Latest News

Ultraspeed in Professional Engineer

Tue, 2 Mar 2010 19:04:35 +0000

Readers may be interested in the 'Speaking Out' piece by Ultraspeed CEO, Dr Alan James, in the current issue of Professional Engineer magazine.

http://www.profeng.com/archive/2010/2303/23030010.htm

Maglev champion David Clelland MP announces retirement

Wed, 27 Jan 2010 00:13:42 +0000

UK Ultraspeed notes today’s announcement by the Labour MP for Tyne Bridge, David Clelland, that he will stand down at the next General Election (BBC news link here).

Mr Clelland has been a tireless champion of maglev in parliament and beyond. UK Ultraspeed pays tribute to the clarity of Mr Clelland’s vision and to the forcefulness with which he has always expressed it.

Alan James, Ultraspeed CEO, said: “David Clelland has always seen the absolute necessity for modern, efficient high speed transport along Britain’s North:South axis. As a member of the Commons Transport Committee and as an MP representing a constituency at the heart of England’s North East, David has consistently argued that only maglev, with its unique ability to combine both the ‘West Coast’ and ‘East Coast’, is the only cost-effective means of delivering strategic transport which links all of the great cities of the North, not just to London, but to each other.”

Alan James continued: “David was the first MP to table a parliamentary question on maglev in current times. His words speak for themselves:”

“That this House congratulates the local authorities in the North East of England for their decision to promote Maglev as the preferred future inter-regional rapid transport mode; recognises that current thinking on high speed rail links is based on old technology that will be as outdated as steam trains by the end of the 21st century; and welcomes the recognition by North East councils that the region needs modern transport links that will close the North-South divide and stimulate the region's economy.” (Hansard Source here)

UK Ultraspeed wishes David Clelland well in his retirement and looks forward to welcoming him in the future on board the first Ultraspeed maglev service.

Comparison of maglev & rail proposals for UK

Wed, 6 Jan 2010 13:07:24 +0000

A UK Ultraspeed presentation highlighting the fundamental efficiency of a one-route maglev versus route-duplicating TGV-style proposals for Britain’s strategic high speed transport network is now available for download here. (PDF 6.5MB)

The presentation should be reasonably self-explanatory. It highlights the inefficiencies of the Network Rail, Greengauge 21 and High Speed 2 heavy rail proposals, as compared with which the UK Ultraspeed maglev proposal.

It also illustrates how none of rail proposals is compliant with the system requirements stated by the Conservative Party, when they announced their intention to hold a competition to select the best high speed system for Britain, should they win the next election.

UK Ultraspeed responds to High Speed 2 rail report: the maglev perspective

Wed, 30 Dec 2009 17:40:05 +0000

UK Ultraspeed notes today’s announcement by the Secretary of State for Transport, that the Government has received a report from High Speed 2, the company Government itself established a year ago to look at high speed links.

Ultraspeed welcomes the report’s long-overdue recognition that Britain needs high speed transport.

Today’s news also marks a welcome end to the period of wasteful delay caused by the almost comically misguided conclusions of the 2006/07 Review by aviation boss Sir Rod Eddington. That report stated that: “the fundamental infrastructure networks are in place in the UK [and that...] the UK has good levels of connectivity – the national networks are in the right places, comparing well with European competitors.”

Ultraspeed looks forward to a step change in the quality and accuracy of the debate around Britain’s strategic transport which will hopefully follow today’s announcement and the Government’s publication (promised for March) of the final HS2 report.

But that is the limit of Ultraspeed’s welcome for this report by the team led by soon-to-be aviation boss Sir David Rowlands, who will shortly be stepping down from chairing HS2 to take up his new post as Chairman of the recently-sold Gatwick Airport.

In essence: HS2’s belated recognition of the need for speed is right. But the rationale, technology, economics and cost:benefit balance of the outdated wheel-on-rail system Sir David’s team propose are wrong.

HS2 proposes a very limited rail link from London to the West Midlands. This is simply paying the price – and paying twice – for the multi-billion pound failure of the West Coast Main Line ‘botchgrade’.

