to London in in just two hours and 16 minutes, while also serving Manchester and Birmingham.

The new line would have than 1,500 miles of rail, sleepers and ballast, as well as 138 bridges over roads and current railway lines. Network Rail have also said that the new line is essential to ease the pressure on Britain's railways, which has apparently seen passenger numbers rocket by 40 percent over the past decade. It is believed that by 2024, many existing lines will be at full capacity.

"If, as research suggests, up to three times as many passengers will be travelling on our railways by 2020, then it is important that we move quickly in planning today for the rail network of tomorrow," said Scotland's Transport Minister Stewart Stevenson at the time.

So on paper it sounds good and beneficial, but whether it actually is made on time and on budget is another thing all together.