Britain’s rail network constrained by history

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/22/britains-rail-network-constrained-by-history

Version 0 of 1.

Simon Jenkins (Opinion, 21 July) still doesn’t understand what HS2 is about. It was perhaps foolish to call the project “High Speed 2”, so that many people think it’s about getting from London to points north more quickly. But its main raison d’être is increasing the capacity of the railways. When in the 1960s we ran out of capacity on the roads and built the M1 and M6, people didn’t see the reason for these as being able to get somewhere by car more quickly: it was understood that the roads were full. True, as with HS2, people didn’t want the new roads next to their houses. I travel to London fairly regularly on the west coast mainline (WCML). Unlike most passengers, I usually spend most of the journey looking out of the window rather than working or reading. South of Rugby it’s quite obvious that the line is very busy indeed, and I understand from the railway technical press that during the day there’s very little spare capacity (extra train paths) available for freight trains, for which there is a demand. Car drivers are aware when roads are full; but unless the train is late most rail passengers have no idea about the capacity of the line they’re travelling on.

Alternatives to HS2 have been considered – reopening the Great Central Line, for instance, but there was a fuss about that as well – but it was concluded that the best value for money was to build a new high speed railway, which would also be a high capacity railway, so that existing fast passenger trains could be diverted on to it, creating more capacity for freight and commuter trains on the existing WCML. Do we wish to see ever increasing numbers of HGVs on our roads, or do we have an interest in moving goods around in a more environmentally efficient way?Ian WatsonCarlisle

• Frank Field is on shaky ground if he thinks it’s a simple matter to sink railway lines and raise the height of bridges for double-decker trains (Letters, 21 July) without any understanding of the expense of dealing with ground conditions. Having mistakenly banked on a high degree of uniformity, this is one of the reasons why the cost of the Great Western mainline electrification project tripled to £2.8bn as the varied soils and rocks alongside the tracks require different techniques to erect stable gantries.

Stripped of the costs of new rolling stock, HS2 is not as expensive as might first be assumed. From the outset, it will speed up existing services to Euston by diverting inter-city trains resulting in more capacity via Milton Keynes which has seen a decrease in faster trains over the last few decades. Exclusive to HS2 lines, new wider rolling stock, including comfortable double-decker trains, could have their main London terminus at Old Oak Common, providing a more convenient interchange with Crossrail services to Heathrow and central London. What is missing are plans for any connection with HS1 and the continent. David NowellNew Barnet, Hertfordshire

• Frank Field has some very good ideas about improving our rail network, but does he have any idea of the cost and years of disruption that would be caused by making the railways suitable for running double-deck trains? They have been tried in this country. The Southern Region had two four-coach double-decker experimental trains between 1949 and 1971. They were not a great success, and were unpopular with commuters. The top decks were cramped and badly ventilated; and stations stops were prolonged because it took twice as long for passengers to get on and off.

As usual, the problem is our railway history. We were the first country to have railways: they were built with the dimensions of stage coaches in mind, with the result that tunnels, bridges and cuttings prevent the use in most of Britain of rail vehicles wider than 9ft or higher than 13ft. Continental railways, which came along a little later, can mostly allow vehicles 14ft high and just over 10ft wide. That small increase in size made all the difference when it came to introducing double-deck trains: plus, of course, the fact that continental platforms tend to be not far above ground level, allowing the use of double-decker coaches with a rather lower ground floor.John WilliamsChichester, West Sussex

• The irony is that when the last of Britain’s major mainline railways, the Great Central Railway, was built it was built to the continental loading gauge with the hope that it could eventually be linked to the continental railway system via a Channel tunnel. This visionary project was also designed for high-speed passenger trains but was gradually closed when BR embarked on its programme of closing lines and stations in the 1960s following Dr Beeching’s report.John NaylorSunningdale, Berkshire

• Improvements to the track and signalling, which would enable more and faster trains on the existing tracks, seems the only feasible option for the existing network. Not surprisingly, the privatised railway companies and the government seem unwilling to undertake such a bold and of course expensive, forward-looking move. Ian GordonFolkestone, Kent

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com