HS2’s primary justification of their new line is the creation of new transport capacity. HS2 is now touting the use of “250 mph” [400 km/h] wheel-on-rail trains to create precisely that capacity which the £10bn WCML upgrade should have created, but so publicly and expensively failed to deliver. On WCML even the modest Pendolino top speed of 140mph is impossible: the failure of the signalling element of the WCML programme means that only 125mph is allowed.

Regarding speed, a major note of caution must be sounded too. HS2‘s claimed “250 mph” wheel-on-rail performance is utterly unproven in service. 186 mph or 300 km/h is the general norm for high speed rail, pushing to 218 mph (350 km/h) in a very few cases. By contrast maglev has a design speed of 311 mph (500 km/h) and travels at 267 mph (431 km/h) every few minutes in public service in Shanghai.

As early as 2006, a high speed rail scheme of similar limited scope to the HS2 proposals – omitting every major market north of Birmingham(!) – was eloquently described by the Newcastle Journal as “a lack of vision that would shame a pilchard in a tin”.

Thus, and no doubt with an eye to minimising the inevitable Northern and Scottish backlash to its extremely limited ambitions, HS2 is puffing its scheme as doing more than connecting London and the West Midlands, although this is the only sector on which any serious work has yet been done. Instead, vague and as-yet unspecified ‘options’ are now being trailed for ‘extensions’ to the North of England and Scotland at some equally vague and unspecified future date.

However, the capital cost ‘ball park’ being floated the full London-Scotland rail system is around £60 billion. The capital cost for the Ultraspeed maglev system linking London and LHR to M25, Birmingham Airport & Centre, Manchester Airport & Centre, Liverpool Airport & Centre, Teesside, Leeds, Newcastle Airport & Centre, Edinburgh Airport & Centre and Glasgow is in the order of £30 billion.

Information note: Click here to download (PDF 6.5 MB) Ultraspeed’s recently published strategic comparison of maglev with all the (confusingly competing) high speed rail proposals that have been put forward to date (Network Rail, Greengauge 21 and HS2).

This presentation highlights the fundamental efficiency of a one-route maglev versus multi-route HSR proposals.

It also illustrates how none of rail proposals is compliant with the system requirements (including a 17 minute Leeds to Manchester trip time) stated by the Conservative Party when they announced their intention to hold a competition to select the best high speed system for Britain, should they win the next election .

Given maglev’s advantages compared to rail, which are amplified in specifically British conditions, UK Ultraspeed CEO Alan James wrote formally to Sir David Rowlands on 3rd March 2009 requesting balanced treatment of both rail and maglev approaches. Key excerpts from that letter are quoted verbatim below.

I welcomed the opportunity to present to you [at a meeting on 2nd March 2009] selected key points of the very robust policy and business case for maglev as a most cost-effective, comprehensive, and internationally competitive UK High Speed Ground Transport [HSGT] solution.

As we discussed, considerable work since 2003 has shown a UK maglev network using the German Transrapid system to have at least as good a case as conventional High Speed Rail [HSR] and, in specifically UK conditions, to be suited to a broader range of applications than HSR. These range from city-to-city links utilising maglev’s unbeatable acceleration, to the strategic intercity links where maglev’s unbeatable cruising speed is the key advantage. Overall, maglev’s ability to integrate both these functions into one system contributes greatly to its ability to deliver superior results in both performance and value.

Regarding the maglev technology itself, I welcomed the opportunity to discuss the distinctions between the £30m-per-km Transrapid system and the £100m-per-km Japanese MLX system. The latter, as Andrew Adonis rightly stated in the Lords, is inappropriate for Britain. Ultraspeed exclusively uses Transrapid.

Both wheel/rail and Ultraspeed maglev may be potentially applicable in the UK. As I explained, maglev has strong potential to deliver better value for the taxpayer. This arises in part because, in Britain, French-style incremental development of TGV-type rail would not work. Under the French model, high speed trains run off dedicated high speed lines and use the classic network for (a) long-term city centre access and (b) interim journey continuation to regions not yet directly served by a high speed line.

