integrated projects application 1

5/20/2018 Integrated Projects Application 1

1/30

I ntegrated Project Appli cations7CV007

Student:

Talines Hungria 1325094

Module Leader:

Dr Suresh Renukappa

Date of Submission:

5thof June 2014

U n i v e r s i t y o f W o l v e r h a m p t o n

AN EVALUATION OF

THE HIGH SPEED TWOBIRMINGHAM TO MANCHESTER


2/30

Integrated Project Applications Module No. 7CV007Talines Hungria - Student No. 1325094

2

Table of Contents

Introduction .................................................................................................... 3

1. Client Requirements ................................................................................ 41.1. UKs National Infrastructure Plan 2013..................................................... 4

2. Overview of the HS2 Rail Infrastructure ................................................. 62.1. The HS2 Technical Specification .............................................................. 9

3. Evolution of The Phase Two Proposals ................................................. 113.1. Phase Two: Proposed Route .................................................................... 13

4. The HS2 Issues ........................................................................................ 164.1. Staffordshire ............................................................................................. 164.2. Whitmore .................................................................................................. 174.3. A Greener Vision for the HS2 .................................................................. 20

5. Magnetic Levitation Trains .................................................................... 205.1. High Speed Two Vs. Maglev Trains ......................................................... 22

6. Sustainability Issues ............................................................................... 246.1. Economic ................................................................................................. 246.2. Social ........................................................................................................ 256.3. Environmental .......................................................................................... 26

7. Safety and Risk Management .............................................................. 26

Recommendations and Conclusion .......................................................... 28

References ................................................................................................... 29


3/30


3

Introduction

With a rapidly growing world population and the pressure being put on thetransportation sector in both urban and rural communities, there are several nations

adopting alternative public transportation policies to better serve their citizens and

England is not the exception. Transportation planners around the world are thus

considering serious public policy changes related to existing mass transportation.

Whether for short or long distance travel, existing transportation sectors are in

desperate need of upgrades. Unfit for purpose roads and lack of technology are the

leading cause of traffic congestion, and are the main contributors to increased

pollution. Therefore, the pursuit of alternative transportation has come in the form

of high-speed rail transit. This form of transport is not new to the transportation

sector, but it has been met with opposition, primarily because of concerns over cost

and the impact upon existing transportation sectors (Zaidi, 2007).

Furthermore it is acknowledged that high-speed railways (HSR) are currently

regarded as one of the most significant technological breakthroughs in passenger

transportation developed in the second half of the 20th century. At the beginning of2008, there were about 10,000 km of new high-speed lines in operation around the

world and, in total (including upgraded conventional tracks), more than 20,000km of

the worldwide rail network was devoted to providing high-speed services to

passengers willing to pay for shorter travel time and a quality improvement in rail

transport.

As described by Campos and Rus (2009) in Japan alone, where the concept of the

bullet train was born in 1964, 100 million passenger trips have been performed per

year during the last 40 years. In Europe, traffic figures average 50 million passenger

trips per year, although they have been steadily growing since 1981 by an annual

percentage rate of 2.6. Currently there are high-speed rail services in more than 15

countries,and the network is still growing at a very fast pace in many more: it is

expected to reach 25,000 km of new lines by 2020 (UIC, 2005).

Therefore it is somewhat evident that the construction of an enhanced railway

network is vital for the UKs transport infrastructure. The British Government


4/30


4

alongside the European Commission have established a number of strategic policies

and recommendations that support investment in the rail sector and encourage the

development of sustainable transport. Furthermore, according to Alison Munro,

Chief Executive of the HS2, on of the main ambitions of this avant grade transportinfrastructure is to be an exemplar project within the HS2 Sustainability Policy

(2013). This policy states that we strive to limit the negative impacts through

design, mitigation and by challenging industry standards and we will look for

environmental enhancement and benefits (HS2 Ltd., 2013a). By the construction of

the HS2, the UK will ensure its commitment of providing a low carbon economy by

reducing environmental impact linked to transportation. Hence, this train will

operate with electricity, which will contribute to enhance air quality and decrease

noise pollution (HS2 Ltd., 2013b). Moreover, high-speed rails also target to decrease

road traffic and thus minimise carbon emissions generated by vehicles. Nonetheless,

on certain occasions this does not occur, such is the case of Taiwan where do to the

lack of use of the high-speed train this goal has yet to be achieved (Cheng, 2010).

