British Railways - HS2
There's been some debate about whether we in the UK need to spend money on a new high speed line, especially in a time of tightened finances. I personally think it's a good idea, but I've found explaining why is a bit esoteric, although really interesting. Why I think so generally comes out of playing the computer game OpenTTD, where I've had to solve the kind of problems that are facing us now in a virtual simulation. Generally, having played many games from start to finish, at some point I will always create a high speed rail network, simply because it is a really good idea and it works.
Generally, the argument against the building of HS2 focuses on the fact that we're going to spend an awful lot of money and damage an awful lot of environment and communities in order to shorten the journey time down a bit. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but currently London to Birmingham is one and a half hours, and the scheme will cost some £33 billion and reduce the journey time by about 30 minutes (source BBC). The argument runs that we will be spending about one billion per minute of journey time saved, and it's not worth that and the additional cost to communities and the environment on the route. Personally, I find that a really convincing argument, which is why I'm glad that this argument has pretty much nothing to do with why HS2 should be built. The extra speed is good, yes, but it's not the real issue.
The real issue is capacity, or in other words, the number of people per day a rail line can carry. A definite problem faced by the railways is that the West Coast Main Line (WCML) which serves the Birmingham to London route at the moment, is heading towards full capacity. Passenger numbers are growing faster than previously thought, and if they keep growing as they are, the railways are not going to manage. I've noticed this personally. I could always get a seat once on the London-Birmingham route. By the time I stopped travelling the route, only on late trains could I get one.
It's vitally important to get more trains running on the railways. Theoretically, it's possible to put more trains on the WCML and increase the capacity that way. However, this has issues. Every train line has a maximum of trains it can take and still run them at full speed. The amount a train line can take is governed by the number of tracks, the number of platforms (trains slow down into and out of stations, so you can often get a bit more out of a line by doubling up the platforms), signalling lengths (signalling works by allowing only one train into one signalling section on a railway at a time, so the average length of sections on a line determines the maximum flow of trains) and junctions (these affect the line as many in our rail network are in place, which means that trains turn across the track when they enter or leave a junction, much like you turn across a road when turning right in a car, blocking all on-coming traffic, or all traffic behind you while waiting to turn). British networks also have the issue that the train lines wander a lot, due to the fact they were built under Victorian times, and the train companies couldn't force purchase land, making them singularly unsuitable for High Speed standard rail.
There's already been a lot of work done on the WCML, but the problem is that the line looks like it's coming up to its theoretical capacity, even with all the upgrade work that has been done. Because the line is so important to the country, it's also hard to shut it down and upgrade it for more capacity, and it costs a hell of a lot more to upgrade live lines than shut ones.
A further problem with the WCML Birmingham connection is that trains leave the WCML at Rugby, travel to Coventry and then go from Coventry to Birmingham along the local tracks, entering Birmingham New Street there. Junctions at Coventry are in place, in the City Centre, with tracks from Leamington Spa entering. The Coventry-Birmingham route serves both local trains on a single line (two tracks) with a passing place in the middle at Birmingham International. This means that local people get two trains an hour, and there are only one or two trains an hour from London to Birmingham which can go along that route. If the high speed train misses its slot (or the local train misses its slot), this results in the high speed train sitting behind the local train and stopping at every station. This happens enough and it's embarrassing for a "high speed" rail service in a country with a supposedly 21st century rail network.
Increasing train capacity to Birmingham would mean having to get rid of local train services (which are pretty dire already by London standards) between Birmingham and Coventry, and would probably affect Coventry - Leamington Spa services. With the London-Rugby section of the WCML nearly full, adding more trains would mean replacing trains to Manchester and all points north along the WCML with ones to Birmingham. You could also increase capacity along the WCML, which has two lines (four tracks), by using the two tracks used for local services (including serives serving Northampton). In other words, you can make things better for London to Birmingham, but only by making things worse for other routes.
To make things even worse, Birmingham New Street Station is nearly at capacity and has two lines joining into the Birmingham - Coventry line before it reaches Birmingham New Street. Fortunately, these junctions are flyover junctions (like motorway junctions or flyovers), not in-place ones. However, although three lines come into BNS, only two lines (four tracks) enter BNS itself, so you can't run any of the lines independently to full capacity. Increasing traffic on the Birmingham - Coventry Line could displace trains on the other lines, which are services from Reading/Oxford and the Chilterns via Banbury and services from Stafford via the Lichfield line, which also runs local services, through the Curzon Street Junction. This does not even begin to cover the complexity of the other services coming from the other side of BNS, and how they affect the Birmingham-Coventry line.