Whilst this is indeed the practice in France and elsewhere, UK loading gauge restrictions, the capacity constraints of the classic network, plus Britain’s notorious signalling incompatibilities, mean that this approach will not work physically and financially in the UK. As others have put it, the ‘incremental build’ TGV rationale just does not work here: “in the case of the UK many of the railway networks around our major conurbations are so congested already that they would not be able to handle the significant extra traffic that a high speed rail service would generate anyway”. [Prof R Smith et al for DfT, 2006]

So, as I presented, TGV-style rail costs are likely to be high. Indeed the only UK precedent for such a scheme is CTRL, where out-turn cost was £56.42m per km (± £60m/km in today’s money), largely as result of the expensive tunnelling required to provide TGV access to the city centre in UK conditions. By contrast, maglev reduces up-front capital cost to ± £30m/km, both by means of largely elevated construction, and by engineering parameters which permit tighter bundling with existing transport corridors than HSR.

These maglev advantages radically reduce both land-take and environmental intrusion, whilst simultaneously enabling significant reductions in up-front capex by rentalising many land costs over time.

Further reinforcing the case, maglev O&M efficiencies produce exceptional whole-life economics. The self-evident advantages of a fully automated system, which never degrades its track (because it never physically touches it whilst in motion), and whose speed advantage enables more intensive use of a smaller fleet, all combine to deliver taxpayer whole-life value which HSR is extremely unlikely to be able to match.

The public interest clearly requires both rail and maglev cases to be developed. This not only serves the general interests of the taxpayer, but also keeps open a truly competitive strategic procurement process, with the Government investing in advancing the business cases for both potential solutions to the same level of detail.

On the rail side, you explained HS2’s plans for High Speed Two to fund an expert team from the rail world to develop a wheel-on-rail proposal, with the intention that this team will report to you for presentation to Government by the end of this Calendar Year 2009.

As discussed, we now propose that HS2 invests in a parallel study to be conducted by experts from the maglev world; a team which we would ourselves assemble and lead.

This equitable and balanced approach would empower both rail and maglev to compete on their respective merits when, in due course, Britain’s high speed ground transport is procured.

As I pointed out, given the work the Ultraspeed team has already undertaken for No 10 and others, the UK maglev case is already more advanced in some respects than the Greengauge 21/Arup/Network Rail data on which the HSR case will be founded. Leveraging the strength of this previously completed maglev work, I am delighted to put forward the proposal set out below.

UK Ultraspeed commits to produce a comprehensive maglev study to a scope and remit to be mutually agreed, and to do so to the same end-2009 timescale as your initial HSR outputs. Funding for this study would be provided by High Speed Two. This funding would be agreed in the light of the agreed scope and remit, but would not exceed 80% of the funding and resources invested by HS2/DfT in the 2009 HSR work.

Regretably, this approach was rejected by Sir David, despite Ultraspeed’s request for study funding no greater than 80% of the sum that HS2 was channelling to pro-rail interests, and despite Ultraspeed’s concluding statement that:

“from consistent experience of work to date, we would expect the maglev system defined by such a study to:

• be faster than HSR;
• provide capacity similar to, or higher than, HSR;
• produce lower emissions than HSR on like-for-like trip-time basis;
• require lower land-take than HSR;
• produce lower noise emissions than HSR
• have lower up-front capital costs than rail (largely as a result of lower land-take);
• be capable of extension to other Northern England and Scottish cities at substantially lower capital cost than rail (the optimum North:South maglev would be 100 – 200 km shorter than HSR and would require no expensive under-Pennine tunnel);
• be capable of more intensive and more automated operation the HSR; and
• require less intensive maintenance than HSR, and thus
• have lower whole-life costs than HSR;
• offer more direct connection to LHR than the Heathrow Rail Hub proposed for the GW main line;
• offer air-beating journey times all the way from London to Scotland;
• offer faster journey times to/from the Continent to/from any point beyond the Midlands than any 'simple' extension of CTRL;
• release capacity on the existing rail network and avoid the risk of creating capacity bottlenecks at existing rail stations as any proposal to 'run-off' TGVs on to classic rail lines could do.”

In conclusion: although HS2’s work has been exclusively shaped by wheel-on-rail interests, to the materially prejudicial and anti-competitive exclusion of maglev inputs, UK Ultraspeed nevertheless welcomes the report.

Even though it appears to pin its hopes for unproven 250 mph operation on Shinkansen-style railway trains, ironically in the very same week as Japan itself reaffirmed its own shift from decades-old rail technology to maglev, HS2’s belated recognition that high speed infrastructure is right for the UK is essentially correct. Infolink http://rail-news.com/2009/12/28/japan-to-commence-work-on-maglev-line-by-2015/

Ultraspeed reaffirms the team’s willingness to re-engage in factual and open debate at any time with all involved in shaping the UK’s high speed future.

