This thread can be used to discuss HSR plans relating to Newcastle Metro Area - opinions, ideas, news and so on.

To kick us off - Some interesting comments today from the chairman of HS2 regarding Newcastle's place in the High Speed Rail revolution.

High speed chief says Newcastle central to new line

Nov 15 2009 By Matt McKenzie

THE man in charge of the company set up by the Government to examine a high speed rail line says Newcastle would "certainly" be involved in the link.

Sir David Rowlands, chairman of High Speed Two, said his preferred route would be Y-shaped, stretching up either side of the Pennines from Birmingham.

He told BBC One’s Politics Show: ``So (the line) goes up through Manchester to Scotland, but on the east side of the Pennines also goes up through the East Midlands, through Yorkshire and certainly up to Newcastle.

``That is probably the kind of network that we are going to set out for the Government with a description of cost, what the benefits will be and what the environmental impacts will be as well."

Sir David said there was a ``clear business case" to ensure the route ran all the way up to Scotland.

``My own personal view is that if all the Government ever wants to do is to build a high speed line that goes to Birmingham and no further, I wouldn’t bother. It doesn’t make sense."

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/breaking-news/2009/11/15/high-speed-chief-says-newcastle-central-to-new-line-61634-25175616/

Personally I think it is massively important that we are included in these plans - and not just for a London link. However I am unsure about the finer details - Is Central Station and the lines feeding it suitable for HSR or will there need to be a completely new station and line built? If so, where the hell do you put it?

Video with Newcastle Council leader John Shipley stating the case for HSR plans for Newcastle: http://www.highspeedrailuk.com/?page_id=34

I agree with you Johnny that this it is incredibly important for the NE that HS2 is supporting the Y shape up the east and west coast. I was worried about the network rail suggestion, which seemed to support that the line to Scotland was just on the west. It will be a couple of decades in the planning and construction so I guess a great deal could change. But at least we are firmly in the picture. I am a bit surprised it won't be H shaped with 2 lines coming out of the capital. I have no idea how the line will get into Newcastle. Will it require a new rail bridge over the Tyne? Are there bottlenecks in Central station or in the approach. Is Central station long enough for a 400m platform? Should the station be a parkway, say in Washington or Newcastle airport, or would we need a new city station say at Manors or near the arena. There is a lot to think about...

a previous attempt at bringing HSR to the region (from wikipedia):

Virgin Trains' ECML bid

When the ECML franchise (then operated by GNER) came up for its first renewal, Virgin Trains raised the idea of constructing new track and purchasing a new fleet of trains for the line[3]. These so-called VGVs (Virgin Grand Vitesse, after the French TGV) would be capable of 330 kilometres per hour (210 mph) and travel using a mixture of new track and existing track. The new track would be from Peterborough to Yorkshire and on from Newcastle to the Scottish border. This first track would have opened in 2009 and was chosen for ease of construction in the south and elimination of severe curves in Northumberland. Later, if successful, further stretches would have been upgraded. Publicity material featuring Virgin branded TGV and ICE trains appeared and it was stated that the stock would be built in Birmingham (implying Alstom would be the supplier), although at that time the only train capable of such speeds was the German ICE3.

Virgin teamed up with experienced civil engineering contractors such as Bechtel, but their tender was rejected. There were issues with the souring relationship between the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin Trains' other operations and the possibility of creating a monopoly on Anglo-Scottish routes. Sir Richard Branson said he would give up one of their other franchises if necessary.

Nevertheless, the Virgin bid started people thinking about possibilities and showed that multinational companies were prepared to get involved with privately funded UK high-speed rail projects for the first time.

I fear a lot that Newcastle will be left out of the proposals for a High Speed rail line. I can see the government doing it first to Birmingham, then extend it to Manchester and then up to Scotland which would leave Newcastle high and dry.

I believe there's already quite a bit of congestion around Central Station to the south of the city so that could be a problem but I'd hope they'd utilise the existing station because any new build will inevitably be further away from the centre of the city.

I'm very much a fan of the proposal which would see a snaked line across the country taking in Birmingham, up to Manchester/Liverpool then across the pennines through Leeds and Sheffield before heading up to Teesside and Newcastle before going on to Scotland. Not ideal but much better than leaving out half the country IMO.