Nevertheless, building, maintaining and operating HSR lines is expensive, involves a

significant amount of sunk costs and may substantially compromise both the

transport policy of a country and the development of its transport sector for decades.

Thus, the main target of this paper is to produce an evaluation of the proposed route

for the HS2 network from Birmingham to Manchester.

1.

Client Requirements

1.1. UKs National Infrastructure Plan 2013

According to the UKs National Infrastructure Plan (2013) Britains Government

will work in partnership with regulators and industry to maintain the performance

of the UKs transport networks over time, while ensuring that they provide good

value for money for users and taxpayers. Nonetheless, the main aim of the

government is to go beyond improving the performance of the existing network by


5/30


5

creating a transport system that is capable of satisfying the needs of future

generations. Hence, in order to accomplish this mission any solution must satisfy all

or great part of the plans ambitions:

Enable Britain to keep moving by improving the capacity, performance and

resilience of roads, railways and international gateways, making smarter use

of existing infrastructure and tackling performance problems. To do so, the

Government must deliver: (i) a rolling programme of high value investments

aimed at reducing both road and rail congestion and (ii) a programme of

reforms aimed at improving capacity, performance and resilience of airports.

Enhance integration between different modes of transport, improving

travellers choice as to how they travel and facilitating movement of freight

from road to rail and water where this is viable and appropriate.

Support the move to a low carbon economy, reducing the environmental

impacts of the transport system so that transport greenhouse gas emissions

are falling, as measured in the Department for Transport business plan

impact indicator, and supporting cost effective delivery of the UKs carbon

budgets.

Increase connectivity and capacity between main urban areas and between

them and international gateways, to deal with longer term capacity

constraints, by delivering a series of projects to enhance network capability,

including reducing journey times and improving interchanges.


6/30


6

Figure 1: UKs National Infrastructure Plan 2013 Ambitions.

2. Overview of the HS2 Rail Infrastructure

The HS2 is one of the most challenging and potentially beneficial projects Britainhas historically invested in. It is designed to re-establish Britain as the best-

connected island, not only in Europe but also in the world (HS2 Ltd., 2013b).

Nonetheless, such an ambitious project has been targeted as controversial and

unnecessary. However, many previous investments have also polemic at the time

they were planned and built but have since become an essential part of national life.

The case for the new line rests on the capacity and connectivity it will provide.

Traditional railways across Britain are confronting complete congestion due to the

50% growth in passenger journeys during the last decade. Other agencies, such as

the Network Rail predict that the West Coast Main Line, one of Europes most

important mixed-use railways, will be saturated by the middle of the next decade. As

a consequence UKs economic performance will suffer if a solution is not undertaken.

This project is capable of creating the extra capacity that is needed with slight

disruption to the existing lines and networks.

Reducetraffic

Enhance allmodes of travel

MinimiseCO2

Responsiblypriced

Britain

as anaviation

hub.

Integrate allmodes of travel


7/30


7

The new north-south railway is a long-term solution to a long-term problem.

Without the existence of this high-speed railway the West Coast, East Coast and

Midland Main Lines are likely to be overwhelmed. The HS2 will: (i) transform

intercity travel, (ii) radically improve commuter services into London and othermajor cities and (iii) increase the amount of rail freight. These transport

improvements will help support economic growth and make a major contribution

towards rebalancing the economy of the nation (HS2 Ltd., 2013b).

Figure 2: The HS2 Benefits.

The HS2 will be built in two phases and will be fully integrated with the rest of the

existing network.

Nevertheless, the main benefits of Phase One (from London to Birmingham) will be

to provide more intercity train services; additional capacity on the main lines for

commuter services in to Birmingham and London and additional capacity for freight.

In addition, from the very first day, Phase One will improve journey times and train

services to the North West because these will use the new track from Birmingham

to London. On the other hand, Phase Two (from Birmingham to Manchester and

Leeds) will spread these benefits further north and improve links between the cities

of the north, such as Birmingham and the East Midlands, Sheffield, Leeds and

Newcastle (HS2 Ltd., 2013c).

Generatespace.

Increase routesfor freight.

Improveconnectivity.

Decreasejourney time.

Reduce CO2.

Economicgrowth.


8/30


8

Other benefits linked to the HS2 are:

Generating crucial space on crowded networks.

Renewing routes for freight.

Improve connectivity.

Decrease journey times for travellers.