Looking ahead, UK Ultraspeed anticipates with great confidence an open procurement competition after the 2010 General Election.

Such a competition will pitch the factual, technical, economic and financial case for maglev against all variants of wheel-on-rail schemes, including the unproven and expensive systems HS2 appears now to be advocating.

Ultraspeed remains entirely confident that maglev is best for Britain and looks forward to making the maglev case with renewed vigour.

UK Ultraspeed has appraised the House of Commons Transport Committee of the essence of the maglev case and has requested “that the Transport Select Committee bring its influence to bear to ensure that, in all work undertaken by Government to study high speed ground transport, maglev receives consideration, resources and funding equal to those given to wheel-on-rail solutions.”

Finally, UK Ultraspeed wishes Sir David Rowlands well in his new career in aviation. Infolink here.

Ultraspeed evidence to Transport Committee

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:58:44 +0000

With the publication this week of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee's report into the future of aviation, the formal written evidence submitted to the Committee in June 2009 by UK Ultraspeed can now be published.

The evidence can be downloaded here (PDF 500K).

BBC features maglev environmental benefits

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 11:37:10 +0000

UK Ultraspeed welcomes the feature of Transrapid maglev in the BBC’s “Hot Planet” documentary.

Fronted by Professor Iain Stewart and Professor Kathy Sykes, the programme looks at global warming, exploring the world's leading climate scientists' vision of the planet's future.

Using footage shot live on the Shanghai maglev, the programme highlights how maglev can provide substantial environmental benefits by substituting for short-haul air travel.

The programme is currently available to watch on BBC iPlayer. Follow this link. The maglev feature starts at 39:20.

Railway Technology International on UKU

Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:49:45 +0100

The 2009 edition of Railway Technology International carries a feature by Ultraspeed CEO, Alan James. The article focuses on the key advantages of maglev compared to wheel-on-rail. The publication can be accessed by an online reader at http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/0e1081ac#/0e1081ac/1

The Ultraspeed article is on p29.

A trip on the Shanghai maglev described

Sat, 4 Apr 2009 12:17:00 +0100

In response to popular demand, UK Ultraspeed is publishing the short briefing document we use to provide information to visiting VIPs taking a trip on the Transrapid maglev in Shanghai. See below, or also download it as a self-contained PDF [50KB] here.

The briefing describes a 430 km/h [267 mph] maglev journey to the second. If you cannot visit Shanghai in person, you can experience the acceleration phase of the trip described below in real time in this video. In order to relate the movie to the briefing note, the speedo and clock have been montaged into the video. The point of view is facing forwards, looking out of the left hand side of the carriage

New contacts at Ultraspeed PR agency

Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:55:36 +0100

With immediate effect, Lindsay McGarvie, Founding Director at McGarvie Morrison Media is now the point of contact for all media enquiries regarding Ultraspeed.
Alan James, CEO of Ultraspeed said: “Lindsay and his colleagues at MMM bring to Ultraspeed one of the most effective communications teams in the country. We are delighted to continue to build our relationship with MMM.”
Contact MMM on: +44 (0)141 221 9041. Or email. More details here.

MPs back Ultraspeed, The Journal reports.

Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:54:46 +0000

Today’s Newcastle Journal reports support in Westminster, including a solid block of the North East’s MP, for Early Day Motion 286, which called on the Government to endorse UK Ultraspeed, as the most cost-effect high speed system for Britain.
For more on the parliamentary motion, follow this link.
Click to see the article on the Journal Live website.
The text of the article is reproduced in full below.

