London to Manchester in just 55 minutes?

[Aurora]

Building.co.uk - 03/09/10

Magnetically levitating trains are faster and quieter than high-speed trains, use less energy and take up a lot less space. So why is this technology still waiting on the platform?

It’s 2026 and Britain’s new high-speed rail network has just been completed. You step onto a train in London and 55 minutes later step off it in Manchester. Of course, you could have also left at Birmingham, 28 minutes earlier, but now you are in Manchester you can spend another 18 minutes to get to Leeds or alternatively 17 minutes for Liverpool. If you had had a more ambitious onward journey, you could also have got off the train at three airports: Heathrow, Birmingham International or Liverpool.

The way things are going, though, the scenario is going to be rather different. According to current plans for high-speed rail links, the journey will take 1hr 40 minutes to get to Manchester, which is 28 minutes less than it takes now. And you can forget about travelling on to Leeds or Liverpool, or getting off at Heathrow or Liverpool airports because the high-speed track finishes at Birmingham and there won’t be a stop at Heathrow.

Article continues ...

[2 As and a B]

What is the real difference between London->Manchester in 55 minutes and London->Manchester 1hr 40 minutes? £30bn and time for a leisurely cafe latte?

[JohnB]

Why do we need to physically get from one place to another so fast, when we also have electronic communications that allow instant contact?

[adam2]

Pie in the sky, wont ever happen.

I am pro rail, but believe in the use of established railway technology.
What we need IMHO is longer trains to releive overcrowding, more comfortable interiors with facing seats at tables, leg room, luggage space, and catering to tempt people away from air or road, and modest speed increases where this can be delivered affordably.

Very high speeds use as much energy as aircraft.
Mag lev would require a dedicated new line at vast expense, just the nimbyfests could take decades !
Dedicated lines and rolling stock would prevent through trains to destinations served by conventional rail routes.
A much faster service to Manchester though useful for those travelling to Manchester, would be of no benifit to those going to Scotland, who would lose more time in changing trains than was gained.
(and remember that in best UK rail tradition, the mag lev station would be some distance from the conventional station, with a 55 minute wait for the onward service. Any delay to the first train would result in the ticket held for the connecting service being no longer valid, and a "fine" of hundreds of pounds.)

What we need, right now, is to buy or build a relatively small number of full length properly specified inter city trains to displace shorter ones on the busiest services.
That should be affordable even in the present climate.

Any talk of mag-lev by HMG is simply a stalling tactic to avoid paying up NOW for relatively affordable improvements to the present system.
Rather than spend say £50M on a dozen new trains, better to spend £10M a year on studies, reports and consultations into mag lev.

[lurker]

longer trains would mean all stations need longer platforms also

probably cost loads?

[adam2]

longer trains would mean all stations need longer platforms also

probably cost loads?

Might not be as expensive as feared, in many cases I would propose a return to the train lengths of years gone by, often the platforms still exist.
For example express trains from Paddington to the West used to consist of 12 or 14 coaches plus locomotive, at busy times.
Such long trains have been run recently, on a "one off " basis, and given suitable rolling stock could be used more regularly.
Full length platforms would only be required at terminals and preferably at the more popular intermediate stations.
Those travelling to stations with short platforms would have to be in the correct part of the train, as is already the case.
In the current situation I would only propose a handfull of additional full length trains for the West Country.
As few as 5 trains would considerably reduce overcrowding. 4 could be used on the 4 busiest services, providing 14 coaches instead of 8.
This would free up 4 of the existing 8 coach HSTs to replace the 4 most crowded DMU services, this in turn would free up a number of the DMUs to lengthen other crowded services.
Thus 4 new full length trains in use, and fifth as a spare, would relieve overcrowding on dozens of services.
Broadly similar arguments apply to other areas.

Not likely to happen though is it ?
Better to spend millions on studies, reports and consultations, than to buy a few trains.

[lurker]

Seems such a sensible plan I don't get why they don't do it. Surely the train companies are motivated by profit & increasing train length would increase there profits as they could sell more tickets without the huge investment needed for high speed rail ...

Suppose its because high speed rail is being goverment subsidized so they won't pay for it?

[goslow]

I gather that the train operators moved towards having shorter trains, run more frequently, which apparently suits the travelling public. But we all know about overcrowding at the busiest times, and the cramped layout of modern carraiges (airline style)

getting rid of first class would help overcrowding.

[RenewableCandy]

...getting rid of first class would help overcrowding.

Wot all of them??? Oh sorry you mean the sections in trains...

[JohnB]

Bring back Parliamentary trains at 1d a mile

[adam2]

[quote="JohnB"]Bring back Parliamentary trains at 1d a mile [/quote

We still have parliamentary trains, though no longer at 1d a mile !
Parliamentary trains are those that operate once a week, often in one direction only, at some inconvienient hour.
They run on routes that are closed in all but name, running one train a week, (which need not be an actual train, a bus or even a taxi will suffice) avoids going through any formal closure procedure, since the service still runs.
After a decent interval, formal closure may be justified on the grounds that "only 100 people a year use it"

[Señor]

I gather that the train operators moved towards having shorter trains, run more frequently, which apparently suits the travelling public. But we all know about overcrowding at the busiest times, and the cramped layout of modern carraiges (airline style)

getting rid of first class would help overcrowding.

Completely agree. Sometimes they "declassify" it and let everyone sit there but normally there are only 3 people sat in there and occupying an entire carriage.

[Pepperman]

Any talk of mag-lev by HMG is simply a stalling tactic to avoid paying up NOW for relatively affordable improvements to the present system.
Rather than spend say £50M on a dozen new trains, better to spend £10M a year on studies, reports and consultations into mag lev.

This isn't government, it's a lobbying group.

Personally I think we need new high speed (not maglev, we're a small country) and conventional rail capacity expansion. A dedicated high speed route would open up a lot of capacity on conventional rail.

Rail currently carries 50 billion passenger km while cars and vans move 680 billion pkm so we're going to need all of the capacity we can get our hands on.

[biffvernon]

Personally I think we need new high speed

Why? Medium speed uses less fuel and allows time to read or talk or look at the countryside.

[Eternal Sunshine]

I suppose it may reduce the demand for internal flights though?