Latest News

Maglev response to high speed rail news at Conservative Party conference

Wed, 6 Oct 2010 09:56:00 +0100

UK Ultraspeed notes the announcement at the Conservative Party conference by Philip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Transport, that Government has instructed High Speed Two Ltd to continue work on producing plans for a conventional 'TGV-style' railway.

UKU further notes that the HS2 proposals involve a trunk route North from London, which then splits into three separate branches to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. This renders the proposed railway quite literally useless for any journey which is not to or from London. It would be impossible, for example, to travel from Manchester to Leeds by high speed train on the HS2 system.

The schematic below contrasts the rail scheme (shown in red, on the left, with its extensions on to existing low speed railways shown in black) with the much more comprehensive UK Ultraspeed proposals.

HS2 refer to the shape of the proposed network (with separate lines to Leeds and Manchester) as 'the big Y'.

The ‘Big Why?’ would be more accurate.

- Why triplicate whole-life operating costs?

- Why fail produce a system which links only London to every other destination, rather than linking the great cities of the North and the Midlands to each other as well, thus forming a super-region to counterbalance the 'drain to the south' which has so long distorted UK economic geography?

The graphic below shows the genuinely transformational impact of trans-Pennine maglev trip times - a step-change link between key Northern city-regions, which HS2 rail does not even attempt to provide.

- Why serve the English North East by running off on to conventional track North of Leeds and only saving around 40 minutes on current Newcastle to London journey times?

- Why serve Edinburgh by continuing up the current (low speed) East Coast Main Line and separately serve Glasgow by running from Manchester up the (low speed) West Coast Main Line?

- Why make any of these short-sighted and expensive mistakes, when Britain can have a Faster, Better, Cheaper and Greener maglev system?

UK Ultraspeed has set out a 'Manifesto for Maglev' by means a letter to the Secretary of State. This letter is available here.

UK Ultraspeed CEO, Dr Alan James, will set out the case in his keynote address to the High Speed Rail World conference in Madrid on 10 November 2010.

The Secretary of State has committed to "full public consultation in 2011" on the plans for a high speed link.

UK Ultraspeed continues to engage with Government to make the maglev case. The cornerstones of that case were set out in a letter from Dr James to Philip Hammond on 01 July 2010. UK Ultraspeed is now publishing excerpts from that letter verbatim, below.

Dear Secretary of State

I refer to [previous documentation supplied to DfT] which summarised the case for selecting 500 km/h maglev to provide Britain’s high speed transport at a capital cost of around £30m per km, as opposed to the 330 km/h railway, costing £60m per km, proposed by High Speed Two.

With maglev whole-life costs as little as 50% those of rail, with up to 10x less land take, with maglev effectively silent in urban operations, and with maglev energy consumption lower than rail on any like-for-like measure, the case is compelling. I await your reply and, with my team, look forward to constructive engagement with your officials in the near future, notably to present and discuss the evidence underpinning the maglev case.

I draw your attention to the statement of commitments and intentions made by Stephen Hammond, as the then Shadow Rail Minister, in his letter to me of 26/11/2008. Amongst other things, the letter stated that “should a Conservative Government be elected at the next General Election […] we intend to open a competition to select the optimum system ‘immediately on taking office, to enable construction to start by 2015’.” It also stated that “I confirm that Conservative Government will, if elected, welcome bids to deliver the high speed link by consortia proposing all relevant technologies, including maglev.”
[...]
Given that maglev has the potential to offer a solution which is an order of magnitude faster, less expensive and more efficient than HS2‘s proposed railway, the public interest clearly requires both rail and maglev cases to be developed on an equal footing.

This not only serves the interests of the taxpayer by supporting the development of a potentially better value solution, but also keeps open a genuinely competitive strategic procurement process, with the Government investing in advancing the business cases for both potential solutions to a similar level of detail.

To rectify the current situation, [in which only HS2 is funded by Government] which would remain prejudicial to fair competition unless remedied, UK Ultraspeed proposes the following course of action, building on the substantial amount of work already conducted at our own risk.

1) We would assemble a lead an expert team to produce a detailed study of a maglev high speed link from London and Heathrow and the HS1 Channel Tunnel Rail Link to the Midlands, Manchester and Leeds, having regard also to enabling extension to the English North East and Scotland in due course.

2) By leveraging work already done, and subject to agreement of remit, the maglev study would require DfT funding of only 50% of the total 2009-2011 budget allocated by Government to HS2 for its rail work.

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.

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

- be faster than HS2 (eg saving up to 74 mins London - Manchester, compared to 23 mins for HS2 [Stage 1 timings]);

- provide capacity similar to, or higher than, HS2;

- consume less energy than HS2 on any like-for-like comparison basis;

- require lower land-take than HS2;

- produce lower noise emissions than HS2;

- have substantially lower up-front capital costs than HS2;

- be capable of connecting more Northern English cities at substantially lower capital cost than rail (the optimum North:South maglev is 100 – 200 km shorter than HS2’s ‘Big Y’ plan, it also does not require the expensive under-Pennine tunnel which HS2 would require if a high speed rail link between Leeds and Manchester is to be provided);

- be capable of more intensive and more automated operation than HS2; and

- require less intensive maintenance than HS2, and thus

- have lower whole-life costs than HS2;

- offer more direct connection to LHR than HS2’s Old Oak plan;
be capable of extension to the English North East and Scotland over a more efficient single route offering lower capital costs and better whole-life economics than rail;

- 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' connection of the existing HS1 to HS2’s proposed railway;

- 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.