Speedy solution backed
Jan 24 2009 – William Green, The Journal
TRANSPORT Secretary Geoff Hoon "fully recognises" the need for the North East to be plugged into a new national high-speed rail link, The Journal has been told.
Tyne Bridge’s David Clelland said he received assurances about the region’s key position in discussions with Mr Hoon as the Government looks at building a new north-south train link.
The Transport Secretary last week announced a new company was being set up to consider options for such a route from London to Scotland, initially to the West Midlands.
He is also under pressure to use ultra-fast magnet technology in any new rail link, with 25 MPs – including six from the North East – backing a Parliamentary motion on the issue.
A maglev service of up to 311mph would cut journey times between Newcastle and Edinburgh to 35 minutes.
Liverpool would be an hour away with London reached within 100 minutes under such a route drawn up by Northumberland-based Alan James, of maglev champions UK Ultraspeed.
The Parliamentary motion says a broad intercity maglev network would bring “substantial” economic and environmental benefits, as well as more comfortable, reliable and faster journeys.
And ministers should endorse the Ultraspeed project and take practical steps towards developing a UK high-speed rail network, according to MPs.
Labour MP David Clelland, who has signed the motion, said it was important to look at the latest technology if a new rail line was going to be constructed.
“And of course any high-speed rail line needs to be linked up to the North East and Scotland and in my discussions with the Secretary of State, he fully recognises that,” added the member of the Commons transport committee.
Blaydon MP Dave Anderson, who also backed the motion, said: “We need to be as close as possible to the London and the South East because there is where the main businesses are in terms of the economy.”
Alan James, of maglev champions UK Ultraspeed, said there was a growing consensus around high-speed rail and expected the main political parties to fight the next general election in favour of a new north-south link.
He also insisted maglev was substantially cheaper to build, when land prices were included, than traditional high-speed rail links.
Ministers have claimed the technology would be far more expensive.

Scottish opinion leaders critical of Government’s limited High Speed ambition

Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:32:41 +0000

UK Ultraspeed welcomes the letter from a group of influential Scottish figures, published in today’s Scotsman newspaper. We particularly welcome the group’s careful wording, using the phrase ”high-speed rail/ground transport system” to avoid the prejudicial assumption that “high speed” means “rail”.

The text of the Letter is published verbatim below.

The decision of the Transport Secretary, Geoff Hoon, to set up a company to report on high-speed rail (your report, 16 January) is to be welcomed. There is an undeniable case for a high-speed rail/ground transport system being built in Britain.

The government's own figures suggest the west coast main line will reach full operating capacity by 2013. Further, in the context of global warming and climate change, a national high-speed system would address the problems associated with the unsustainable growth of short-haul air travel. If the government is not prepared to pay the cost of such infrastructure investment, the UK's major cities will continue to pay the price of failing to compete with their European counterparts. The government recently paid out billions to safeguard the future of a number of banks. The same resolution must be demonstrated in funding high-speed rail to help the UK play catch-up.

However, we disagree with Mr Hoon's plans as published. There cannot be a concept of high-speed rail which serves only London to Birmingham. Thus the company – High Speed 2 – should be charged with investigating the possibilities of Scotland to Birmingham via Manchester. The Scottish MPs and, in particular, the Scottish Affairs Select Committee must bring their influence to bear on the Transport Secretary to ensure due consideration is given to these proposals.

ALISTAIR WATSON, Chairman, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport; RON CULLEY, Chief executive, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport; DAVID WATT, Executive director, Institute of Directors Scotland; DOUGLAS MILLAR, Chief executive, Lanarkshire Chamber of Commerce; MARTIN CHEYNE, Chief executive, Ayrshire Chamber of Commerce and Industry; RICHARD CAIRNS, Chief executive, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce; NEIL AMNER, Director, Glasgow Chamber of Commerce; LIZ CAMERON, Executive director, Scottish Chamber of Commerce; GARRY CLARK, Head of policy and public affairs, Scottish Chamber of Commerce; CANDY MUNRO, Chief executive, Renfrewshire Chamber of Commerce; JOHN CORCORAN, Chief executive, Dunbartonshire Chamber of Commerce; IAIN DUFF, Chief economist, SCDI

UKU Presentation from Maglev 2008 Conference posted for download

Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:43:54 +0000

UK Ultraspeed is delighted to have received so many requests to publish the presentation given by CEO Alan James at the Maglev 2008 Conference in San Diego.
The presentation is published in PDF format [7.2MB] here. Download as self-contained PDF by right-clicking the link or, if your browser supports embedded display of PDFs just click the link then use the down arrow on your keyboard to flick through the presentation. The PDF has 124 pages.
Image resolution has been reduced to facilitate downloading. The video and animated elements which were included in the show are posted separately.
A video introducing the Glasgow – Edinburgh maglev, which featured in the presentation is available here. (Video Podcast: requires iTunes).
The video used in the presentation to show a real-time speed comparison between maglev, an Intercity 125 train and a motorway is here. (Video Podcast: requires iTunes).

