Tory Grande Vitesse

[davesgcr]

Quite right - and not fair to pick on it - if Lewes - Uckfield had never shut - it would just about break even and cover expenses (even with privatisation costs !) - the problem is that the 1000 or so who would use it each day come well down the pecking order when there are so many other candidates for capital investment !

Watch out for some innovative railway discussion on a list of railway schemes for "new lines - not on the HSL scale" - and look how well Ebbw Vale , the Vale of Glamorgan and Alloa have done - well over a million new passengers a year on the rails. Shame is we havent done much in England (apart from HSL2recently -)

Come the reveolution of course we will have a major new build programme !!!!

 

[ViolentPanda]

What's interesting about this IMO is not that it's the Tories suggesting it, but that it's being suggested at all. Rod Eddington's report from the other year pooh-poohed the idea of new railway lines, and after that the issue rather died away. It's encouraging to see it being revived.

Not, of course, that Eddington was at all credible.

 

[Roadkill]

Not, of course, that Eddington was at all credible.

Well it was bollocks of course, but bollocks that was taken seriously in some quarters...

 

[davgraham]

Well it was bollocks of course, but bollocks that was taken seriously in some quarters...

Eddington's was a quite perceptive analysis actually

He ruled out any high speed line simply on the grounds of cost - it would be phenomenally expensive and would absorb all funding available for the railways to the exclusion of virtually everything else. It would essentially be a rich business mans railway that most of us could not afford to ride on.

It also would make only a marginal difference in time saving [except if it were extended to Scotland] simply because unlike in France and Spain, the UK's main centres are relatively close to one another. So a medium speed but higher acceleration railway would be better value, especially as it could tie in much more seemlessly with the existing railway and existing rolling stock.

Money would be better spent on lots of small scale things like easing curves, some gauge enhancement, platform lengthening, redoubling some lines, better signalling to give tighter headways, vastly improving Network Rail's operating performance which is currently piss poor etc etc.

To be fair Network Rail recognises most of this and has done some of these things and is arguing for them in their latest plan for Control Period 4 with the ORR, who are now the villains of the piece by trying to dock something like £2.5 off Network Rail's planned spending. A new round of Route Utilisation Strategies should be coming out for consultation before being agreed in 2009.

In the short term there is a shortage of capacity between London and Birmingham but it is possible to do lots with the existing network without building a new line. One of the major priorities should be a new through station in Birmingham because the current plans are no more than a property scheme for New Street which will not add a single through line or one extra platform face


All the political parties show no sign of wanting to deal with any of this, which is why none of what they say can be taken at all seriously. If, however it moves transport up the agenda well I suppose that's a good thing.

Gra

 

[Roadkill]

Eddington's was a quite perceptive analysis actually

Oh aye, he was quite right about all the incremental improvements you point to. Point is, though, if we're at all serious abut achieving a 'modal shift' from road to rail, or perhaps more pertinently away from air to rail on the north-south routes, then more drastic measures are needed than such small improvements. Currently, those holding the purse strings aren't particularly serious about said shift - or won't commit the resources to achieving it - and Eddington's report chimed pretty well with their priorities.

I'd dispute the London-Birmingham thing, btw. New Street's a bottleneck for trains going further north, but between the two cities there's surely capacity enough as things stand, given that there's a fair bit of scope for upgrading the Chiltern line.

 

[teuchter]

He ruled out any high speed line simply on the grounds of cost - it would be phenomenally expensive and would absorb all funding available for the railways to the exclusion of virtually everything else.

I'm sure the logic is sound here but only as long as it's based on the starting point that we are prepared to spend X amount on improving the railways.

If we start off from a position where we say we are brave enough to really invest properly in the railways, then we can have high speed lines and sort out the rest of the network and start taking freight seriously and all the rest of it.

 

[laptop]

New Street's a bottleneck for trains going further north, but between the two cities there's surely capacity enough as things stand, given that there's a fair bit of scope for upgrading the Chiltern line.

Have you tried leasing a path into New Street?

Or are you proposing a Marylebone - Moor Street service only?

 

[Roadkill]

Have you tried leasing a path into New Street?

Or are you proposing a Marylebone - Moor Street service only?

I know New Street is a major bottleneck, and rebuilding it is an obvious headache thanks to the buildings on top. I was just pointing out that capacity between London and Birmingham isn't so much of a problem, thanks to the Chiltern line.