- Given these fundamental strengths of the maglev business case, we are robustly confident of being able to bring substantial private sector funding to the table when the time comes to build the system.

Finally, the maglev solution will comply fully with the stated intention that “a route should be constructed linking London (and ideally LHR) to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Such a route would be entirely segregated from the existing rail network and would be new build.”

It is worth noting that HS2’s scheme is not compliant [with the requirement stated above] . It relies on half-length, undersized and non-tilting trains running slower than today’s Pendolinos on the gauge-constrained infrastructure of the West Coast Main Line; and because they are non-standard, HS2 itself states that these trains would be more expensive too.

_________________
UK Ultraspeed
Empowering Britain's Economy
Enhancing Britain's Environment
Transforming Britain's Transport

Ultraspeed CEO to give keynote address at High Speed Rail World - Madrid 10 Nov 2010

Thu, 30 Sep 2010 15:11:24 +0100

UK Ultraspeed CEO, Dr Alan James will be giving one of the keynote speeches at the High Speed Rail World convention, being held in Madrid from 08 to 10 November 2010. His address will focus on the advantages of a maglev high speed network for Britain, as compared to the slower and more expensive wheel-on-rail scheme known as High Speed 2.

Speaking recently, Dr James said: "high speed ground transport is going to happen in Britain. This is one of the biggest decisions the country will take this century. Now's the time to ensure we get that decision right. Merely aspiring to standards the French achieved decades ago is simply not good enough for Britain. Maglev is the faster, better, cheaper and greener alternative.

"Why waste £12.3bn on High Speed Two's proposed TGV-style rail line to Lichfield, which only saves 23 minutes to Manchester, and then not even be able to run full-length, double-deck trains because they won't be able to fit under the bridges north of the junction.

"HS2's many failings simply highlight maglev's many advantages. Maglev saves 73 minutes to Manchester; maglev links London, Heathrow, the Midlands, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds; and maglev does it for the same kind of money as HS2's outdated and ill-conceived railway.

"In short, maglev is the best deal for Britain. Let's make it happen."

Details of the conference are available on the organisers website here.

Building Magazine reports on UK Ultraspeed

Fri, 3 Sep 2010 08:29:47 +0100

UK Ultraspeed warmly welcomes the coverage of UK Ultraspeed in the current edition of Building Magazine, published today.

The extensive coverage includes an editorial entitled “should we change trains?” here and a detailed article entitled ‘want to get to from London to Manchester in just 55 minutes?” here.

The coverage also include a helpful graphic comparing maglev journey times with those possible with the combination of TGV-style high speed rail and low speed ‘classic’ rail proposed by the heavy rail lobby as ‘High Speed Two’.

Note: free registration is required on the building.co.uk website, after reading one article.

Sec of State: “2015” target for start of works

Thu, 10 Jun 2010 11:39:18 +0100

UK Ultraspeed welcomes today’s Commons Written Answer by Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr Hammond stated that: “the Government's view is that, subject to public consultation and parliamentary approval, enabling works on the first phase of a national network could begin in 2015.”

“We will examine every stage in the process to ensure that the project is moving as quickly as possible and is compatible with ensuring value for taxpayer money.”

UK Ultraspeed applauds the Government’s commitment to rapid progress. The UK is nearly half a century behind Japan in high speed transport and over a quarter a century behind France, with substantial high speed systems also now in operation in China, Spain, Germany, Italy, Taiwan to name but a few, with even Vietnam currently planning a network.

But there is a silver lining here. Because they moved earlier, all the UK’s international competitors are stuck, for several decades to come, with the old-fashioned 300 km/h wheel-on-rail systems into which they have sunk so much investment.

As Ultraspeed CEO, Dr Alan James puts it: “because the UK slept through the era of 300 km/h high speed rail, this means there is now no sunk investment in a UK domestic high speed wheel-on-rail network. So Britain is now able to ‘skip a generation’. 500 km/h maglev is now fully proven in passenger service and can now be deployed in Britain. The UK can therefore ‘leapfrog’ international competitors and gain a major strategic advantage over other countries.”

The detailed business plan for the Ultraspeed London – Northern England Stage 1 network, which assumes a rapid start of enabling works in line with the Government’s view, is available for download here. (1.6MB PDF)

UK Ultraspeed has written to the Secretary of State, formally confirming that UK Ultraspeed will submit a maglev bid into the maglev-vs-rail procurement competition to which the current Government committed when in opposition before the General Election. See the detailed document here.

At around half the cost per km of HS2’s rail scheme, Ultraspeed is by far the most affordable project, with the strongest cost:benefit case. This is detailed here. A table comparing maglev to wheel-on-rail is available here.