Sunday Times report of Scottish National Party support for maglev

Sun, 21 Dec 2008 11:17:13 +0000

UK Ultraspeed warmly welcomes the article by Jason Allardyce in today’s Sunday Times, which reports that: “The SNP is backing plans to use a high-speed magnetic bullet train to slash the five-hour journey time between Glasgow and London to two-and-a-half hours”. Link to report here.
The article quotes Angus MacNeil, the SNP’s transport spokesman at Westminster, who recently signed a parliamentary motion backing UK Ultraspeed.
Ultraspeed welcomes the increasing support for maglev from across the political spectrum, and the growing consensus that strategic high speed intercity ground transport will emerge as a major priority after the next General Election.

Scottish Parliament High Speed Inquiry: Summary of key maglev facts

Sat, 20 Dec 2008 19:19:47 +0000

UK Ultraspeed warmly welcomes the opportunity extended by the Scottish Parliament Transport Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee to submit a summary document summarising key maglev facts and drawing out major distinctions between maglev and TGV-style rail.
The summary document is here.
The initial UK Ultraspeed submission, stating the case for maglev in both North:South and Glasgow – Edinburgh applications, is here.

Ultraspeed supported in House of Commons

Mon, 15 Dec 2008 19:37:22 +0000

UK Ultraspeed warmly welcomes the Early Day Motion (No 286) lodged today in the House of Commons by Adrian Sanders MP. The text of the motion reads.
That this House recognises the considerable potential of Maglev technology for the United Kingdom's rail network;
notes that it provides the most cost-effective high-speed rail solution;
further notes the substantial economic and environmental benefits that could be brought with a broad intercity maglev network in addition to substantial improvements in speed, comfort and reliability of rail services; and
calls on the Government to endorse the United Kingdom Ultraspeed Maglev project and to take practical steps towards developing a high speed rail network for the United Kingdom.

SPT boss calls for bold decision making on High Speed Ground Transport

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 20:04:44 +0000

UK Ultraspeed welcomes the recent comments by Ron Culley, Chief Executive of Strathclyde Partnership for Transport, giving evidence before the Scottish Parliament Transport Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee Inquiry into High Speed Transport.
Mr Culley called for a 15 minute link between Edinburgh and Glasgow and specifically identified maglev as the technology best suited to deliver it.
Link to SPT news feed is here.

Ultraspeed responds to Government, stating maglev facts and costs.

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:18:24 +0000

UK Ultraspeed has welcomed Geoff Hoon’s statement before the House of Commons Transport Select Committee that maglev is “not ruled out” as UK high speed ground transport. Ultraspeed has also corrected the mis-statement of maglev costs made before the committee. Details here.

Maglev offers better value than TGV-style rail in UK-specific conditions. Detailed studies have been conducted which have consistently produced whole-life costs lower than comparably-scoped, but slower, TGV-style systems.
The business plan for North:South route between London and Heathrow and the English North is here.
The formal submission to the Scottish Parliament Transport Committee which also looks at regional-scale applications is here.
Overall, UKU warmly welcomes the increasing political consensus that investment in strategic high speed ground transport is now an urgent necessity in Britain.

Ultraspeed has already formally confirmed to the Shadow Secretary of State that a robust maglev entry will be submitted to £15.6bn competition the Conservative Party has announced it intends to hold “immediately on taking office” if that party wins the next General Election. Details here.

In response to the exchanges at the 29/10/08 Committee hearing, Ultraspeed CEO Dr Alan James has also written to the Secretary of State in similar vein. The text of the letter is published below.

