Yes the maglevangelists at UK Ultraspeed are at it again. This time they are proposing a Liverpool-Manchester maglev.
This brings their list of suggested maglev lines to three.
Edinburgh - Glasgow
Tyneside - Teeside
Liverpool - Manchester
They're obviously trying to build their S-shaped network masterplan in stages. They'll also be able to use the growing resentment in the North about the South East eating up all of the country's limited transport spending.
I think that the transrapid maglev looks like a superb system and that ultraspeed are definately selecting the most appropriate routes to campaign for so long as the maglev stations are integrated with the existing transport infrastructure (rail, trams, etc). I also think, however, that for a London-Scotland high speed rail link a conventional system like a TGV is a better idea because it is better suited to being built in phases (like the CTRL) and integrating with the existing rail network.
Any thoughts?
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
I thought the Edinburgh-Glasgow idea was SPT's suggestion, or did UK Ultraspeed lobby them to suggest it. I think this is a great idea but I have more chance of being the next James Bond than any of these getting built unless they can get someone like Bill Gates to finance them. Apart from the political will issue there will be a lot of safety concern as the crash at the test track in Germany showed - there is a lot of work to do to bring the safety systems etc up to the level of conventional railways and there isn't a lot of substance from UK Ultraspeed about how they intend to deal with these issues...
I think they should do the whole thing in Maglev. The track requires less earthworks than conventional rail. Not to mention we can show off to other nations! Mwahahaha!
The thing I like least about UK ultraspeed is they're not especially interested in integration, except with airports. Their plan for a nationwide network uses a lot of parkway stations, and the southern terminus would require passengers to use crossrail to access central London.
Even for the Edinburgh-Glasgow link they were urging the government to invest in maglev instead of the Edinburgh trams, whereas if they intended to build a maglev terminus at Haymarket surely having the connection to the tram line there would be essential to the maglev's success. I expect haymarket isn't particularly accessible by car.
Any successful high speed network really has to be between city centre transport hubs, where it can link to bus, tram, metro or suburban rail links.
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
Its very difficult to see how a maglev line could be incorporated into central Edinburgh beyond Haymarket. Haymarket is more car accessible than Waverley for sure. The only way maglev could go to Wavlerley would be to build it over the railway line and over the Mound, but it would spoil the famous view of the Castle. I guess it could be built along Princes Street too, but similar conservation issues would probably deter that from happening too.
I think Haymarket is a good location for a maglev terminus, but that's because when the trams been installed it will be rebuilt as a rail/tram/bus interchange. Ultraspeed's problem is that they don't focus enough on making their stations interchanges with other modes.
Conventional high speed rail could easily use Waverley because it would most likely use the existing track and tunnels for the last few miles to enter the station, but that'd be on a North-South HSL.
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
I know that much, but what has never been clear to me is who the people or companies are behind it. Is it a firm that seeks to build and operate this system a la the old Central Railway project, or is it just a lobby group with no such ambitions? I think its a great idea, but it needs more of a human face to raise awareness. The chances of it actually happening are almost zero however.
The chances of a nationwide system being built are pretty small. Proposals for conventional high speed rail are having enough trouble at the moment. I think there is, however, much more chance of a smaller scale project going ahead, like the Edinburgh-Glasgow concept. In fact the further away from ulta-cautious visionless Westminster the more likely it becomes.
My understanding is that Ultraspeed are a business looking to make money by selling their product (it's best not to think of the monorail song from the Simpsons here). Other lobby groups such as Greengauge21 and the Institue of Civil Engineers have a different motive - they're campaigning for high speed rail because it represents the best way for the rail industry to meet future demands, such as steadily increasing passenger numbers, and to encourage modal shift from domestic flights.
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
It needs a small project to make people like the idea but the trouble is, MagLev only really because cost-effective over longer distances. I wouldn't say that Glasgow to Edinburgh isn't suitably long so it'll turn into a White Elephant. Anyway, the Scottish Parliament has just cleared the reopening of the 4th route between Edinburgh and Glasgow and electrification of the Waverley to Queen Street via Falkirk High is in the pipeline too.
Ah the Scotts and their line re-openings. How is it that they're able to siphon some common sense into Politics - quite often actually - but that never seems to happen here. Can we let them run England as well?
Yes line re-openings and electrification are good, brilliant in fact, but whatever mode of travel is chosen the most important factor is journey time. Yes comfort is important, but to achieve the so called modal shift public transport has to be faster than a car journey even over what is inevitably going to be a less direct journey that involves changes. That means that it doesn't matter if, for example, the train is 10mph faster than a car if there's a 20-minute change involved. That's why the maglev, at four times the motorway speed would be much more effective at attracting drivers out of their cars.
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
Indeed, but it means that the time to complete that journey leg is much shorter and makes up for the time spent effectively stationary.
It's usually the case that a train journey between the two city centre stations is faster than the car journey between the two stations. However, that's not a typical journey. Imagine you're driving from somewhere near Edinburgh to somewhere near Glasgow, the additional journey legs required on public transport to get to and from those stations along with time required for connections and the inevitable short walk at the beginning and end of the journey means that the total journey time is going to be longer. The only way to make public transport the faster option is to have good connections, regular services to keep down connection times (or, to some extent coordinated timetables), but above all the journey legs themselves have to be much faster than the equivalent car journey.
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
Indeed, ideally the MagLev would stop at both Central and Queen Street - but building this is likely to be quite difficult as Glasgow's grid pattern would mean that if the street layout were followed, there would have to be at least one 90 degree turn. Ultraspeed's maglev is the best idea for covering terrains with the minimum of disruption as you just build over whatever is on the ground - but the website (which looks much better with its white background than the old black one) is oddly silent on exact routings and particularly issues like entering city areas. I seem to remember an earlier incarnation of the proposed network map also featured Glasgow Airport, but this seems interestingly absent.
I found a bit disappointing the line Liverpool-Manchester.
Sory but how the train is suppose to reach "500" between those to towns ? It will reach like 200 km/h top.
The distance is to short, isn't it ?
If they plan to build maglev network shouldn't it be one big line north/south across whole country ? Then time travel difference would get the most impact, as Liv-Man would get how much? 10-20min ?
Long distance maglev lines are expensive and don't deliver benefits until the whole route has been complete. Shorter lines have a much greater chance of getting funding because they concentrate on a single route with known existing high demands and don't carry the same huge price tag.
The principle problem with maglev is its lack of flexibility as it can only serve destinations on the route of the guideway. The French have shown recently that there's a heck of a lot of performance improvement potential in wheel-on-rail vehicles. Conventional high speel rail has the advantage that it is compatible with existing networks, meaning that it can be built in phases to keep down costs and that dedicated lines do not have to be built to every destination. For example, a HSL from London to north of Birmingham with the trains continuing north on the WCML (like the HS2 proposal) would provide airline-competitive journey times to Scotland without having to build a dedicated line all the way. Much more cost effective. It could also be used by "Javelin" commuter trains to London coming from existing stations like Aylesbury and Oxford, and improve the journey times for "cross-country" trains running from the south coast to, say, Manchester. A maglev simply couldn't do that.
Confusious say "Man with one altimeter always know height. Man with two altimeters never certain."