Sec of State: “truly national” vision for high speed network

Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:02:56 +0100

UK Ultraspeed welcomes today’s Commons Written Answer by Philip Hammond, Secretary of State for Transport.

Mr Hammond stated that: “The Government's vision is of a truly national high speed rail network. Ministers are reviewing the options for linking the UK's major conurbations. No final decisions on the shape of the network will be taken until full public consultation has taken place.”

UK Ultraspeed is the only feasible and fundable “truly national” high speed network currently proposed. The “High Speed Two” conventional wheel-on-rail scheme only reaches the West Midlands in its Stage 1 form and, at its final planned extent, only gets as far as Lancashire and Yorkshire and then fails to link them together.

Ultraspeed, by contrast, uses a single main route to link all the major conurbations between London and the Central Belt of Scotland not only to London, but also to each other.

At around half the cost per km of HS2’s rail scheme, Ultraspeed is also by far the most affordable project, with the strongest cost:benefit case. This is detailed here. A table comparing maglev to wheel-on-rail is available here.

UK Ultraspeed has written to the Secretary of State, formally confirming that UK Ultraspeed will submit a maglev bid into the maglev-vs-rail procurement competition to which the current Government committed when in opposition before the General Election. See the detailed document here.

UK Ultraspeed welcomes Queens Speech

Tue, 25 May 2010 20:43:53 +0100

UK Ultraspeed welcomes the Government commitment in today’s Queen’s Speech to construct a high speed network.
HMQ said: “My Government will.…enable the construction of a high-speed railway network.’’
UK Ultraspeed agrees with a number of the key points in the commentary published today by Government on the subject.
We offer below a point-by-point response on all the issues raised in the Government commentary. A PDF version of this web page is available for download here.

The commentary says:
“Demand for travel between major British conurbations is expected to increase significantly over the next twenty to thirty years. “
UK Ultraspeed says:
Agreed.

Commentary:
“High speed rail appears best placed to provide significant and sustainable additional capacity to meet that demand, whilst also improving journey times.”
UKU says:
The use of the generic term “rail” in this context could lead to confusion. What is meant is, in fact, ‘high speed ground transport’. There are, of course, two competing technologies: the 330 km/h (204 mph) conventional wheel-on-rail system proposed by the heavy rail lobby as ‘High Speed Two’ and 500 km/h (311 mph) maglev, as proposed by UK Ultraspeed.
UK Ultraspeed has a received written assurance that there will be a competitive procurement process to select the optimum high speed system for Britain. This assurance explicitly confirmed that maglev will be included in the competition. For its part, UK Ultraspeed has already confirmed to the Secretary of State for Transport that the company will put forward a robust maglev bid into that procurement competition. See letter here.

Commentary:
“The construction of a high speed rail line will require the introduction of a hybrid High Speed Rail Bill in due course.”

UKU says:
Agreed.

Commentary:
“The Government’s vision is for a truly national high speed rail network as part of it programme of measures for creating a low carbon economy, although it recognises that this would need to be achieved in phases.”

Regarding “a truly national” network UKU says:
UK Ultraspeed maglev is the only proposal on the table for “truly national” high speed system. The graphic below compares the eventual final network proposed by the heavy rail advocates at High Speed Two side-by-side with Ultraspeed’s proposed full North-South maglev system.
Reduced to basics, conventional high speed rail delivers a fragmented railway, using technology no better than Britain’s competitors, which only gets as far as Lancashire and Yorkshire, and then fails to link them together.
UKU maglev, by contrast, provides a coherent Anglo-Scottish strategic intercity system, using the world’s fastest ground transport, linking most major city-regions from London to Scotland to each other as well as to London and Heathrow.
Regarding carbon issues UKU says:
On carbon: UK Ultraspeed uses less energy than high speed rail and thus has lower carbon emissions than High Speed Two. The table below compares the key factors in the environmental performance of Ultraspeed maglev and HS2 rail. In all material respects, maglev outperforms rail.

Regarding the requirement for phasing UKU says:
Only Ultraspeed can feasibly be phased into easily fundable initial route sectors. Both the full-scale national or the initial London – North England UKU maglev networks can be built in stages.
For instance, a capital spend of approximately £2bn delivers a fully functional Phase One route between Glasgow and Edinburgh. Strong interest has also been expressed in an initial maglev route from Tees to Tyne. A detailed pre-feasibility study has also been undertaken for an initial build from Liverpool to Manchester and then onward to Leeds. All of these routes have a robust stand-alone business case in their own right but are designed from the outset to form part of the full Anglo – Scottish system in due course.
The conventional high speed rail promoted by High Speed Two, by contrast, is simply too sluggish in acceleration to be usable over such short sectors. Maglev can brake from 200mph to zero and then re-accelerate to 200mph in only 5.4 miles. Rail requires over 15 miles. Maglev accelerates to from zero to 200mph in only 110 seconds; rail requires 5.5 minutes.
All these limitations meant that easily fundable short sectors are simply not practical for wheel-on-rail trains. HS2 therefore requires a minimum capital spend of £12.3bn (or £17bn including ‘optimism bias’) to create its London to Midlands line before a route that is practical for conventional high speed rail is created.