The WCML is also under competition from freight operators, and they have more money to buy out night operation. So trains can't use the line at night, and train services stop ridiculously early. This is just great for a modern 24hr economy.
The icing on the cake is that Virgin operates the fast trains on the Birmingham - Coventry Line, but London Midland (formerly Central Trains) operates the slow trains. Although these two companies affect each other, they're organised so they don't have to give a damn about each other, as if they didn't, and the slow trains aren't actually obliged to wait for the fast trains (this may have changed, but it was silly), nor can Virgin do anything when local services break down, or points/signalling system fail.
The point to take away from this is not only that expanding the old route is hard and infeasible, but that it impacts a lot of other routes. Instead of asking what would happen if we tried to run more trains to Birmingham, imagine asking what would happen if we removed all the trains from London to Birmingham and put them on a new line?
We could run a hell of a lot more local services around the whole Midlands. People in Coventry, Birmingham and Leamington Spa would all benefit from keeping the Coventry line clear of fast through traffic. Likewise, Birmingham New Street could handle a lot more local services and perhaps more load on the Curzon Street Junction from the other lines.
A lot of trains would suddenly not be using the WCML between London and Rugby. This would mean more capacity either for freight or for trains heading further north, to Manchester and up to Glasgow. Either solution benefits the UK as a whole.
There would also be a lot less complexity on the Birmingham - Coventry stretch. Right now, if a train breaks down on the Birmingham - Coventry Line, everything goes to hell equally for everyone on that line. However, letting the Birmingham - Coventry line fall into local use removes it completely from consideration. By putting all the trains under the control of one company which has an incentive to run a good service and can't blame someone else when they screw up, the service could be improved. There would also be significant savings from allowing it to fall from a high standard, which the line has to be to run the faster London trains, even though it runs a lot of slow local services. This is hardly cost efficient use of high standard railway lines.
The addition of an alternative route between London and Birmingham also means that the WCML (or HS2) can be shut down periodically for maintenance or upgrades, as there exists an alternate route. This is definitely cheaper and better than doing the upgrades and maintenance when trains are running. Because the system is not so near to full capacity, there is some fall-back when accidents happen or trains break down. closing one or the other line down.
So, in conclusion, building a new high speed network makes a lot of sense, mainly because of the positive effects on the the whole of the rail network and how much it simplifies our railway network.
Generally, the argument against the building of HS2 focuses on the fact that we're going to spend an awful lot of money and damage an awful lot of environment and communities in order to shorten the journey time down a bit. I'm not sure about the exact numbers, but currently London to Birmingham is one and a half hours, and the scheme will cost some £33 billion and reduce the journey time by about 30 minutes (source BBC). The argument runs that we will be spending about one billion per minute of journey time saved, and it's not worth that and the additional cost to communities and the environment on the route. Personally, I find that a really convincing argument, which is why I'm glad that this argument has pretty much nothing to do with why HS2 should be built. The extra speed is good, yes, but it's not the real issue.
The real issue is capacity, or in other words, the number of people per day a rail line can carry. A definite problem faced by the railways is that the West Coast Main Line (WCML) which serves the Birmingham to London route at the moment, is heading towards full capacity. Passenger numbers are growing faster than previously thought, and if they keep growing as they are, the railways are not going to manage. I've noticed this personally. I could always get a seat once on the London-Birmingham route. By the time I stopped travelling the route, only on late trains could I get one.
It's vitally important to get more trains running on the railways. Theoretically, it's possible to put more trains on the WCML and increase the capacity that way. However, this has issues. Every train line has a maximum of trains it can take and still run them at full speed. The amount a train line can take is governed by the number of tracks, the number of platforms (trains slow down into and out of stations, so you can often get a bit more out of a line by doubling up the platforms), signalling lengths (signalling works by allowing only one train into one signalling section on a railway at a time, so the average length of sections on a line determines the maximum flow of trains) and junctions (these affect the line as many in our rail network are in place, which means that trains turn across the track when they enter or leave a junction, much like you turn across a road when turning right in a car, blocking all on-coming traffic, or all traffic behind you while waiting to turn). British networks also have the issue that the train lines wander a lot, due to the fact they were built under Victorian times, and the train companies couldn't force purchase land, making them singularly unsuitable for High Speed standard rail.
