UK Conservative’s Plan for Trains No Planes – Green or Not?
The Conservatives have opened up the transport debate – but the environmental case for high speed trains is far from proven – and the question, in my mind at least, also remains as to whether high speed rail links are actually needed. Punctuality and reliability and low cost would be a much better way to look at it. Ensure that trains can trains on the open stretches can do 100-150mph safely and we should be motoring along quite nicely. Get the infrastructure and the proper decent rolling stock and build some good nice locos that use wood rather than diesel... yes, I advocate the stream locos again... burning wood is, basically, carbon neutral as the only carbon released is that which the trees stored during their growing cycle.
Why are we so obsessed by speed, whether high-speed trains or ever faster this or that, including ever faster Internet. Why do we have to try to do a London to Birmingham, say, in 35mins by train? In my opinion a hour and a half, say, by a reliable and affordable train service with a frequency of at least hourly would be much better than any such high speed thingies.
The Tories, apparently, want a high speed rail line rather than a third runway at Heathrow, so the have said at conference. Only the mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who is a member of the Tories, apparently, wants a new airport in the middle of the Thames Estuary, which would suggest, or so at least it would appear, that the Conservative Party is not quite singing from the same hymnal.
It is commendable, though, that the Tories are attempting to look at alternatives to the unwavering support to the aviation industry given by Labour. In her farewell speexch to Conference Ruth Kelly, for example, said that she supported a third runway at Heathrow because "we must be brave in challenging those who would ration flying and make it once more the preserve of the rich". This is not only impractical, but is nonsense in both economic and environmental terms. But should we have expected anything else from this particular minister and her party? I should think not. Once upon a time it would have been Labour who would have tried to be in the forefront of Green initiatives and would have been the first to suggest not to go with the third runway at Heathrow and also as regards to any expansions but, New Labour seems to be very different to Real Labour – time that we started that party, methinks. New labour has become a party of all the high flyers but is no longer the party of the common man and all they seem to have in mind is big business.
They talk green on one side and then they do something entirely different. They try to force the people do do this or that in regards to the green agenda and if the people don't they will get fined but they, and the government, do different. Obviously that is the prerogative of them in government. Do as we say but not as we do. They church was and is like that too.
We must, however, also admit that the Thatcherite policy of privatizing the railroads and the stations and such was the greatest mistake ever made in the same way as it was a mistake to privatize the utilities. This competition has not improved the services to the customers and users; rather the contrary, and made everything much more expensive, and as far as rail travel is concerned the costs have rust gone into the sky.
It is not a new runway at Heathrow that will improve that airport, or any other in the UK, but a better airport; and improved airport, that will make things better. Business and people do not want a bigger Heathrow; what they want is a better one.
We also do not, necessarily, need faster trains but more trains, more reliable trains and most importantly cheaper trains. Back to the future is the only way here.
I would rather be able to go to Birmingham from London at a train – steam train if need be – that does that distance in ninety minutes or thereabouts at hourly intervals at something around £45 return than flying there by plane with needing to be at the airport about one hour before for a short duration flight. No one can be expected to take the train – whose departure and arrival cannot be guaranteed at a cost of over £200 return when flying costs f a quarter of that. This just does not compute nor make sense.
Comments such as those by David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said the move would “hold back British business in the future” are a load of garbage, pardon my French, though Christian Wolmar's summary of the high speed lines and their impact is why I am also so opposed to the high speed issue.
While, I am sure, we, especially those of us on the environmental conscious side, love trains and can but hope that the Tories would press for better rail travel the first thing that must be done is to make train travel (1) affordable for all again and (2) so much cheaper that it can beat flying. It does not make sense when I want to buy a ticket to travel to the NEC in Birmingham (need to use early train before the off-peak tickets are possible) and get quoted £225 return while I was quoted £64 return for a flight to Birmingham International, which is right next to the NEC. As long as costs for train travel remain in such astronomical proportions it will never make sense to use the train over the plane, on an economical level.
Personally, as I have said a number of times now, I doubt that we need the high speed lines at all. All we need, and I am sure most people would agree with me here, business people as well as ordinary travellers, is reliable, safe and cheap train travel, that will get us there around the time that we are supposed to get there.
© M Smith (Veshengro), October 2008
<>
The British Tories plan trains not planes, but not everyone is happy