Commentary:
”Such a network would include links to Heathrow and potentially other airports to provide an alternative to short-haul aviation.”
UKU says:
Strongly agree: UK Ultraspeed includes a direct link to Heathrow. HS2 on the other hand serves the country’s premier airport via an inconvenient interchange station in Wormwood Scrubs.
The full UK Ultraspeed route offers end-to-end trips that are faster than flying to/from London to Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Teesside, Tyneside, Edinburgh and Glasgow.
Even in its final form, HS2 rail can substitute for air trips over only the Manchester and Leeds routes.
Even with only its initial proposed network, UK Ultraspeed already serves Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool airports. HS2 by contrast serves only Birmingham. See graphic below.
With terminals both in city centres and at airports, maglev is capable of providing an attractive, sustainable, and faster alternative to almost all UK domestic aviation, from Northern England and Central Scotland. Ultraspeed thus aligns perfectly with the Coalition Agreement commitment to prohibit any new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and provides a better link to Heathrow than current air feeder/distributor services.
With maglev providing domestic access, precious slot pairs at LHR which are currently wasted on inefficient and often loss-making domestic flights can be retasked for more profitable and economically beneficial international flights, which are also less environmentally damaging.

Commentary:
“HS2 Ltd (the company set up by Government to investigate the case for High Speed Rail) has calculated that a high speed line to Birmingham could reduce journey time from London by around half an hour.”

UKU says:
HS2 Ltd received £5m in funding from the previous Government to prepare its case for a 200mph railway that offers direct services only to Birmingham which is projected to cost £60m per km.
In order to allow the forthcoming procurement competition to take place on a level playing field, UK Ultraspeed now looks forward to agreeing a cost-effective package of Government-supported study work to prepare a similarly detailed case for £30m-per-km 300mph maglev network. For the same order of total capital costs proposed by HS2, Ultraspeed will link London and Heathrow with M25 P&R, Birmingham Airport, Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester Airport, West Manchester, Liverpool Airport, Central Liverpool, Central Manchester, 2 x M62 P&R and Central Leeds.

Commentary:
“Connections to existing main lines would enable high speed services to run on to other destinations, including Manchester and Glasgow.”
UKU says:
£13.5bn creates a comprehensive 300mph ultra high speed maglev network, serving all its destinations directly with high speed services.
HS2, on the other hand, demand £12.3bn to create a 200mph railway line which only saves 23 minutes compared to non-stop journeys by today’s Pendolinos to the junction point north of Lichfield.
HS2 then makes matters worse by proposing that destinations north of the junction should then be reached by running non-tilting high speed trains more slowly than today’s tilting Pendolinos over the existing West Coast Main Line.
This immediately becomes apparent in comparing rail and maglev to Manchester.
Ultraspeed maglev: London or Heathrow to Manchester 54 minutes with 2 stops. Saving 73 mins.
 Ultraspeed maglev: London or Heathrow to Manchester 74 minutes with 7 stops. Saving 53 mins.

HS2 TGV-style train: London (Euston only) to Manchester 104 minutes with 0 stops.Saving 23 mins.
Rail’s sub-optimal solution of using the old West Coast Main Line also produces a travel time of 4 hours to Glasgow, which is only eight minutes faster than today’s fastest Pendolino. Furthermore, because it can’t match the tilting Pendolino’s performance over the West Coast, the high speed train has to omit all stops between Preston and Glasgow in order to hit the 4 hour headline travel time.
In point of fact, HS2 journey time London to Glasgow is actually eight minutes slower than the best run by the Advanced Passenger Train in 1984, which ran all the way on the pre-upgrade West Coast Main Line (i.e. eight minutes faster without a combined spend of over £20bn on the WCML upgrade and HS2!). Spending £20bn to make trains go slower than 26 years ago is simply absurd.
A further unfortunate side-effect is that only 8 full-size & double length trains (16 units) can be operated over HS2. The remaining 45 trains HS2 requires at launch would have to be built sub-optimally narrower and lower in order to fit the smaller loading gauge (i.e. tunnel, bridge and platform clearances) of the existing WCML. Shorter platforms on the existing railway also mean that they can never be operated as double-length trains either. By HS2’s own admission these non-standard smaller trains would cost around 50% more too. Because they can only operate as single units they would also have less than half the capacity of an Ultraspeed maglev.

Commentary:
“We will also actively study the options for a link between the new high speed line and the existing High Speed One line – which links London to the Channel Tunnel.”

