Putting Old Oak Common on the map
Britian's High Speed Rail to nowhere
"With spades in the ground and construction progressing, a shortened high-speed line will connect Birmingham to Old Oak Common. Where is Old Oak Common, you ask?"
I don't know about you, but I'm watching the antics surrounding England's high-speed rail saga and yelling, "WTF!" I mention England because the scheme now excludes Wales or Scotland. Indeed, much of northern England, which the trains were meant to serve, is about to be omitted from the plan.
It seems that Britain, which gave the world trains, cannot plan and build a modern rail system. Plus, in an era of global warming panic, you'd think the Brits would be scrambling to invest in the greenest form of mass transport.
Let us not forget that Britain once had the most environmentally friendly rural transport system imaginable. A dense network of railway branch lines crisscrossed the country. These disappeared in the 1960s, as Doctor Beeching’s “reforms” axed some 6,000 miles of track. This cull forced pastoral committees to travel by car, and it looks like the UK is making the same mistake. We are witnessing an omnishambles—the death of high-speed rail by a thousand cuts.
With spades in the ground and construction progressing, a shortened high-speed line will connect Birmingham to Old Oak Common in West London. Where is Old Oak Common, you ask? Quite right.
The original plan was to connect London Euston with Manchester and then extend into Scotland. That is not going to occur. Moreover, connecting the economic centres of Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds with an east-west high-speed train seems impossible. God forbid that long-neglected Hull, at the eastern end of this corridor and facing Europe, should be left out.
After decades of traveling on Japan's and China's modern, super-efficient bullet trains, the sad truth is that the UK rail system looks like a relic.
The distance between Leeds and Manchester is 45 miles, a journey that takes over an hour by train—if the service is running. I took the high-speed train from Hong Kong to Guangzhou, covering 87 miles in just 45 minutes. After a meeting and lunch, I returned to Hong Kong by 4 p.m.
Of course, these projects are expensive and traverse people's backyards, but the benefits will not materialise unless you adopt a long-term perspective, invest, and get on with it. Undoubtedly, the advent of steam locomotives in the 1830s significantly boosted the British economy, offering returns on investment that were a thousandfold.
In 2008, the Labour government set up HS2 Ltd. after evaluating proposals on the cost and benefits of a new high-speed rail system. The plan called for the first section to connect London and Birmingham by 2020, costing an estimated £7 billion. It didn't happen.
Consider what China has done in the same period — the map below tells a story.
It seems that Britain, which gave the world trains, cannot plan and build a modern rail system. Plus, in an era of global warming panic, you'd think the Brits would be scrambling to invest in the greenest form of mass transport.
Let us not forget that Britain once had the most environmentally friendly rural transport system imaginable. A dense network of railway branch lines crisscrossed the country. These disappeared in the 1960s, as Doctor Beeching’s “reforms” axed some 6,000 miles of track. This cull forced pastoral committees to travel by car, and it looks like the UK is making the same mistake. We are witnessing an omnishambles—the death of high-speed rail by a thousand cuts.
With spades in the ground and construction progressing, a shortened high-speed line will connect Birmingham to Old Oak Common in West London. Where is Old Oak Common, you ask? Quite right.
The original plan was to connect London Euston with Manchester and then extend into Scotland. That is not going to occur. Moreover, connecting the economic centres of Liverpool, Manchester, and Leeds with an east-west high-speed train seems impossible. God forbid that long-neglected Hull, at the eastern end of this corridor and facing Europe, should be left out.
After decades of traveling on Japan's and China's modern, super-efficient bullet trains, the sad truth is that the UK rail system looks like a relic.
The distance between Leeds and Manchester is 45 miles, a journey that takes over an hour by train—if the service is running. I took the high-speed train from Hong Kong to Guangzhou, covering 87 miles in just 45 minutes. After a meeting and lunch, I returned to Hong Kong by 4 p.m.
Of course, these projects are expensive and traverse people's backyards, but the benefits will not materialise unless you adopt a long-term perspective, invest, and get on with it. Undoubtedly, the advent of steam locomotives in the 1830s significantly boosted the British economy, offering returns on investment that were a thousandfold.