Figure 3:Journey Times for

The HS2.

Reduce environmental impact.

Economic benefits and job creation.

The HS2 has the ability of regenerating UKs economic geography by improving

connectivity in the West Midlands. It will also be in the capacity of creating

numerous job opportunities (HS2 Ltd., 2013b).


9/30


9

Figure 4: The HS2 Route.

2.1. The HS2 Technical Specification

Britains new high-speed railway will be constructed with technology that has

already been proven effective in a wide range of European and Asian countries.

Thus, it has been designed using integrated system engineering principles to deliver

very high performance. In addition, modern train control systems and rolling stock


10/30


10

will ensure a punctual and reliable service (HS2 Ltd., 2013b).

Braking Capability:Based upon the Alstom AGV, a European high-speed

train capable of reaching of 225mph (360kph), the new train will employ this

reliable technology (HS2 Ltd., 2013d).

Control: Previously used in a number of European countries, such as

Germany, France and Belgium, the HS2 will operate with the European

Standard cab based system European Train Control System (ETCS), which is

part of the European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) (HS2 Ltd.,

2013d).

Train Operation: An Automatic Train Operation (ATO) will be used in

order to assure the delivery of 18 trains per hour (HS2 Ltd., 2013d).

Power Supply: It has been specified that a 25kV Alternating Current

autotransformer power supply has been preferred for the HS2 (HS2 Ltd.,

2013d).

Telecommunications: A second-generation digital technology referred to

as GSM-R (Global System for Mobile Communications-Railway) has been

specified for the HS2. However, it is expected that by 2025

telecommunication technology will have advanced to fourth generation

technology known as Long Term Evolution (LTE) (HS2 Ltd., 2013d).

Design Speed:The HS2 is designed for a top speed of 250mph although

trains will run at up to 225mphthe standard for new high-speed lines.

Operation at 250mph will be possible, but the noise impacts (for example)

will need to be considered first (HS2 Ltd., 2013b).

Hours of Operation: It has been established that the HS2 will operate

between the hours of 05.00 to 23.59 hours Monday to Saturday and 08.00 to23.59 hours on Sunday (HS2 Ltd., 2013d).


11/30


11

Capacity: New stations on the line would be built to accommodate 400m

long trains, much longer than those currently in use on the current network,

and each capable of carrying up to 1,100 passengers (HS2 Ltd., 2013b).

Figure 5: The HS2 Technical Specifications.

3. Evolution of The Phase Two Proposals

In the initial stages of Phase Two, during the autumn of 2010, the focus was centred

towards the selection of the best route possible for the HS2. From preliminary long

lists, many options were rejected mainly due to their potential sustainability impacts.

Once a short list of favoured options was elected, the main target drifted towards

making refinements to the alignments and, where necessary, building up

engineering detail to better understand how potential impacts could be avoided or

reduced. As a consequence, it was possible to analyse the potential impacts on

settlements and properties, as well as on important environmental features, such as

protected habitats and historic features. Furthermore, the elaboration of the HS2 hasincluded a variety of authorities, including Government's advisory bodies, such as

Capacity

Hours of Operation

Design Speed

Telecommunications

Power Supply

Train Operation

Control

Braking Capability


12/30


12

the Natural England, the Environment Agency and English Heritage. Nonetheless,

station options were discussed with relevant local councils and transport

organisations, which provided context on wider transport and planning proposals

(HS2 Ltd., 2013e).

Approximately two years later, in March 2012, a relatively small number of options

remained, and thus were presented to the Government. The Secretary of State for

Transport met with council leaders to discuss station options, and separately visited

areas affected by the proposals. Subsequently, the scheme was modified and hence

paving the road for the initial preferred scheme. In January 2013 the Government

announced the proposal. The plan was described within the command paper, High

Speed Rail: Investing in Britain's Future - Phase Two: The route to Leeds,

Manchester and beyond. The sustainability impacts considered were described

within HS2 Phase Two Initial Preferred Scheme, Sustainability Summary (HS2 Ltd.,

2013f).

Figure 6: Evolution of Phase Two Proposal.

Following this announcement, ministers met with MPs affected by the proposed

scheme. During this period, the HS2 Ltd spoke with local authorities along the

route, as well as with key organisations in the affected cities as well and the main

environment and heritage organisations. This led to further refinement of the

designed proposals.

Short list options.Discussion withauthorities andorganisations.

