The case for HS2

I have a foot in each camp, in that I love and relax in nature for my hobby, and I read Rail and photograph trains also as a hobby.

I have explained HS2 to a few people, and they get why it is needed.

HS2, in a single action, massivly increases capacity on the railway, but at the same time, releases capacity and paths on the current network for addition semi-fast, local and freight trains.

Why not upgrade what we have?

In short, we tried that already. It takes years. is expensive and highly distruptive. In the 1990s, the West Coast Main Line (WCML) had £10billion spent on upgrades. It ook a decade. At weeeknds whole sections would be closed for essential work to be carried out, so people had to use more rain-replacement buses, and the will and money ran out after a decade with no real improvement.

What about damage to the environment?

It is true, major works like HS2 does cause some damage, sometimes a lot. But it is not permanent. In the first decade of this century, another high speed line, HS1 was built through Kent. I created a scar which was ugly and wide. But, once work ended, it was put back and what were one freight yards are fields once again. Rail magazing did a before and after picture feature on some of the sites used, and you would think the "after" shots were the "before" ones.

Now, not all damage can be replaced. Mature and ancient woodland should be avoided, as the planting of thousands of saplings coont replace a whole lost ecosystem.

What is high speed anyway?

The fault is in the name, high speed two. HS in this case does not mean the speed at which the trains travel, but the loading gauge of the lines. About speeds of 125mph, the bow wave of air pressue is too large for conventional lines, so in high speed, the tracks are further apart. It also means the portals of tunnels are dfferent to help dissipate pressure waves. Yes, trains do travel faster on high speed lines, but the main point of HS2 is capacity. Capacity. Capacity.

Our railway network is Victorian, lines twist and turn, and go through tunnels, under bridges, through stations that pretty much are unchanged in 150 years, that make strains slow, and restricts the cross-section of carriages and power cars to fit inside the loading gauge. You can get trains to tilt, but to avoid trains coliding when tilting, they lose cross-sectional area.

High speed rail has the lowest carbon footprint of any form of mass travel, HS2 will be good for the planet.

To hear so-called greens and nature lovers bemoan HS2 and the damage they think it will do, and then jet off round the word to see a rare duck or orchid is nothing but rank hypocracy, a certain well-know nature show TV presenter has spoken at leangth against HS2 and yet drives everywhere and advertised bird watching tours where travel is by plane.

One last point that I forgot to make, is that having espresses, local and freight trains on the same tracks means that capacity on the line is greatly reduced. If a freight train can only go half the speed of an express, then trains fllowing the freight would have to be at a greater distance or run slower that they should until the freight cleared the line. With an high speed line, with all trains operating at the same speed, capacity can be increased to the point of minimum distance between trains.

Is HS2 perfect? No, I would have done it different, made the potential line speed lower so it could run more beside the M1, but having travelled up and down the country, it is clear our nation and economy is being strangled by traffic, and HS2 can change it.