Kenilworth and Southam Liberal Democrats

Nigel Rock sets out his detailed views on the proposed High Speed Rail route through Warwickshire

I am keen to see improvement in the rail infrastructure, but support in principle from the main political parties does not mean that this particular scheme and detailed route is the right answer. My own view is that it would have been better to have a public debate on such fundamental points as the ultimate destination cities, presumably Edinburgh and Glasgow, rather than a super detailed scheme as a first step.

Nigel Rock at public meeting

I have long believed that substantial improvement in the rail network is needed with more investment in rail, reopening lines and removing freight from the roads. What people want is reduced journey times on a clean, reliable, punctual railway system that is accessible and affordable. High-speed rail should be part of this mix, but the recent HS2 proposals are flawed in concept and detail and virtually all problems associated with the proposal can be attributed to the philosophy of mega-high speeds of up to 250mph.

HS2 a completely different animal to HS1 through Kent, which is largely in cuttings or tunnels near settlements. The HS1 Javelin trains run at just over half this speed. The induced air pressure is four times greater at twice the speed. The energy required is eight times greater. Even comparing with Eurostar or TGV trains, the energy is 2.5 times greater for a 35% speed increase. Journey times would not be halved by doubling the speed of current London - Birmingham trains. Beyond Birmingham the national scheme is undefined, but apparently assumes that special High Speed trains will somehow be able to use the existing network and still achieve high speeds. However, current west coast timing is 84 minutes from Central Birmingham to Euston. Although the journey time would be reduced to 49 minutes under these proposals, the new station in Birmingham is a 15 minute walk or taxi drive from the business quarter, thus the real journey time from centre to centre will be reduced by just 20 minutes.

Land take will be much higher because of the separation distance between tracks, and the configuration of tunnels and cuttings in response to pressure waves. Noise impacts are as yet unquantified for regular running at these speeds and in the nature of the English countryside, but must be greater than HS1. Intermediate stops are impractical between major conurbations and economic development will be concentrated in major cities to the detriment of other areas. The civil engineering to accommodate the minimal curvature (the bend radius needs to be four times greater at twice the speed) means the route cannot avoid key features such as ancient woodlands (at least two are eliminated) and some communities.

The village of Ladbroke would be difficult to inhabit and the towns of Kenilworth and Southam (and quite a few villages) will exposed to noise from the elevated sections nearby. The international sporting venue of RSL polo grounds, established over the past 15 years, will become unusable. There are a myriad of smaller and personalised calamities from the effect on new British Legion care home currently under construction, to individuals who are already being affected by blight.

Population centres such as Milton Keynes, Rugby and Daventry are all set to rise and the Nottingham, Leicester, Derby area will not be served. East Midlands airport is a major omission from rail connectivity in the UK and these proposals do not address integrated transport objectives. A new line elsewhere might release capacity, but the new line does not have to be like this.

There is presently zero air travel from Birmingham to London to displace, and because of the lack of continental connectivity, through traffic air travel from Birmingham to Paris or Brussels and Cologne is unlikely to be reduced.

Electrification of the Chiltern line with additional tracks (some of which was single until recently) would bring major benefits at a fraction of the cost. Even just running a non stop train on the west coast main line could achieve London - Birmingham in less than one hour. In cab signalling could increase capacity on existing lines. Improving freight capacity across the network would have 'knock on' benefits for the environment and rail passengers.

The concentration on glamorous very, very high-speed over real journey times is an issue. Travelling at very high train speeds then to just wait for (unreliable) connections seems daft. I submit that the wrong concept for high-speed rail has been selected -- one based on an extreme version of the French TGV unsuited to our terrain size and geography. A model based on the German, Dutch, or preferably, Swiss approach of a truly connected railway network is more aligned to our needs. Fast, high technology trains can, and do, operate in that environment.

I am a chartered engineer and my team worked both on the Channel Tunnel 'night stock' trains and the Pandrol rail clip referred to in the DfT papers. I have travelled extensively on the rail network in Europe because I like to avoid air travel if I can.

I cannot do other than oppose these specific proposals, whilst continuing to support strategic improvement in rail that has always been part of Liberal Democrat thinking.

Proposed High Speed Rail Scheme and detailed route maps through the constituency

High Speed Two Ltd web site

Detailed route map 19 - Wormeighton section

Detailed route map 20 - Southam and Ladbroke section

Detailed route map 21 - Cubbington and Offchurch section

Detailed route map 22 - Stoneleigh and Cubbington section

Detailed route map 23 - Burton Green and Kenilworth section

Liberal Democrat Transport Policy

www.libdems.org.uk/transport

Liberal Democrat press release 5th April 2010

Liberal Democrats pledge biggest rail expansion since the Victorians