Modification ofpreferred route.

Proposalannouncement.

Consultation withcommunities

affected.

Refinement ofproposal.


13/30


13

Figure 7: Evolution of Phase Two Route.

3.1. Phase Two: Proposed Route

As stated in the HS2 Environmental Statement 2013, Phase Two will provide new

lines directly to the heart of Manchester and Leeds, and will also serve Sheffield,

East Midlands and Manchester airport with new stations. These will unlock further


14/30


14

improvements to the existing rail network, such as: (i) more capacity for local and

regional services serving the West Midlands from the North, Staffordshire, Cheshire

and Manchester, (ii) a re-orientation of the routes from Leeds to Sheffield, Wakefield

and Doncaster, allowing more frequent commuter trains into these centres and (iii) abypass of the congested East Coast Main Line, especially the two-track bottleneck

south of Stevenage.

Figure 8: How the HS2 will Improve Services Across the Country.


15/30


15

The Western Leg:is set to commence commence from the Phase One route

in the West Midlands and connect with the West Coast Main Line (WCML)

near Golborne (north of Warrington), which would allow onward journeys

to Scotland on the existing line. It would include a station in Manchester citycentre, as well as an interchange station at Manchester Airport. Tunnels

would take it beneath Crewe and Manchester. It would have two depots, one

at Golborne for servicing and parking trains and one at Crewe for

maintaining the railway. A second connection with the WCML at Crewe

would enable links along the existing railway with cities such as Liverpool

(HS2 Ltd., 2013f).

Figure 9: The HS2 Western Leg (Crewe).

The Eastern Leg:has been designed to initiate from the Phase One route in

the West Midlands and connect to the existing railway which connects with

the East Coast Main Line (ECML) south-west of York, enabling links with

stations further north, such as Newcastle and Edinburgh. It would have a

new station in Leeds city centre, as well as intermediate stations comprising

the East Midlands Hub at Toton west of Nottingham, and at Sheffield


16/30


16

Meadowhall. Like the western leg, it would have two depots, one south of

New Crofton for servicing and parking trains and one at Staveley for

maintaining the railway (HS2 Ltd., 2013f).

Figure 10: The HS2 Eastern Leg (East Midlands Hub).

4. The HS2 Issues

4.1. Staffordshire

Located in the West Midlands, Staffordshire is formed by 9 districts. It

attachesCheshire to the north west,Derbyshire and Leicestershire to the

east,Warwickshire to the south east,West Midlands andWorcestershire to the

south andShropshire to the west (SCC, 2013).

Of the 95 miles for the Phase Two West Midlands to Manchester route, 33 miles are

in Staffordshire, which will have a significant impact on our countryside and

communities. There is also a short section of the West Midlands to Leeds route at

the very southern tip of Tamworth (SCC, 2013).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbyshirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicestershirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwickshirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(county)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcestershirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shropshirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shropshirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcestershirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Midlands_(county)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warwickshirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicestershirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derbyshirehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheshire


17/30


17

Figure 11: The Staffordshire County.

4.2. Whitmore

The proposed HS2 route passes under the A53 to the east of Baldwins Gate in

cutting before entering a tunnel under Whitmore Heath for 710m. It is of great

concern for the community of Whitmore due to the combined noise impact on the

village from trains exiting the tunnel and also from the existing West Coast MainLine to the west. Furthermore, the HS2 is supposed to pass under Whitmore Heath

but then travels through Whitmore Wood Ancient Woodland in cutting (See Figure

12). It has been proven effective that the continuance of the tunnel would radically

reduce habitat and severance effects for this irreplaceable habitat. Despite coniferous

planting, the woodland retains ancient woodland species diversity.


18/30


18

Figure 12: Cutting Train Passage.

The construction of the HS2 will require a considerable amount of earthworks due

to cuttings. Additionally, in the Draft Environmental Statement (2013) it is specified

that all material excavated will be reused. Nonetheless, effects from these

earthworks can and will result in the disruption and destruction of local habitats.

Considering that Whitmore Wood Ancient Woodland is an area of high landscape

quality it is acknowledged that the creation of a bored tunnel (See figure 13) could

reduce landscape impacts of HS2 in this area. This type of tunnel is constructed

using one or more tunnel boring machines. Bored tunnels are used for long, deep

tunnels and are less damaging to the environment than cut-and-cover tunnels (See

figure 14) and cuttings, because the majority of the work is done underground

(TWT, 2013). However, in order to accomplish this tunnel the length of such tunnel


19/30


19

must be prolonged.