In 2008, the Labour government set up HS2 Ltd. after evaluating proposals on the cost and benefits of a new high-speed rail system. The plan called for the first section to connect London and Birmingham by 2020, costing an estimated £7 billion. It didn't happen.
Consider what China has done in the same period — the map below tells a story.
China opened its first high-speed rail line to connect Beijing and Tianjin in 2008. Since then, It has built 13,670 miles of high-speed rail and will add another 9,321 miles by 2025. This ambitious effort has transformed how Chinese people travel, with massive economic and environmental benefits.
The reasons why Britain cannot progress on high-speed rail are numerous. To begin with, democracy obstructs all efforts. The political system renders expensive, visionary investment projects difficult to promote to voters. Elections are not won by pledging improved transport links for the forthcoming decades.
Then, there are planning laws in the UK that restrict developments. Even in Europe, less stringent laws and a pragmatic approach enable high-speed rail projects to progress. Moreover, the Chinese and the Japanese have got on with the task, recognising that the needs of many outweigh the complaints of a few. Landowners received compensation or relocation as necessary.
Recently, the UK government announced that the HS2 project cost had shot up past £100 billion. So, having already spent £40 billion, they propose a line to nowhere, creating a white elephant. Then again, the UK threw nearly 7 billion at an aircraft carrier with an aversion to the sea.
Sure, it's reasonable to question the cost. But that begs the question: how did the planners get their sums so wrong, and why can the French build high-speed lines at a third of the cost?
This week, the Indonesians inaugurated their first high-speed railway with Chinese assistance. Yes, the project was delayed by a year due to Covid, and it went over budget, costing £5.9 billion for 91 miles of track. Nevertheless, it's completed at a cost considerably less than what the UK can manage.
Indonesia faced similar criticisms that the project cost too much and would prove a waste. Now that that has been resolved, they are considering extending the line.
It is inescapable that the UK needs high-speed rail to renew its ailing transportation system. A commitment to the project will affirm that the country means business. After all, there's no use in strutting on the international stage, pretending to be a world power with ailing infrastructure. Also, spending £100 billion to put Old Oak Common on the map is a high price.
Joking aside, Britons need to ask themselves a question: Do we want to be a modern, dynamic nation or continue on a path of managed decline? Until that is resolved, tough decisions will not be made.
October 2023
The reasons why Britain cannot progress on high-speed rail are numerous. To begin with, democracy obstructs all efforts. The political system renders expensive, visionary investment projects difficult to promote to voters. Elections are not won by pledging improved transport links for the forthcoming decades.
Then, there are planning laws in the UK that restrict developments. Even in Europe, less stringent laws and a pragmatic approach enable high-speed rail projects to progress. Moreover, the Chinese and the Japanese have got on with the task, recognising that the needs of many outweigh the complaints of a few. Landowners received compensation or relocation as necessary.
Recently, the UK government announced that the HS2 project cost had shot up past £100 billion. So, having already spent £40 billion, they propose a line to nowhere, creating a white elephant. Then again, the UK threw nearly 7 billion at an aircraft carrier with an aversion to the sea.
Sure, it's reasonable to question the cost. But that begs the question: how did the planners get their sums so wrong, and why can the French build high-speed lines at a third of the cost?
This week, the Indonesians inaugurated their first high-speed railway with Chinese assistance. Yes, the project was delayed by a year due to Covid, and it went over budget, costing £5.9 billion for 91 miles of track. Nevertheless, it's completed at a cost considerably less than what the UK can manage.
Indonesia faced similar criticisms that the project cost too much and would prove a waste. Now that that has been resolved, they are considering extending the line.
It is inescapable that the UK needs high-speed rail to renew its ailing transportation system. A commitment to the project will affirm that the country means business. After all, there's no use in strutting on the international stage, pretending to be a world power with ailing infrastructure. Also, spending £100 billion to put Old Oak Common on the map is a high price.
Joking aside, Britons need to ask themselves a question: Do we want to be a modern, dynamic nation or continue on a path of managed decline? Until that is resolved, tough decisions will not be made.
October 2023