30 October 2008
Maglev high speed ground transport
Dear Secretary of State,
I am writing to you in response to your mention of maglev at Wednesday’s Transport Select Committee hearing. I was delighted with your statement in reply to David Clelland’s question that you have not ruled out maglev in Britain. In the light of your statement and of the growing political consensus that investment in high speed ground transport is an urgent necessity, I write primarily, to affirm UK Ultraspeed’s readiness to re-engage immediately with DfT to move things forward.
I am, however, concerned that the view persists that maglev costs more than 300km/h [186 mph] TGV-style wheel-on-rail in UK application. This is inaccurate.
Regrettably, the 2007 White Paper statement on maglev costs was wrong. And we know it to be wrong, because it used our own figures and then erroneously simply double-counted major items. Please see my 27/07/07 letter to your predecessor for the detail.
But let us not revisit old ground, but rather progress matters on a robust foundation of fact. In this spirit, and to assist informed policymaking, much detailed work has since been carried out on maglev over the last year. This new evidence, which we will be happy to present to you and your senior team, now includes data on journey-time, speed, energy and CO2 performance to a very high level of accuracy: ± 1 metre, 1 second and 1 kilowatt. Detailed results versus train, plane and car are now also to hand. Project Finance modelling to the standard required to support substantive initial engagement with HM Treasury has also been completed.
Critically, detailed capital costings for a variety of UK maglev applications have been examined.
• These consistently produce capital costs for maglev, including land, in the region of £30m per route km, including such complex route sections as the traverse of the Pennines and alignments into the hearts of London and other major cities including Birmingham and Manchester.
• Compared to maglev’s £30m/km, your Department has published an out-turn cost for CTRL (the UK’s only TGV-style wheel-on-rail system, including the cost of Temple Mills Depot) of £56.42m/km. This would be over £60m/km in comparable 2008 terms.
On the basis of studies to date, 500 km/h maglev capital costs are less than 300 km/h TGV.
On a more fundamental level, maglev requires only one line to link all the major city-regions of the ‘West Coast’ and ‘East Coast’ corridors, whereas TGV-style rail needs two routes, yet is slower to all destinations. This means between 100 km to 200 km less infrastructure than TGV. That’s billions saved before a service has ever operated. Maglev’s single-route approach also means that only maglev can cost-effectively link the important catchments of Merseyside, Yorkshire, the North East and Scotland’s Central Belt to a national network.
On a whole-life basis, the maglev case is stronger still. Maglev is highly automated, and highly efficient in O&M and staff costs. It requires only half the fleet, and completely avoids TGV-style physical grinding down of its infrastructure every time a unit moves – maglev never actually touches its guideway.
Taking all the above advantages into account, studies indicate that maglev will comfortably outscore any comparably-scoped TGV-style rail project on a whole life basis, whether this is expressed in terms of ‘net cost to HMG over a PPP term’ or ‘NPV of benefit outweighing NPV of cost’, or any other similar test of value.
To move matters along, I would be happy to arrange for an early presentation to you and your team. We would propose to focus on both the full-scale London – Northern England – Scotland system and, in parallel, on opportunities to rapidly progress city-to-city pilot projects. We would present comprehensive business cases for each.

I look forward with interest to your response.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Alan James
Chief Executive

Secretary of State: “maglev not ruled out”  Ultraspeed responds correcting cost figures

Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:05:59 +0000

UK Ultraspeed welcomes the confirmation by the new Secretary of State for Transport, Rt Hon Geoff Hoon MP, that maglev remains under consideration by DfT.

Ultraspeed yesterday issued the following press release on the subject, which also corrects the statement made before the committee that maglev is more expensive than rail.

300mph maglev back on UK agenda
UK Ultraspeed, the company promoting 500 km/h (311 mph)
maglev in Britain today welcomed Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon's statement to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee. Mr Hoon confirmed that maglev will be considered alongside slower 300km/h (186 mph) TGV-style systems for a strategic North:South high speed network.

Speaking 30/10/08, UK Ultraspeed CEO, Dr Alan James said: “We welcome Geoff Hoon’s comments that maglev is being considered by the Government as a high speed
ground transport system linking North and South. However we must take issue with the suggestion made at the Commons Transport Committee that a TGV-style train option would be cheaper than maglev – it is not."

In fact, maglev capital costs average approximately £30m per route km, including complex sections such as traversing the Pennines and alignments into the hearts of cities. By contrast, the Department for Transport has itself published an out-turn cost for the UK's only TGV-style railway, the St Pancras to Channel Tunnel line, of £56.42m per km (or over £60m per km in 2008 values directly comparable to the maglev costing).