Figure 13: Bored Tunnel.

Figure 14: Cut and Cover Tunnel.

Ancient woodland is an irreplaceable habitat, developed over centuries through

combination of factors owing to its location and history. If careful consideration is

not taken, the repercussions would terminate with one of Britains most important

environmental assets.


20/30


20

Figure 15: Proposed Lower HS2 Alignment.

4.3. A Greener Vision for the HS2

In a recent report published by the Wildlife Trust (2014), entitled HS2: The case

for a greener vision it is stipulated that the HS2 must look beyond current terms of

mitigation and ensuring no net loss. Proclaimed by Government as a visionary

project, it should be visionary at every level. Both The Landscape Institute (2011)

and Sunderland (2012) agree that the socio-economic benefits of green infrastructure

are increasingly well understood and recognised by industry and public bodies.

The HS2 train should be an exemplar project for Britain, demonstrating how a

major infrastructure development can be used to help restore the natural

environment. On April 7th 2014 the Environmental Audit Select Committee

published a report HS2 and the Environment which stated that HS2 must aim

higher than the objective of no net biodiversity loss. It identified several other key

flaws with the proposed environmental mitigation and compensation. As a

consequence, it is the HS2s obligation to assure a much more ambitious and

integrated strategy for mitigation and compensation (TWT, 2014). Hence this major

infrastructure project must go beyond the constraints of these concepts. The

opportunity should be grasped to restore nature on a grand scale along a corridor

stretching well over half the length of England.

5.

Magnetic Levitation Trains

Proposed710m-bored tunnelthrough Whitmore Wood.

ProposedLower HS2 alignment to create abored tunnel through Whitmore Wood.


21/30


21

Nevertheless, as discussed in previous segments it is quite evident that another

option for a high-speed train in Britain must be taken into consideration. Minor

adjustments are not sufficient. In order to obtain a greener high-speed rail, the

government must seek a more ambitious project. Thus, a Magnetic Levitation(Maglev) Train can be seen as an option.

A Maglev consists of a train that does not physically touch the rail track, but moves

between two electro-magnetic fields, thereby producing forward motion. There are

electromagnets attached to the moving railcar, but they are positioned facing the

underside of the guideways steel rails (Murai and Tanaka, 2007). Some of the

advantages Maglev trains present are that do not have engines, and the railcar is

interlocked with the guideway so there is no risk of derailment. This physical

configuration also allows the railcar to accelerate and decelerate at ease, move at

steep inclines and tight curves, and to produce very little wear and tear on the track

itself; magnetic fields created by the electrified coils in the guideway walls and the

track come together to propel the train (Lee, Kim and Lee, 2006).

The guideway is a magnetized coil running along the truck, and repels the large

magnets on the trains undercarriage, thereby allowing the train to levitate above

the guideway. Once the train is levitated, power is supplied to the coils within the

guideway walls and creates a magnetic field that pulls and pushes the train along the

guideway. In this way, Maglev trains essentially float on a cushion of air and, given

the aerodynamic design of the train, helps eliminate friction to allow these trains to

reach very high speeds (Zaidi, 2008).

The Maglev train has been the central focus of technological research and

application on modern high-speed rail transit systems for many years. In particular,

Maglev technology has received the most attention, particularly in North America,

considering its attractive feature of greatly reducing its environmental impact on

surrounding communities. Some nations utilizing Maglev technology include

Germany and Japan.


22/30


22

Figure 16: Maglev Track Design.

5.1. High Speed Two Vs. Maglev Trains

Table 1. COMPARISON BETWEEN HIGH SPEED TRAINS

Characteristic HS2 Maglev

1. Speed Capable of obtainingspeeds of 240km/h(150mph).

Can achieve routineoperating speeds of up to500km/h (310mph).

2. Rail Steel wheel on steel railtechnology.

The system utilizesconventionalelectromagnets to attract

the bottom frame of thevehicle upward to within10 mm (3/8 in.) of thebottom of the guideway.Due to the use ofelectromagnets, no wheelsare needed either on orunder the vehicle.

3. Guideway/Track Although in many cases,true high-speed operation

of the HS2 may requirenew or significantly

This system uses its owndedicated track, commonly

called a guideway, built ofsteel or concrete beams


23/30


23

improved railinfrastructure, the use ofexisting tracks may bepossible.

supported by concretesubstructures.