UKU says:
High Speed 2 does not connect to High Speed 1 – the brand name for the the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. HS1 terminates at St Pancras, HS2 is proposed to terminates at Euston. Connection requires an exceptionally inconvenient walk or underground connection (with luggage) along the Euston Road. HS2 makes a vague proposal for a travelator to link to the two termini. As this would have to pass through the British Library, its engineering would be challenging to say the least.
Maglev already offers connection to HS1’s Eurostar and Javelin services. As well as a maglev terminal at Heathrow, the Ultraspeed terminus in London connects directly to the existing HS1 station at Stratford (Olympic Park). Although maglev cannot run through on to the conventional railway at this junction, superior speed on the UK domestic route means that all journeys to/from the Continent would be quicker by maglev from all points north of Birmingham – even taking the time penalty for changing into account – than a TGV-style train running off HS1 and on to HS2 via some putative connecting line.
A further point to note, Stratford also offers Ultraspeed direct access to seven existing heavy rail, tube and DLR routes offering rapid access to most of the capital. In the future, Crossrail will also serve Stratford Crossrail will offering maglev passengers step-free access to air-conditioned trains connecting to the very heart of the City and the West End in less total transit time HS2 passengers arriving at Euston.
Alternatively to Stratford, Ultraspeed could also potentially serve the key HS1, rail and tube hub at Kings Cross/St Pancras. The maglev route to that location would be several km shorter than to Stratford, but would be more complex and costly to build per km. There is effectively no difference in the overall cost of serving either Stratford or Kings Cross/St Pancras. However, strategic considerations probably favour Stratford on balance. Feeder/distributor route to/from Kings Cross are overloaded, and Crossrail will serve Stratford and not Kings Cross.

Commentary:
“A wider network could offer still more significant journey time savings – for instance reducing the journey time to Manchester to around 80 minutes.”
UKU says:  HS2 has projected a capital cost of around £30 bn to achieve a rail journey of 80 minutes to Manchester and 85 minutes or so to Leeds. Achieving this time requires the full construction of HS2’s Stage Two system with three, separate branches to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.

For a projected capital cost of £13.5 bn maglev delivers London or Heathrow to Manchester in 54 mins, Liverpool in 73 mins and Leeds in 74 minutes on an integrated trunk network which links all these major markets to each other as well as to London.

Commentary: “A new high speed line could potentially treble maximum capacity on the crowded London-Birmingham rail corridor. HS2 Ltd have estimated the cost of a London-Birmingham line as around £17 billion, though the bulk of this expenditure would not be incurred until construction begins, and calculate that such a line could provide high value for money with more than £2 of benefits for every £1 spent.”

UKU says:
If maglev were simply to match HS2’s London to Birmingham proposal and to load on ‘optimism bias’ on the same basis as rail, then maglev would cost £8.9 billion, as opposed to rail’s £17bn. That’s a maglev Benefit to Cost Ratio (BCR) of 3.8:1, easily beating the 2:1 ratio which the rail lobby claims.

Alternatively, to look at the issue from another perspective: HS2 demands a capital spend of £12.3bn for its smallest practical route section, a 200mph line linking only London and Birmingham. Yet, £13.5bn delivers a 300mph maglev network linking London and Heathrow with a P&R station at the M1/M25 junction, Birmingham Airport, Central Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester Airport, West Manchester, Liverpool Airport, Central Liverpool, Central Manchester, 2 P&R stations on the M62 and Central Leeds.
Put yet another way, for around the same capital cost of rail from London to Birmingham, maglev will link London and Heathrow to the Midlands and the bulk of England’s Greater North
Whichever way the BCR is calculated, the result is the inescapable: maglev simply does more for less money.
A summary data table comparing maglev with rail is here.
UK Ultraspeed looks forward with relish to the procurement competition which lies ahead.

Coalition Agreement commits to truly national high speed system and new transport technologies

Thu, 20 May 2010 21:45:46 +0100

UK Ultraspeed is delighted to welcome the detailed Coalition Agreement jointly launched today by the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister. The Agreement sets out the policy commitments of the new Government. Section 30, the transport policy section, states:
“The Government believes that a modern transport infrastructure is essential for a dynamic and entrepreneurial economy, as well as to improve well-being and quality of life. We need to make the transport sector greener and more sustainable, with tougher emission standards and support for new transport technologies.”
It goes on to state:
“We will establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for creating a low carbon economy. Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain. Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases.”
Given these commitments by Government, UK Ultraspeed is strongly positioned for the procurement competition which was promised by the new Government ahead of the election.
The (then) Shadow Rail Minister explicitly confirmed in a 26 November 2008 letter to UK Ultraspeed that a “Conservative Government would, if elected, welcome bids to deliver the high speed link by consortia proposing all relevant technologies, including maglev.” The letter also made clear that a Conservative Government would, if elected, target “construction to start by 2015” and that the high speed route “would be entirely segregated from the existing rail network and would be new build.”
UK Ultraspeed has already written to the Secretary of State to formally confirm that Ultraspeed will be submitting a maglev bid to the procurement competition, positioning Ultraspeed as Faster, Better, Cheaper and Greener than rail. That document (PDF 3MB) is in the public domain and can be downloaded here. An in-depth comparison of maglev and rail is available here. A comparison of maglev and rail costs and key strategic features can be found here.
This web article highlights a number of the key points in response to the policy commitments published today. It pulls together key strands from all three documents linked above. This present web article can also be downloaded as a stand-alone PDF (3MB) here.

