Is this the age of the levitating train?

Sep 3 2008 by Tony McDonough, Liverpool Daily Post

Could 300mph locomotives improve Liverpool’s transport links? Tony McDonough reports

LAST month’s Policy Exchange document, which questioned the benefits of regenerating northern cities like Liverpool, was rightly condemned from all sides.

But the study, written by Dr Tim Leunig, did spark debate about how major regional population centres can prosper in the future. And it is universally agreed that there can be no proper solution without an extensive and integrated transport infrastructure.

In 2003, the Daily Post’s Fight For A Flight campaign successfully fought to restore the air-link between Liverpool and London.

However, the five-times-a-day service between Liverpool John Lennon and London City airports was eventually withdrawn. The campaign argued that a fast transport link between Merseyside and London was essential to the local economy.

Concerns over increased carbon emissions now make the case for more domestic air routes difficult. The same is true of an expansion of the road network.

In a 1970s TV advertising campaign for British Rail, Jimmy Savile told us this was “the age of the train”. More than 30 years on, there is increasing pressure on the Government to make that a reality.

The upgrade of the West Coast railway, and the subsequent improvement in the frequency and punctuality of Virgin’s train service to the capital, was a boost for the Liverpool city region’s recovering economy.

However, there is now real concern that, in the next few years, capacity along the West Coast line will not meet increasing passenger demand.

Ongoing upgrade work this summer has hampered Liverpool’s drive to attract more visitors to the city during Capital of Culture year.

This has led to a growing clamour among rail experts and business leaders for the construction of a brand new high-speed line linking London with Scotland and going through Birmingham, and the North West of England. Another option would be a line running up the east coast of England.

Bullet trains would hurtle back and forth at 180mph, cutting the journey time between Scotland and London to just three hours.

Network Rail has launched its biggest-ever study into the topic, but analysts believe any arguments in favour of such projects would have to be very convincing as ministers appear to be sceptical whether the benefits would justify the costs.

In 2001, engineering consultancy Atkins was commissioned by the Strategic Rail Authority to carry out a detailed study of high-speed rail (HSR). That was published in 2003, but the company has taken it upon itself to published an updated version.

The study concludes that an HSR network up the east and west coasts would cost around £31bn to construct, but would bring economic benefits of £63bn over a 60-year period. That meets the cost-benefit ratio required to allow public investment in an infrastructure project.

But how is this return calculated and by how much, if anything, would Merseyside benefit from such a project?

One of the report’s authors and the project director on the original Atkins study, John McSheen, said there were a number of established methods for assessing the economic impact of such schemes.

“If you construct a new high-speed rail link, then there are a number of immediate benefits,” he said.

“There are benefits to the operators from time savings from the faster services as well as from increased revenues. Even higher safety standards translate into cost benefits.

“Business users of the new service will also get the benefit of faster journey times which translates into greater productivity.”

The Atkins report talks about “agglomeration”, and this is a word which is used to describe the benefits that firms obtain when locating near each other. The idea is that the more related firms there are clustered together, the lower the cost of production.

The report argues that a high- speed rail network across the UK would significantly reduce journey times between UK regions and therefore bring businesses closer together.

McSheen added: “It means there is much greater potential for more business to be done. It also gives greater choices in the labour market because it becomes more practical for people to travel further distances more quickly.

“London is the hothouse and projects like this are about spreading that heat further out. Somewhere like the North West could really get the benefit of that.”

McSHEEN and his colleagues claim another benefit of HSR would be the freeing up of capacity on the existing rail network, allowing for better transport planning and efficiency at a local level.

He said: “What we have tried to do with this report is really move the debate on, and we believe the case for high-speed rail in the UK really does stack up.”

Mark Butchard, a strategy development manager at The Mersey Partnership, says reliable, high- speed transport links between the Liverpool city region and London were “critical” in the drive to attract inward investment from the South East.

“There is a £20bn productivity gap between the North and the South East of England,” he said. “Better transport links are essential if we are to start closing that gap.

“We believe the Liverpool city region is a prime place for investment. But without a fast, reliable transport link with the capital it is more difficult to bring potential investors here in a manner they will find acceptable.

“This is particularly important if you are trying to persuade businesses to relocate from the South East.

“We also need to make sure we fight our corner here because there seems to be a tendency to improve rail services between Manchester and London, rather than between Liverpool and London.

“And this isn’t just a issue about passenger traffic. Moving freight quickly and efficiently between the Port of Liverpool and the South of England is crucial to our economic development.”

Liverpool Chamber of Commerce chief executive Jack Stopforth accepts the points about the economic benefits of high-speed connectivity with the South East, but also offers an alternative view.

He believes northern England doesn’t have to be dependent upon London and the South East, but could actually establish a rival economic powerbase.

Stopforth is a passionate supporter of the Northern Way, an initiative to create an economically powerful corridor from the North West of England, through Yorkshire and to the North East.

He sees a super-fast rail link as being key to this and favours the hi-tech Maglev train, which can travel at speeds in excess of 300mph and requires little maintenance due to its lack of parts. The cars float above their tracks and are propelled by electromagnetic force. Although Maglev vehicles cannot use the existing infrastructure of the British railways, the track can be built up to 20 metres above ground, thus needing no major engineering structures such as bridges.

There is an existing route in Shanghai and a test route in Germany. The Shanghai service has been in operation for three years and links the city’s principal airport with the city centre.

Stopforth is currently overseeing a research project into the viability of a Maglev line linking Liverpool with Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle, supported by the Northwest Development Agency and Maglev designer Siemens.

He said: “I am a massive fan of the Maglev. I have been on it and was completely blown away by it. I think it could transform the Northern Way and create a much stronger economy in the North of England.

“Imagine being able to travel from Liverpool to Manchester in just 10 minutes, and then onto Leeds in just another 15 minutes. It could open up massive employment opportunities in the labour market.

“I accept the arguments about connectivity with the capital city and the benefits that could bring, but there is also the danger that the regions simply become London dormitories.

“We have the opportunity here to turn the Northern Way into a powerful economic block as opposed to just looking towards London.”

Whichever is best – Maglev or conventional rail – Stopforth believes the major obstacle to getting major infrastructure problems off the ground is the “risk-averse” culture among UK civil servants.

He added: “The fear of failure seems to deter them from wanting to take major risks. The problems we had with the building of the Channel Tunnel and with the Millennium Dome have increased that reluctance.

“In other countries – France, for example – such projects are seen as a major source of pride. But here, we often just see them as a potential embarrassment.”

tonymcdonough