4. Performance The HS2 will incorporatetilting technology intoboth locomotives andpassenger cars for bettertravel in curves. Thecomputer-controlled andhydraulically activatedsystem allows the body ofthe car to tilt into the

direction of a turn,resulting in reduced sideforces and improvedpassenger comfort. Grade-climbing ability and trackbanking are typical ofconventional high-speedrail. However, whensharing track with freightoperations, compromiseson track grade and

banking are required,further reducingperformance.

In addition to its 500km/h(310mph) speed capability,the Maglev system offersother significantperformance advantagesdesigned to overcome thelimitations of steel-wheelsystems. The technologyallows for routine

climbing and descendingof grades up to 10 percent(10 feet of elevation forevery 100 feet of guidewaylength), almost threetimes steeper thanconventional rail systems.Maglev vehicles can round50-percent tighter curves(horizontal and vertical) atthe same speeds as

conventional high-speedrail. Similarly, they cantravel through a curve ofthe same radius at muchhigher speeds thanconventional systems. Theguideway can be bankedto 12 degrees ofsuperelevation, allowingvehicles to travel throughtight-radius curves while

still at high speeds.Adequate bankingeliminates uncomfortablesideward forces, ensuringride comfort.

Acceleration and brakingcapabilities of the Maglevsystem result in minimalloss of time for stationstops. The vehicles reach

high operating speeds in aquarter of the time and


24/30


24

less than one quarter ofthe distance ofconventional high-speedrail systems. The systemis controlled in alldirections of movement toensure ride comfortthroughout all phases ofoperation. Seat belts arenot required andpassengers are free tomove about the cabin atall speeds.

5. Operation ControlSystem

Automatic Train Control,Driver required.

Fully AutomatedCommunication andControl System, DigitalRadio Transmission,Driver optional.

Other characteristic comparisons between these train system technologies include:

From a station stop, Maglev attains two and a half times the speed and

covers twice the distance than a conventional high-speed train in the same

amount of time.

Maglev requires only one-quarter the time and distance to obtain the HS2s

top speed.

The HS2 is almost twice as noisy as the Maglev at similar operational speeds.

Maglev can climb grades from two and a half times to eight times steeper

than the HS2 with no loss of speed.

Maglevs unique guideway precludes interfacing with heavy freight trains,

locomotives and grade crossings.

6. Sustainability Issues

6.1. Economic

According to previous studies, initial capital investment for the construction of a


25/30


25

Maglev system has been shown to be comparable to the construction of a

conventional European high-speed rail line (Zaidi, 2008). However, building new

infrastructure for any transportation mode will require a significant initial

investment. The construction, for example, of Phase Two is estimated to be of21.2bn (HS2 Ltd., 2013b). In contrast, the construction of a train with Maglev

technology would cost approximately half of HS2 (Lane, 2010).

Another advantage Maglev trains present are the low maintenance costs (compared

to conventional high speed rails) linked to this system due to the use of automated

non-contact technology. Vehicle operation causes neither misalignment nor wear of

the guideway structure, equipment and surfaces. Most moving mechanical

components that wear down for other technologies have been replaced by non-

wearing electronic and electromagnetic components in Transrapid. In addition,

vehicle weight is evenly distributed by the full-length levitation magnets resulting

in less stress and lower dynamic loads on the guideway (AMG,2002).

Table 2. TRAIN COSTS.

HS2 Maglev

Initial Investment 21.2bn 10.6bn

Operational Costs 8.2bn 2.1bn

6.2. SocialThe creation of a high-speed train system is one of the most ambitious projects

Britain has embarked on in the last decade. Nonetheless, this project will connect the

United Kingdom. Countries are judged on their engineering; such is the case of

Japans Bullet train and Frances TGV network. With these transport projects these

nations created a national brand. The rail network that Britain built in the Victorian

era not only created a national market but also established the idea of Britain as the

most advanced country in the world, with all the prestige and the commercialadvantages that came with such title. However, this pioneering spirit lost


26/30


26

momentum in the 20th century. By creating a high-speed train with Maglev

technology Britain will be reborn and will revolutionized transport not only for the

UK but also for Europe.

On the other hand, the construction of an advanced transport system of this style

will incentivize local economies, creating jobs and greater commercial connections.