ONE: Ultraspeed is a “truly national” network as required by Government policy
Firstly, UK Ultraspeed maglev is the only proposal on the table for “truly national” high speed system. The graphic below compares the eventual final network proposed by the heavy rail advocates at High Speed Two side-by-side with Ultraspeed’s proposed full North-South maglev system.
Reduced to basics, conventional high speed rail delivers a fragmented railway, using technology no better than Britain’s competitors, which only gets as far as Lancashire and Yorkshire, and then fails to link them together.
UKU maglev, by contrast, provides a coherent Anglo-Scottish strategic intercity system, using the world’s fastest ground transport, linking most major city-regions from London to Scotland to each other as well as to London and Heathrow. With terminals both in city centres and at airports, maglev is capable of providing an attractive, sustainable, and faster alternative to almost all UK domestic aviation, from Northern England and Central Scotland. Ultraspeed thus aligns perfectly with the Coalition Agreement commitment to prohibit any new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and provides a better link to Heathrow than current air feeder/distributor services.
With maglev providing domestic access, precious slot pairs at LHR which are currently wasted on inefficient and often loss-making domestic flights can be retasked for more profitable and economically beneficial international flights, which are also less environmentally damaging.
A further point to note, High Speed Two’s rail proposal relies on the existing rail network to run services to most Northern and Scottish destinations. HS2 is therefore not compliant with the stated policy intention that a high speed link should “be entirely segregated from the existing rail network”.
This rail problem is even worse when HS2 and Ultraspeed proposals for initial networks are compared. The graphic below lays it out.
Hampered by a projected rail cost of £60m-per-km, compared to £30m-per-km for maglev, HS2 proposes spending £12.3 bn to deliver only a single initial high speed rail line providing direct high speed services between London and Birmingham only. All points north of Lichfield are reached by running non-tilting high speed trains more slowly than today’s tilting Pendolinos over the existing West Coast Main Line.
A further unfortunate side-effect is that only 8 full-size & double length trains (16 units) can be operated over HS2. The remaining 45 trains HS2 requires at launch would have to be built sub-optimally narrower and lower in order to fit the smaller loading gauge (i.e. tunnel, bridge and platform clearances) of the existing WCML. Shorter platforms on the existing railway also mean that they can never be operated as double-length trains either. By HS2’s own admission these non-standard smaller trains would cost around 50% more too.
For the same order of magnitude of estimated capital cost, Ultraspeed maglev comprehensively demolishes the strategic and business case for High Speed Two. Sheer speed also enables the massively more intensive utilisation of a much smaller fleet, thus delivering operational cost savings over the whole life of the project. The following data table highlights the key points.

TWO: Ultraspeed is capable of construction “in phases”, as required by Government policy
Only Ultraspeed can feasibly be phased into easily fundable initial route sectors. Both the full-scale national or the initial London – North England UKU maglev networks can be built in stages.
For instance, a capital spend of approximately £2bn delivers a fully functional Phase One route between Glasgow and Edinburgh. This has a robust stand-alone business case in its own right but is designed from the outset to form part of the full Anglo – Scottish system in due course. Strong interest has also been expressed in an initial maglev route from Tees to Tyne. A detailed pre-feasibility study has also been undertaken for an initial build from Liverpool to Manchester and then onward to Leeds.
High Speed Two, by contrast requires a capital spend of £12.3bn on its London to Midlands route before any meaningful link is delivered.
Finally, to turn the question around, if maglev were only to match HS2’s London to Birmingham proposal, the capital cost would only be of the order of £6bn to £7bn. Whichever way the cost:benefit equations are drawn up the result is the same: maglev does more for less money.

THREE: Ultraspeed is “greener and more sustainable” than rail, as required by Government policy.
HS2 rail consumes up to 10x more land than maglev
HS2 states that “the project shall assume a two track fence to fence width of 25m for an at-grade railway”. This means that every linear metre of route constructed will consume 25 square metres of land. The situation will be even worse where cuttings and embankments are required, as allowance must be made for their sloping slides.
Ultraspeed’s Transrapid maglev largely uses elevated guideway. The land under the guideway remains usable for its original purpose. Where elevated construction is used, maglev land-take is only 2.1 square metres for every linear metre of route. Elevated construction also saves engineering costs when spanning existing infrastructure and utilities and allows for land and air-rights under the guideway to be rented on the National Grid precedent, thus saving many up-front capital costs of land acquisition.
HS2 rail consume 23% more energy than maglev at 21% slower speeds
HS2 state that traction power consumption for a single HS2 train conveying 1,110 seats is 53 kWh per km at the 330 km/h maximum timetabled speed.
Energy consumption for 10-car maglev with up to 1,196 seats is 43 kWh per km where 400 km/h timetabled speed is used. This rises to 59 kWh/km where the 500 km/h max timetabled speed is used. However, this marginally higher energy consumption offers a 51% faster maximum speed than rail. Overall trip times are faster still, due to maglev’s ability to accelerate in less time and over shorter distances than wheel-on-rail trains (see data table above).
All maglev energy consumption figures represent actual runs with a number of stops between London and Leeds, derived from simulations accurate to kilowatt, to the second and to the metre which use empirical data from existing maglev operations in China and at the Transrapid test track in Germany. It is, however, unclear from the HS2 documentation whether the rail energy consumption is worked on an equally rigorous basis, or whether the figures simply represent the consumption of a given train cruising for a kilometer at a steady 330 km/h. If the latter, then the real-world consumption for HS2 trains will be even worse, because acceleration from stops consumes more power than cruising.
FOUR: only Ultraspeed uses the “new transport technologies” supported by Government policy.
Wheel-on-rail trains are simply the ultimate development of 19th Century rail technology. They have reached the practical limit of their evolution. The French could only reach maglev speeds by using an experimental (next-generation) TGV unit for a one-off ‘spectacular’. They used a new section of high speed line which was completely closed to the public, took out all but three of the carriages, doubled the usual traction power in the two power cars and then fitted them with larger wheels.
The graphic below reduces the argument to a single slide: maglev is new, but proven, technology. It delivers performance in daily passenger service which rail cannot match.

