Peak oil is a concept which has its supporters and detractors, with the latter probably having the upper hand at the moment. For natural resources, it is easy to see the arguments from both sides: oil reserves are finite, but huge and not all discovered, but the difficulty and cost of exploring, extracting and refining means that, at some stage, the cost of further exploitation is likely to become prohibitive.
The big question is whether or not we will by then have developed an economic alternative. After all, wind, water and wood gave way almost entirely to coal to provide the right conditions for the Industrial Revolution and all that followed and we can expect that nuclear fusion or a combination of a new generation of photovoltaic cells plus energy storage on a massive scale might provide another paradigm shift. Development, as we see repeatedly in the course of history, does not run on a smooth, continuous path but is instead built on a series of disruptive technological leaps.
The same can be said for transport over land. Once horses had been domesticated, humans were able to travel somewhat farther and faster than on foot. With the invention of the wheel, horses and oxen were able to haul quite substantial loads. After that, very little changed until reasonably efficient steam engines made the steam locomotive a reality.
Trains revolutionised travel. Two centuries ago, most people were unlikely to travel much further than a day’s walk or horse ride would take them, barring rare journeys by coach as necessity demanded and savings made possible. Regular travel of any distance was the prerogative of the rich. A hundred years later, the railways were at their peak in much of Europe, North America and elsewhere. Two or three generations, in some countries, had been able to visit places they had only dreamed of.
At the same time as railways provided mass travel over distances, horses remained the main motive power for more local journeys. But the development of the internal combustion engine, and the introduction of mass production by Ford, finally saw cars start to replace them. And as cars became faster, more comfortable, more reliable and more affordable, and as motor coaches appeared in numbers, road transport increasingly supplanted trains. Only some century and a half after their commercialisation, railways were on the wane almost everywhere.
In some places, such as the USA and Canada, that was effectively that. The vast distances which had been shrunk by railways were covered faster and more easily by plane, and rail networks which remain largely link a few key population centres or are for freight. Europe, though, is different. Mainly because of geography and more crowded roads, rail travel has enjoyed something of a renaissance since the latter part of the 20th Century (in addition to peak period travel in and out of cities on commuter lines, which have been consistently busy).
The most recent phase of development has been the high-speed train, pioneered in Europe by France with the TGV and followed with varying degrees of enthusiasm by Germany, Spain, Italy and the Benelux countries (Thalys). For medium distance, city-to-city travel, this is now an established and popular option, effectively killing off a number of short-distance air routes such as Paris-Brussels or French domestic routes.
But enthusiasm for further expansion of the network has begun to wane, ironically enough just as the UK is moving towards building its second line – HS2 – from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. The gestation of the TGV network was in the 1970s, with the first line opening between Paris and Lyon in 1981. Since then, it has been expanded in all directions, and France has by far the most comprehensive network.
Interestingly, the trains are still built by Alstom (formerly GEC-Alstom) and differ little from the original design. But although rather dated compared to, for example, the latest generation of German ICE trains, they are fast and reliable. France’s geography and centralised approach to planning has enabled new lines to be put in with little delay, using routes which allow the trains to run at top speed for long distances.
But high-speed rail does not come cheap and, as has been widely reported recently, the French government has decided it can no longer afford its ambitious plans for further development (see, for example, France scraps TGV plans in new investment programme). According to Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault, “A TGV line at 12 billion euros would cost the same as the replacement 4 times over of the Corail trains.” Work already planned for lines to Bordeaux and Toulouse will go ahead, but after that, the government will concentrate on improvements to the existing rail network.
There are also problems in Germany (see Frozen in ICE: How can Germany’s High-Speed Trains get back on Track?). Part of the problem here is the rising cost of a number of big infrastructure projects. For example, ambitious plans to rebuild Stuttgart station, including a new high-speed rail link to Ulm, have been heavily criticised as the project has gone €2billion over budget (Stuttgart 21 may yet fail).
A second problem is that the latest generation of Siemens ICE trains has turned out to be less reliable than the less-advanced but well-proven Alstom TGV. But perhaps the key issue is that the ICE trains do not cut journey times to the same extent as the TGV network. The problem is the network on which they run – only parts of which are high-speed – and the insistence by provincial governments that many small cities get ICE stations, even though passenger numbers are low. So, Paris to Marseille (660 km) takes three hours, while the shorter Hamburg-Munich route is five and a half at best.
The message from this (and a similar realisation of the lack of affordability in Spain) seems to be that rail only works well given the right set of conditions. Even in France, its popularity is boosted by a very significant public subsidy: no country in Europe can run a railway network without making a loss.
One of its problems is its inflexible nature. Rail may be the best current answer to particular problems such as getting tens of thousands of commuters into city centres or making certain mid-distance inter-city journeys, but its inflexible nature means it cannot be changed to meet new needs. Once an airport is built, flights can go anywhere. If there is a reasonable road network, every journey is a unique one at a time not set by a timetable. It seems that peak rail really has come this time.
The Scientific Alliance
St John’s Innovation Centre
Cowley Road
Cambridge CB4 0WS
______________________________________________