6.3. Environmental

Maglev trains are one of the first transportation systems to be specially developed to

protect the environment. The system can be collocated with existing transportation

corridors and needs a minimum amount of land for the support of guideway beams.

Use of elevated guideway minimises disturbance to existing land, water and wildlife,

while flexible alignment parameters allow the guideway to adapt to the landscape

(Zaidi, 2008).

With its non-contact levitation and propulsion technology, highly efficient linear

motor (mounted in the guideway) and low aerodynamic resistance, the energy

consumption of the Maglev system is very economical when compared to other

transportation modes. It typically requires 25 to 30 percent less energy per

passenger than conventional high-speed rail systems. In addition, there are no direct

emissions from the moving vehicles to affect air quality.

The Maglev technology is much quieter than other transportation systems as it does

not produce any rolling, gearing or engine noise. Noise, predominantly

aerodynamic, is minimal at speeds up to 250 km/h (155 mph) and is significantly less

than conventional trains at higher speeds. Maglev is the quietest high-speed ground

transportation system available today. Electromagnetic fields (EMF) produced by

the Maglev system are negligible and are roughly equivalent to the Earths natural

magnetic field. Due to their exposed sources of high voltage, a typical electrified

conventional train and a subway system have approximately four and eight times the

field strength, respectively, of the Maglev system (AMG, 2002).

7. Safety and Risk Management


27/30


27

The HS2 seeks to deliver a safe and reliable railway system throughout its design,

construction, operation and maintenance. It is recognised that HS2 is likely to

operate at maximum linespeeds higher than those currently employed in the UK.

Whilst the consequences of any incident at high linespeed can be severe, HS2sprimary aim will be to specify and design out safety risk to prevent incidents

occurring in the first place. If safety risk cannot be eradicated, it will be mitigated as

far as is reasonably practicable (ref). In contrast, certain risks such as collision with

other transportation systems is avoided as the Maglev uses its own dedicated

guideway without intersections with other modes such as roads and highways.

Nevertheless, the vehicles are designed to withstand collisions with small objects on

the guideway. In addition, since the Maglev vehicle wraps around the guideway

beam, a derailment is virtually impossible (AMG, 2002).

Additionally, Maglevs technical concept has eliminated the safety risks associated

with the operation of conventional rail transportation systems in general.

Redundancies achieved through the duplication of components as well as the

automated, radio-controlled system ensure that operational safety is never

jeopardized. The principle of synchronized propulsion makes collisions between

vehicles virtually impossible. For example, if two or more vehicles were ever placed

simultaneously in the same guideway segment, they would be forced by the motor in

the guideway to travel at the same speed in the same direction (AMG, 2002).


28/30


28

Recommendations and Conclusion

Britain has set sail towards a very ambitious transport project, the construction of a

high-speed rail, capable of uniting Great Britain and therefore regenerating the

economy of the UK. However, although this infrastructure project can, to certaindegree: create space on overcrowded networks, regenerate freight routes, increase

connectivity within the region, lower journey times, enable job opportunities and

decrease carbon footprints, it has raised controversy amongst authorities,

organisations and the British population in general. On occasions this is due to the

negative environmental repercussions this train may cause across the island. Whilst

careful consideration has been taken in counter for the design of the HS2, there is

can still be room for improvement. By utilising Maglev technology instead of

conventional high-speed trains, not only will the initial construction investment

drop to half of the cost of the HS2 but maintenance costs will also decrease. In

addition, Maglev trains offer better safety for passengers and crewmembers aboard.

Countries are judged by their engineering. If the UK is going to invest in such a vast

infrastructure project due to last for many generations to come, why is it

considering a technology that is soon to be obsolete? Investing for the future would

mean investing in a rail technology that will relocate the UK, revolutionise the

image of transport and benchmark Great Britain as a brand. Nevertheless, the wide

range of sustainability issues a Maglev train can avoid is very wide in comparison to

the HS2.

It is also important to note, that certain sectors and localities will be severely

disrupted by the HS2 and will not receive much benefits. Such is the case of

Staffordshire. Nonetheless, the alteration of the final selected route or adding more

stations will disrupt the efficiency of the HS2 and hence, could result in decreasing


29/30


29

the speed of the train. Thus, as stated above, a less disruptive technology must be

taken into consideration and the Maglev train is the key.

References

American Magline Group (AMG) (2002) Technology Comparison: High Speed GroundTransportation. Washington: AMG.