There's already been a lot of work done on the WCML, but the problem is that the line looks like it's coming up to its theoretical capacity, even with all the upgrade work that has been done. Because the line is so important to the country, it's also hard to shut it down and upgrade it for more capacity, and it costs a hell of a lot more to upgrade live lines than shut ones.
A further problem with the WCML Birmingham connection is that trains leave the WCML at Rugby, travel to Coventry and then go from Coventry to Birmingham along the local tracks, entering Birmingham New Street there. Junctions at Coventry are in place, in the City Centre, with tracks from Leamington Spa entering. The Coventry-Birmingham route serves both local trains on a single line (two tracks) with a passing place in the middle at Birmingham International. This means that local people get two trains an hour, and there are only one or two trains an hour from London to Birmingham which can go along that route. If the high speed train misses its slot (or the local train misses its slot), this results in the high speed train sitting behind the local train and stopping at every station. This happens enough and it's embarrassing for a "high speed" rail service in a country with a supposedly 21st century rail network.
Increasing train capacity to Birmingham would mean having to get rid of local train services (which are pretty dire already by London standards) between Birmingham and Coventry, and would probably affect Coventry - Leamington Spa services. With the London-Rugby section of the WCML nearly full, adding more trains would mean replacing trains to Manchester and all points north along the WCML with ones to Birmingham. You could also increase capacity along the WCML, which has two lines (four tracks), by using the two tracks used for local services (including serives serving Northampton). In other words, you can make things better for London to Birmingham, but only by making things worse for other routes.
To make things even worse, Birmingham New Street Station is nearly at capacity and has two lines joining into the Birmingham - Coventry line before it reaches Birmingham New Street. Fortunately, these junctions are flyover junctions (like motorway junctions or flyovers), not in-place ones. However, although three lines come into BNS, only two lines (four tracks) enter BNS itself, so you can't run any of the lines independently to full capacity. Increasing traffic on the Birmingham - Coventry Line could displace trains on the other lines, which are services from Reading/Oxford and the Chilterns via Banbury and services from Stafford via the Lichfield line, which also runs local services, through the Curzon Street Junction. This does not even begin to cover the complexity of the other services coming from the other side of BNS, and how they affect the Birmingham-Coventry line.
The WCML is also under competition from freight operators, and they have more money to buy out night operation. So trains can't use the line at night, and train services stop ridiculously early. This is just great for a modern 24hr economy.
The icing on the cake is that Virgin operates the fast trains on the Birmingham - Coventry Line, but London Midland (formerly Central Trains) operates the slow trains. Although these two companies affect each other, they're organised so they don't have to give a damn about each other, as if they didn't, and the slow trains aren't actually obliged to wait for the fast trains (this may have changed, but it was silly), nor can Virgin do anything when local services break down, or points/signalling system fail.
The point to take away from this is not only that expanding the old route is hard and infeasible, but that it impacts a lot of other routes. Instead of asking what would happen if we tried to run more trains to Birmingham, imagine asking what would happen if we removed all the trains from London to Birmingham and put them on a new line?
We could run a hell of a lot more local services around the whole Midlands. People in Coventry, Birmingham and Leamington Spa would all benefit from keeping the Coventry line clear of fast through traffic. Likewise, Birmingham New Street could handle a lot more local services and perhaps more load on the Curzon Street Junction from the other lines.
A lot of trains would suddenly not be using the WCML between London and Rugby. This would mean more capacity either for freight or for trains heading further north, to Manchester and up to Glasgow. Either solution benefits the UK as a whole.
There would also be a lot less complexity on the Birmingham - Coventry stretch. Right now, if a train breaks down on the Birmingham - Coventry Line, everything goes to hell equally for everyone on that line. However, letting the Birmingham - Coventry line fall into local use removes it completely from consideration. By putting all the trains under the control of one company which has an incentive to run a good service and can't blame someone else when they screw up, the service could be improved. There would also be significant savings from allowing it to fall from a high standard, which the line has to be to run the faster London trains, even though it runs a lot of slow local services. This is hardly cost efficient use of high standard railway lines.
The addition of an alternative route between London and Birmingham also means that the WCML (or HS2) can be shut down periodically for maintenance or upgrades, as there exists an alternate route. This is definitely cheaper and better than doing the upgrades and maintenance when trains are running. Because the system is not so near to full capacity, there is some fall-back when accidents happen or trains break down. closing one or the other line down.
So, in conclusion, building a new high speed network makes a lot of sense, mainly because of the positive effects on the the whole of the rail network and how much it simplifies our railway network.