Dr James said: "maglev is much more flexible and uses much less land than TGV-style rail. This makes up-front capital costs for maglev highly competitive with much slower rail systems. Furthermore, only one maglev line is required to serve all the major markets along both the East Coast and West Coast corridors; two TGV-style railways would be needed. That's 100 km - 200 km less infrastructure and several billion pounds saved by adopting maglev even before the first service operates. Finally, over the whole life of the project, maglev economics are even more compelling. Friction-free maglev has long-term operating costs between 35% to 50% lower than TGV-style rail. Taking all the above advantages into account, studies have proved that maglev comfortably delivers higher speed, faster journeys and much better value than any comparably-scoped TGV-style rail project".

To back up the maglev figures, UK Ultraspeed has published a detailed business case for a London – Midlands – – Manchester – Liverpool – Leeds network, as part of ongoing planning work plan the full North:South system, extending onward to the English North East, Edinburgh and Glasgow. Costs for the 458 km (286 mile) southern section total £13.5 bn, including land, or £29.5m per km. The full report can be downloaded from: http://www.500kmh.com/UKU_London-North_BizCase2008.pdf

Ongoing work on the 840 km London – Scotland system is producing a total capital cost in the order of £25bn, less than half the £60bn cost mentioned to the Select Committee.

Dr James concluded: "UK Ultraspeed maglev is the only ground transport system that can link all the major cities between London and Scotland with journeys that are faster than flying. We look forward to delivering the factual and financial case to policy-makers and politicians in the coming months, now that the consensus is established that investment in high speed ground transport is an urgent necessity."

ENDS 30/10/2008

UK Ultraspeed publishes intercity plans: London – North England maglev business case

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 18:54:35 +0100

Policy regarding high speed has developed substantially in recent months.

In England, considerable attention has been focussed on the London – Birmingham – Manchester spine, with various possible extensions.

To inform the evolving debate, UK Ultraspeed is today publishing the business case for the southern 458 km of the proposed Anglo-Scottish maglev network; the route from London and Heathrow via the Midlands to Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds.

The document was prepared in Summer 2008 and is now undergoing further development.

Important note: whilst this business case deals specifically with the London – North West/Yorkshire route, Ultraspeed is ultimately designed to deliver a full-scale Scotland – London connection.

Studies consistently show that, in UK conditions, more maglev can be delivered for less whole-life cost than TGV-style rail. Maglev can link all the major city regions between London and Scotland with one system; wheel-on-rail needs two lines. Maglev can feasibly traverse the Pennines, TGV-style rail cannot.

These advantages means that maglev, and only maglev, is realistically capable of including the North East and Scotland in Britain’s high speed future.

The full business case can be downloaded via the link below.

http://www.500kmh.com/UKU_London-North_BizCase2008.pdf

Scottish Parliament Transport Committee

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 17:01:25 +0100

Scottish Parliament Transport Infrastructure and Climate Change Committee is holding an Inquiry into high speed.

The Ultraspeed submission [7MB] can be downloaded from the Parliament’s website. It discusses both North:South and Glasgow – Edinburgh potential Stage One application. See: http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/ticc/inquiries/documents/WrittenSubmissionfromUKUltraSpeed-16October2008.pdf

An extremely enlightened submission from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport [SPT] can also be downloaded from http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/s3/committees/ticc/inquiries/documents/WRITTENEVIDENCEFROMTHESTRATHCLYDEPARTNERSHIPFORTRANSPORT-16OCTOBER2008.pdf

Finally, Ultraspeed welcomes the rightful insistence of Glasgow – Edinburgh Collaboration Project in that body’s evidence that:

“The benefits of a HSR network reaching Scotland need not simply be through cross-border travel. It would be
wholly unacceptable for such a network not to include both Glasgow and Edinburgh. A high-speed link
between these cities alone could also bring considerable economic benefit by effectively drawing them together
as a ‘single economic space’ while releasing greater capacity for services to intermediate locations on existing
lines. A similar approach has been adopted on “High Speed 1” with high-speed commuter trains, extracting
greater return from infrastructure investment.

There appear to be two competing technological options for HSR: conventional ‘wheel-on-rail’; and magnetic
levitation (maglev). The choice between these should be based on whichever provides the better solution to
the specified objectives.”