Campos, J. and de Rus, G. (2009) Some stylized facts about high-speed rail: A review

of HSR experiences around the world. Transport Policy [online], 16(1), pp. 19-28

Cheng, Y. (2010) High-speed rail in Taiwan: New experience and issues for future

development. Transport Policy [online], 17(2), pp. 51-63Environmental Audit Committee (2014) HS2 and the environment.

HM Treasury (2013). UKs National Infrastructure Plan. London: HM Tresaury.

HS2 Ltd. (HS2) (2013a) Sustainability policy.London: Department of Transport.

HS2 Ltd. (HS2) (2013b) The strategic case for HS2 [online]. London: HS2. [Accessed

15 March 2014]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-strategic-case

HS2 Ltd. (HS2) (2013c) The hs2 story [online]. London: HS2. [Accessed 15 March

2014]. Available at: http://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/high-speed-rail-hs2/hs2-

story

HS2 Ltd. (HS2) (2013d) Review of the technical specification for high-speed rail in the UK.

London: Department of Transport.

HS2 Ltd. (HS2) (2013e) High speed rail: consultation on the route from the West Midlandsto Manchester, Leeds and beyond sustainability statement non-technical summary [online].

London: Temple-ERM. [Accessed 15 February 2014]. Available at:

http://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consulation_library/pdf/P2C10%20App

endix%20D%20Strategic%20Fit%20050713.pdf

HS2 Ltd. (HS2) (2013f) London West Midlands environmental statement non technical

summary [online]. London: Department of Transport. [Accessed 16 February

2014]. Available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/

259487/NTS_for_web_ES_3.0.0.pdf
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-strategic-casehttp://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/high-speed-rail-hs2/hs2-storyhttp://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/high-speed-rail-hs2/hs2-storyhttp://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consulation_library/pdf/P2C10%20Appendix%20D%20Strategic%20Fit%20050713.pdfhttp://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consulation_library/pdf/P2C10%20Appendix%20D%20Strategic%20Fit%20050713.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259487/NTS_for_web_ES_3.0.0.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259487/NTS_for_web_ES_3.0.0.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259487/NTS_for_web_ES_3.0.0.pdfhttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/259487/NTS_for_web_ES_3.0.0.pdfhttp://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consulation_library/pdf/P2C10%20Appendix%20D%20Strategic%20Fit%20050713.pdfhttp://assets.hs2.org.uk/sites/default/files/consulation_library/pdf/P2C10%20Appendix%20D%20Strategic%20Fit%20050713.pdfhttp://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/high-speed-rail-hs2/hs2-storyhttp://www.hs2.org.uk/about-hs2/high-speed-rail-hs2/hs2-storyhttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/hs2-strategic-case


30/30


30

Landscape Institute (2011) Local Green Infrastructure.

Lane, T. (2010) Maglev vs high-speed rail: Should we change trains? [online]. London:Building.co.uk. Available at: http://www.building.co.uk/maglev-vs-high-speed-rail-should-we-change-trains?/5004975.article

Lee, H., Kim, K. and Lee, J. (2006) Review of maglev train technologies. IEEETransactions of Magnetics, 42 (7), pp.1917-1925

Murai, M and Tanaka, M. (2007) Magnetic levitation technologies railway technology:normal conducting HSST maglev. Japan: Japan Railway & Transport Review.Available at http://www.jrtr.net/jrtr25/pdf/f58_tec1.pdf at 61

Staffordshire County Council (SCC) (2013). High speed rail 2: Phase two.Staffordshire: Staffordshire County Council.

Sunderland, T (2012) Microeconomic evidence for the benefits of investment inenvironment.

The Wildlife Trusts (TWT) (2014). HS2: the case for a greener vision. Newark: TheWildlife Trusts.

The Woodland Trust (TWT) (2013). HS2 factsheet. London: Woodland Trust.

UIC, (2005) High-speed rails leading asset for customers and society, Paris: UIC.

Zaidi, K. (2007) High-speed rail transit: developing the case for alternative

transportation schemes in the context of innovative and sustainable globaltransportation law and policy, Temp. J. Sci. Tech. & Envtl. L, 26(6), pp. 301-306

integrated projects application 1

Documents

hs2 issues

transportation planners

existing mass transportation

hs2 rail infrastructure

module leader

e r s i t y o f w o

hs2 technical specification

v e r h