The UK Ultraspeed line is a proposed magnetic-levitation train line between London and Glasgow, linking Edinburgh, Birmingham, Manchester and Newcastle, and with a spur to Liverpool.
Contents |
The proposal is a system based on Transrapid technology (as used in Shanghai on the Shanghai Maglev Train line); the trains would travel at up to 500 km/h (310 mph) significantly reducing journey times between major cities in the UK. It is the result of a £2 million feasibility study by the Transrapid group.
The route of the line is proposed as a 'backwards S' shape designed to serve cities on the East Coast Main Line and West Coast Main Line in one line.
The following are the expected journey times in minutes compared with present journey times by train. The table also includes the proposed journey times of High Speed 2.
| Between | Present time | High Speed 2 time | Ultraspeed time |
|---|---|---|---|
| London and Birmingham | 1 hour 30 minutes | 49 minutes | 30 minutes |
| London and Liverpool | 2 hours 15 minutes | 1 hour 36 minutes | 45 minutes |
| London and Manchester | 2 hours 20 minutes | 1 hour 20 minutes | 50 minutes |
| London and Glasgow | 4 hours 30 minutes | 3 hours 30 minutes [1] | 2 hours 35 minutes |
| Manchester and Liverpool | 50 minutes | 16 minutesa | 10 minutes |
^a Not part of the current proposed route for High Speed 2
This system would travel at 500 km/h (310 mph), a significantly higher speed than maximum conventional high-speed rail speeds of 300 to 380 km/h (190 to 240 mph). The system claims to use only 50% of the energy needed to power a comparable HSR alternative.[2] The proposed maglev system is also able to accelerate and decelerate much more quickly than a conventional system, even if it had the same top speed. This reduces the number of trains required for the same level of service and also decreases point-to-point travel times. UK Ultraspeed quote 5 km for maglev to reach 300kph compared to 28 km for the German ICE conventional rail service reducing the acceleration time by a factor of four.
The guideway construction is elevated by nature and therefore requires both less 'land-grab' during construction (conventional rail lines prefer construction on the level) and also potentially easier construction up, for example, the centre of an existing road allowing new routes into major towns and cities. This construction would be no more than the usual per/km price since it would use the same guideway. For a conventional system to do the same, a special guideway would need to be constructed with climbable gradients from the level up to the guideway.
The traction method does not rely on friction for traction and therefore steeper gradients are possible (up to 1-in-10) when compared to conventional wheel-on-rail systems (up to 1-in-25). This would allow, for instance, a maglev system to cross the Pennine mountains over the surface whereas conventional rail would require a tunnel or alternative longer route to avoid the inclines.[2]
Because of the reduced journey times there are economic benefits to this proposal; with journey time reduced to 15 minutes, the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow would be able to function as one economic entity and enable greater cohesion between them. Additionally shorter journey times may offset the traditional north-south England imbalance by encouraging businesses to locate outside London but still have good access to the locations like Heathrow Airport.
There are also environmental benefits, because high speed rail reduces the number of journeys taken by car and aeroplane between cities and would, in turn, contribute to reducing greenhouse gas emissions from transport.[3] In the case of Ultraspeed, the presumed take-up of rail travel would be higher as a realistic alternative to short-haul flights and the much better point-to-point times compared to car travel.
Higher speed rail travel (of whatever method) implies the possibility of fewer trains being required to meet current timetables, reducing the overall construction and maintenance cost. Conversely, it would be possible to have a more frequent service with the same number of trains as present or something in-between.
The proposed Transrapid system could be controlled from a single control room and the trains do not require drivers leading to either a reduction in staff costs and/or an increase in the staff available to interface with customers.
UK Ultraspeed have claimed the Shanghai maglev which uses the same technology runs at 99.9% availability, much higher than the average for conventional rail due to certain factors related to the operation of the maglev system such as the main control equipment being static in the guideway and not inside a moving locomotive as in conventional rail. The guideway and control also implies fewer ways in which accidents could happen since it is impossible for the train to leave the guideway in normal operation and the simpler topology of the network and elevated guideways make traffic or other train collisions extremely unlikely.
The estimated cost of the system would be £28 billion, which includes guideway construction and gliding stock.
