Brent Cross Railway - The system of the Future

As some of you may know, this blog strongly supports the proposal for the Brent Cross Railway (BCR). This is a tram system that will link up the Boroughs of Barnet and Brent with a hub at Brent Cross. Much of the route for this is under used and disused rail lines. The proposal would link up the High Barnet and the Edgware branches of the Northern Line, massively reduce traffic around the new Brent Cross development and offer a quicker, greener and more efficient way to get to work for thousands of commuters and school children. The London Borough of Brent strongly supports the scheme. Unfortunately the London Borough of Barnet doesn't.

Barnet likes to pride itself on being a "pro car" administration, with it's various policies such as road hump removal. Opposing the BCR proposal is another feather in the cap of the pro car lobby. Now I've never really understood the concept of "pro car" and "pro rail" lobbies (other than the vested interests of the companies servicing each industry). I'm in the "pro getting from A to B lobby". This means sometimes we have to build unpopular roads (most big roads are unpopular), sometimes we have to build railways and sometimes we have to spend lots of cash.

The Brent Cross scheme is a simple and relatively cheap scheme. Knowing that this blog has championed it, I received an email suggesting to me that the scheme is fundamentally flawed and that the costs could be slashed, whilst maintaining the service levels and improving the green credentials. Whilst my engineering credentials are soundly in the music engineering camp, I certainly can see the logic in what is being suggested.

One of the major costs in the proposed scheme is the electrification of the route, to power the trams. It has been suggested that this is expensive, outdated technology. The fuel of the future is Hydrogen Cell. If the trams were powered by hydrogen cell technology, then miles of copper wiring wouldn't be needed. Major power installations could be scrapped. It is also suggested that some of the route could be used for dual purpose vehicles, half bus/half trams. These could branch off and add even more destinations than the existing scheme could offer. This would negate the need to lay new tracks in some areas. It has been suggested that new road signalling technology be deployed, to clear the roadways for these vehicles. It has been suggested that these lanes could be signalled bus lanes, ie cars can use them until the bus comes, then they move over. There is nothing more frustrating than being stuck in traffic, next to an empty bus lane.

Now I've no idea if this technology really will work. I don't know if rail/road vehicles are feasible. I don't know if signal controlled bus lanes are feasible. What I do know is that for gridlocked cities such as London they deserve serious research and consideration. It can't be right that the North Circular is gridlocked every day whilst a few hundred yards away, there is a railway used by 12 trains a day, in the bits which haven't been abandoned. It certainly deserves a more serious analysis than Brian Coleman's "men in lofts with trainsets" quip.