Maglev vs wheel-on-rail comparative data

Wed, 19 May 2010 19:10:54 +0100

UK Ultraspeed has today published the following comparative data table showing key points of difference between the UK Ultraspeed maglev project for a 500 km/h link from Leeds, Manchester and Liverpool to London and Heathrow and the High Speed Two plan for a 330 km/h railway line between London and Birmingham.

The table summarises the key maglev advantages UK Ultraspeed will be highlighting when promoting maglev versus high speed rail into the forthcoming procurement competition.

UK Ultraspeed confirms to new Govt: maglev bid to be made in procurement competition to select UK high speed transport.

Sun, 16 May 2010 18:41:43 +0100

UK Ultraspeed is delighted to publish a detailed letter sent yesterday to the incoming Secretary of State for Transport.

The letter formally confirms that UK Ultraspeed will submit a robust bid for maglev to be selected to provide UK high speed ground transport when the procurement competition which has been promised to select the best system gets under way.

The letter summarises the key advantages of maglev as ‘Faster, Better, Cheaper & Greener’ than conventional high speed rail. It is intended as a ‘Manifesto for Maglev’.

The letter set out the key themes of the case which UK Ultraspeed will make, promoting maglev against the slower, more expensive and less efficient high speed rail options which are being put forward.

It also highlights how maglev aligns with the stated policy positions of the parties forming the incoming Government and the recently signed Coalition Agreement.

The letter (PDF 3MB) can be downloaded here.

Faster, Better, Cheaper & Greener: updated

Tue, 4 May 2010 11:57:24 +0100

UK Ultraspeed is pleased to publish an updated version of the summary of key maglev advantages compared to the ‘High Speed 2’ proposals for a slower, less efficient and more expensive TGV-style wheel-on-rail system.

The file can be downloaded here. (800KB, PDF)

Conservatives question High Speed Rail Costs

Mon, 29 Mar 2010 13:19:38 +0100

UK Ultraspeed notes today’s Commons question by the Shadow Secretary of State, Theresa Villiers (above) and the answer by the Chris Mole, Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Transport.

Ms Villiers asked:

1. what the (a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure will be on the extension to the High Speed 2 route to Leeds over the period of construction;
2. what the estimated total (a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure will be on the High Speed 2 route from (i) London to Birmingham and (ii) London to Manchester over the period of construction;
1. what estimated (a) capital and (b) revenue expenditure will be incurred for the 335 mile Y network proposed in the High Speed Rail Command Paper over the period of construction.

Mr Mole answered:

HS2 Ltd estimate that the capital cost of construction of the recommended high speed rail line from London to West Midlands is between £15.8 billion and £17.4 billion. The estimated capital cost of construction for new lines from the West Midlands to the North West, and to Yorkshire via the East Midlands, is £5.4-5.8 billion (depending on routeing at Manchester) and £5.8 billion, respectively. All figures are in 2009 prices, include risk and optimum bias, and exclude rolling stock costs.

UK Ultraspeed comments:

Chris Mole’s answer now confirms on the public record the exceptionally poor value of the HS2’s proposed 330 km/h railway line, as compared to the UK Ultraspeed 500 km/h maglev network.

Stripping away the ‘optimism bias to which the Minister refers, HS2’s ‘Stage One’ costs £12.3 bn for 206 km; around £60m per km. HS2 offers a 200 mph railway line from London to Birmingham, with no connection to Eurostar or Heathrow. It then uses the 100 – 125 mph West Coast Main Line for access to all points further North.

Schematic route maps: rail and maglev Stage 1 proposals:

Above. HS2 204 mph railway line: £12.3 bn
Below. UK Ultraspeed 311 mph maglev network: £13.5 bn

UK Ultraspeed offers 300 mph connections to and between London and Heathrow, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds. 458 km for £13.5bn (around £30m per km).

Including ‘optimism bias’ (the HM Treasury ‘cushion’ added to all cost projections at the early stages of projects) on exactly the same basis as HS2, the comparison is as follows.

