Interesting article in Rail Management (September 22nd) which suggests
that a new 225km/h (140mph) conventional railway built to Continental
Loading Gauge may be a more cost effective option than a new high
speed line:


"It is only ten days or so since a disastrous fire broke out in the
Channel Tunnel, and as RM predicted last week it will be ‘some
months’ before the only rail link between Britain and continental
Europe is back to normal.

It is a little ironic, then, that Greengauge21 should choose now to
step up its campaign to extend the British High Speed network.

However, the fire in the Tunnel does not detract from the essential
merits of High Speed Rail, however much it may highlight the
essentially fragile nature of a fixed link of this kind.

High Speed lines, or lignes à grande vitesse as the French know them,
are indeed efficient transportation systems when they link the right
places, but their most ardent supporters could never claim that they
are cheap.

Indeed, no new railway can be called that, but LGVs cost more because
of their special engineering, with as few curves as possible. This
means that their land take can be more aggressive and therefore more
expensive.

We know 200km/h trains can deal with significant curves if they tilt –
as on the WCML – and 200km/h is a good speed: London to Manchester in
around two hours, for example, while London–Edinburgh can be done in
under four.

It is true that these are flagship figures, and imply that
conventional infrastructure is being pushed a little, while Eurostars
can embrace London and Brussels in 1h51 (fires excepted) without
apparent effort.

But if we spent more money on upgrading conventional lines, would we
get journeys which were fast enough?

We might get faster journeys but not necessarily enough of them,
because they would only improve capacity slightly. And capacity is the
issue. Because of this, Network Rail is considering if we need some
completely new main line railways.

If so, we then need to decide what kind of railways they should be.
They could be conventional 200-225km/h lines (although built to a UIC
loading gauge, one trusts), or they could be LGVs. In that case the
question of the maximum speed would remain open.

High Speed 1 is officially a 300 km/h route, although that mainly
applies to the central 40km or so between Fawkham Junction and the
Ashford approaches, and the normal timetabled speed even there is
270km/h.

But these figures belong to the 1990s – when, of course, the line was
being designed. LGVs are now being typically planned for 330 or 350km/
h, and that would appear to be the new standard.

A 350km/h line between London and Edinburgh would be quite exciting,
with journey times down to as little as 2h15. A similar line could
link London and Manchester in perhaps 1h10, as against some two hours
now.

This is where the LGV case needs closer examination. Just how much
faster do our railways need to be? One major factor cited by the LGV
lobby is the need to attract people away from cars and planes, in the
interests of the environment, but there is little chance of doing
London–Manchester by car or plane in two hours now. One would be
illegal and the other impossible, considering journey times to and
from airports, check-in delays and so on.

Eurostar has essentially won the air/rail battle between London and
Paris, which is why its market share is now over 70%. Here an LGV is
indeed necessary to compete.

But a new conventional 225km/h line to Manchester might be enough,
offering about 1h45, and the same argument could apply elsewhere.
Maybe only the Scottish run really needs more. Britain is smaller than
France or Spain, and thus the gains to be achieved from building LGVs
are proportionately less, particularly within England alone.

Greengauge21 is now planning to examine the details, but there does
appear to be an underlying assumption that LGVs are inevitable and
necessary. Between London and Paris – yes. To Edinburgh – perhaps. But
London and Bristol? London and Leeds?

LGVs are exciting, but they are also more expensive to build and run.
The gains will have to be significant, if the Greengauge dream stands
a chance."

http://viking.eukhost.com/~keepingt/...M164/index.htm