UK Ultraspeed Project Manager Dr Alan James has asked why the country is talking about investing for the next 100 years or more into a system that is already 150 years old and reaching its limits rather than investing in something that is future-proof for the foreseeable future. Especially since UK Ultraspeed claim a more useful, faster, reliable and cheaper alternative in maglev.
The system itself, by its nature, is incompatible with existing rolling stock, making integration with the existing network difficult - generally requiring the construction of adjacent and dissimilar lines or stations. Additionally maglev trains that have broken down are not easily rescued , whereas conventional rail allows recovered using self powered rescue locomotives. The fact that the technology is markedly different from existing technology also brings with it a risk that investment in something new at this level could seriously backfire if major problems were encountered [4]. UK Ultraspeed has contended that this reason is not fully justified since the Chinese run the proposed trains in passenger service proving that the system is viable.
It has been cited by the government whitepaper[4] (page 10) that the proposed maglev is not good value for money compared with conventional rail. UK Ultraspeed have contested this assertion since there are savings that are present in the proposed maglev system that are not present in conventional rail such as reduced land-grab (construction) cost, reduced number of trains, much reduced maintenance (due to 'zero' wheel-on-rail contact) and reduced number of staff required. UK Ultraspeed had asked the UK government for the same amount of money given to the conventional rail report in order to provide more detail into the costing to demonstrate that this statement is unjustified. In the UK Ultraspeed Factbook, page 13, their pre-survey cost estimates are £20M-24.75M/km which compared to the High Speed 1 known cost of £46M-48M/km shows a marked reduction in cost compared to the slower High Speed 1 channel tunnel link. UK Ultraspeed contend that at this level of saving, it is important to fully investigate the costing before committing to something that is potentially twice as expensive per km for a much less useful system. For comparison, the system in Shanghai equates to around £28M/km[5], which is not directly comparable due to differing construction conditions in China.
The system is not compatible with standard shipping containers used on the railways in Great Britain, however it is compatible with the standard air freight containers, which leads to a lower haulage capacity compared to the standard network; a maglev can haul only 150 tonnes of freight in airline shipping containers, utilising all 10 modules of a train of which each individual module can hold 15 tonnes, whereas a UK freight train can haul ~ 60 Twenty-foot equivalent unit (up to ~1800 tonnes net weight). This is not seen as a considerable limitation since the network is intended primarily for passenger travel which requires high speed journey times. The proposed network would run independently of the existing infrastructure which could carry more freight if conventional trains were replaced with maglev ones.
The interaction of the rolling stock and the guideway doesn't cause strong magnetic fields within the Maglev vehicle, so there are no restrictions for people with pacemakers.[6]
Vehicles have to run at a restricted speed over a "reversed" switch (set towards the diversion) only being allowed to traverse them at up to 200 km/h (124 mph). However, they can proceed normally, up to 500 km/h (310 mph), if the switch is in the "normal" position (set towards the main route). The reason for this restriction is the guideway is normally banked into the corner at up to 12° from vertical, a switch is basically a girder that is bent into position by motors and is unable to bank.
There are comparisons, either favourable or not, with systems in other countries around the world, especially China, which run the fastest commercial maglev system in Shanghai and also Japan who are considered pioneers of both conventional rail and maglev systems. It is not correct to compare the apparent success in Shanghai or the apparent lack of a maglev system in Japan directly with the UK since a railway system does not operate in isolation with society, government, geography or other factors. These factors which might include financial pressures, distribution and expectations of a countries' citizens and the ability of a government or private consortium to build infrastructure easily where they decide to, all affect the overall value or return on investment of any railway system including maglev. For this reason, more studies are required to determine whether the success in Shanghai can be duplicated in the UK, whether the economics that appear favourable there will translate to the UK and whether the apparent lack of commercial maglev systems in Japan indicates a general problem with the technology that the UK should be concerned with or not.
A specific example relates to the fact that Japanese trains have to be designed with earthquakes in mind and therefore the technology that might work well and economically in the UK (i.e. electromagnetic suspension) is simply not viable in Japan who need to develop maglev trains with greater clearances between guideway and train (which is not a trivial task). For this reason, the Japanese have invested a lot in Electrodynamic suspension which requires superconducting magnets.
The technology was rejected for future planning in the Government White Paper Delivering a Sustainable Railway published on 24 July 2007[7] in favour of conventional High Speed Rail.