Rail: 206 km (129 miles) £15.8 - £17.4 bn inc bias
Maglev: 458 km (286 miles) £17.3 - £19.0 bn inc bias

Thus, for a real cost of £13.5bn (or between £17.3 and £19.0 bn including optimism bias) UK Ultraspeed maglev connects most of the major cities of the English Midlands, North West, and Yorkshire to London and Heathrow and to Channel Tunnel trains to the Continent. Maglev also connects these cities to each other, forming a Northern Super-Region to act as a genuine counterweight to London and the South East.

By contrast HS2 must build a further ‘Stage 2’ extension before it can offer 200 mph trains to Leeds and Manchester; cities which Ultraspeed has served with 300 mph maglev from the outset. HS2’s extensions are illustrated below.
Schematic route map: rail Stage 2 proposals: £30bn inc optimism bias

According to the Minister’s answer, the total cost of this extended HS2, including Stages 1 & 2 and optimism bias, is £27.0 - £29.0 bn.

The summary comparison, including optimism bias, is now:

Rail: £27.0 - £29.0 bn
Maglev: £17.3 - £19.0 bn

However, the analysis should be further refined. HS2‘s rail proposals suffer from the fundamental weakness of all traditional high speed railway lines.

Wheel-on-rail trains require an essentially straight and level alignment. HS2 cannot therefore cross the Pennines without a prohibitively expensive tunnel.

Thus HS2 fails to provide a link between the cities of the North.

The extended HS2 also still fails to offer high speed links to Liverpool, Heathrow or the Channel Tunnel Rail Link.

In fact, all three main HS2 destinations – Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds – are on served by an exceptionally inefficient ‘triple branch’ layout.

The proposed HS2 rail system is therefore effectively useless for any journey that is not to or from London. Any HS2 train journey from Leeds or Manchester that called at Birmingham en route would be slower than today’s conventional rail services, due to the impractical location of Birmingham on a branch line.

Ultraspeed, on the other hand, links every city and airport it serves to every other.

By linking only London to every other destination, HS2 makes the North:South divide worse. Maglev cures it.

House of Commons: UK Ultraspeed Maglev a faster, greener, quieter and more cost-effective answer to the high-speed rail question.

Sat, 20 Mar 2010 10:22:53 +0000

UK Ultraspeed welcomes the Commons question by David Clelland MP which asked: “Has the Minister seen the report from UK Ultraspeed, in response to the High Speed 2 report, which shows that Maglev could produce a faster, greener, quieter and more cost-effective answer to the high-speed rail question?”

UK Ultraspeed also welcomes the response by the Minister, Sadiq Khan, who stated:

“I am happy to look at that alternative proposal. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has looked at some of these issues, and there are concerns about energy usage, but I am happy to discuss them with my hon. Friend offline.”

UK Ultraspeed looks forward to renewed engagement with Government and all other Parties, on the facts, costs and merits of the maglev case, as opposed to the HS2’s rail proposals. With maglev in fact using less energy than HS2’s published figures for its trains, we look forward to the debate with confidence.

The Ultraspeed report to which Mr Clelland referred can be downloaded here (PDF 0.7MB).

Ultraspeed has also published a document comparing the route and capital costs of the rail and maglev proposals. Download it here. (PDF 0.7 MB)

Link to the Hansard source for the Commons Question is at http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-03-18a.962.2

Maglev and HS2 route & costs compared

Thu, 18 Mar 2010 01:12:13 +0000

UK Ultraspeed has today published a document setting out the key points of strategic difference between a comprehensive 500 km/h maglev network and HS2’s proposed 330 km/h railway.
The comparison also details the differences in capital cost between £30m/km maglev and £60m/km rail.
Download the document here. (PDF 0.8 MB)

“Costly high-speed train scheme will send us all off the rails” - Simon Jenkins, Evening Standard

Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:26:33 +0000

Under the headline “costly high-speed train scheme will send us all off the rails” Simon Jenkins highlights some of the many flaws of the High Speed 2 scheme.

Amongst the many curious features of the seriously flawed London to Birmingham railway scheme, Jenkins notes that, unlike Ultraspeed, HS2 does not connect to the HS1 route to the Continent. “Foreigners arriving in Britain by high-speed train and wishing to continue that way will have to sweat their bags along Euston Road past the British Library from St Pancras. So much for high speed.”

He also points out that new infrastructure should, ideally, make best possible use of existing transport corridors. “If faster routes really are needed, it must make sense for the Government to use existing corridors rather than fight its way across virgin pastures.”

Needless to say a fundamental design principle of UK Ultraspeed is to make use to maglev’s superior curve and gradient capabilities to follow existing routes wherever possible and thereby deliver the economic and environmental benefits of high speed with minimal new intrusion on the landscape.

Link to full article: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23815664-costly-high-speed-train-scheme-will-send-us-all-off-the-rails.do

Maglev Better for Britain than High Speed 2

Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:20:00 +0000

UK Ultraspeed is today publishing its formal response to the High Speed 2 proposals for a TGV-style railway from London to Birmingham made public on 11th March 2010.

The document can be downloaded here (PDF 0.7MB).

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).