I agree with you Johnny that this it is incredibly important for the NE that HS2 is supporting the Y shape up the east and west coast. I was worried about the network rail suggestion, which seemed to support that the line to Scotland was just on the west. It will be a couple of decades in the planning and construction so I guess a great deal could change. But at least we are firmly in the picture. I am a bit surprised it won't be H shaped with 2 lines coming out of the capital. I have no idea how the line will get into Newcastle. Will it require a new rail bridge over the Tyne? Are there bottlenecks in Central station or in the approach. Is Central station long enough for a 400m platform? Should the station be a parkway, say in Washington or Newcastle airport, or would we need a new city station say at Manors or near the arena. There is a lot to think about...

one problem i can see is needing to widen tracks to a continental loading gauge, can we do that to the existing infrastructure or will we need a few new routes, stations and bridges?

Taken from the UK High Speed Rail thread:

Direct rail links to be opened between London and Amsterdam, Gordon Brown announces

By Rosa Prince, Political Correspondent, Daily Telegraph
Published: 12:34PM GMT 23 Nov 2009


Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has announced plans for direct rail links to be opened between London and other European cities including Amsterdam.

Speaking at the Confederation of British Industry annual conference, Mr Brown also revealed that a new company would be created to deliver high speed rail links between the north and south, cutting the journey time from London to Scotland to just three hours.

The Channel Tunnel rail firm would be commissioned to lay on new routes beyond Paris, Brussels and Lille, with the German city of Cologne and the Dutch cultural capital among those due to be linked to London under plans to be set out within weeks.

The Prime Minister added that the Capital would not be the only starting point for journeys to Europe, with new high speed links beyond Birmingham allowing the whole of the United Kingdom to be put at the "heart" of the continent, rather than the "fringes".

He told delegates:

"We will see a major announcement on these things."

Mr Brown hinted that Newcastle would be among a number of northern cities which would receive faster connections to the south, adding that the new lines would be designed to carry higher levels of freight as well as increased passenger numbers.

Mr Brown added:

"Let me tell you what we could ultimately achieve: a European network of train service that takes us quickly not just to Paris and Brussels but quickly to Cologne and Amsterdam;

"And one that starts not just in London but in the north of our country.

"So from journey times today from Scotland to London of four hours 20 minutes, to three and a half hours, then three hours, and potentially even under three hours.

"Of fast rail travel not only within Britain but to and from the mainland of Europe - things within our grasp."

Speaking at the same conference, in central London's Park Lane Hilton Hotel, David Cameron, the Conservative leader, said that his party had outlined a commitment to roll out high speed rail before the Government.

He described the policy as:

"a pledge that has become so attractive that it was repeated by the Prime Minister this morning, I'm pleased to see."

We need HSR, it's no good having planes to and from Gatwick that can take upto and over 2 hours.

I speak from exprience, form today, and thats not counting all the time it takes to check in etc.

We need HSR, it's no good having planes to and from Gatwick that can take upto and over 2 hours.

I speak from exprience, form today, and thats not counting all the time it takes to check in etc.

and to get from Gatwick to the City (as the business sector will be heavy HSR users) ... add another hour :ohno:

and to get from Gatwick to the City (as the business sector will be heavy HSR users) ... add another hour :ohno:

Try 4 and a half, thats how long it took me to get from Kings cross to Gatwick when I left here.

Chris, I know in the BBC Newcastle thread you've mentioned HSR, I just wondered if you think that Newcastle will get included on such plans? Also how long do you think it would take before we see a full HSR network in the UK?

I sadly have no faith at all in any of the parties delivering such a system, we seem so far behind Europe, sad considering the railway was born here :ohno:

High-speed rail link will start in the North says Gordon Brown
Nov 24 2009 by William Green, The Journal

A NEW high-speed rail link will start in the North and link the country to Europe, the Prime Minister yesterday declared.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/sep2009/2/8/prime-minister-gordon-brown-2676918.jpg

But Gordon Brown left everyone guessing about the exact start point of the new North-South connection when he addressed business chiefs at the CBI conference. His comments come as a company set up by the Government to advise it on high speed rail will make its recommendations next month to Transport Secretary Lord Adonis about where the route should go.

Addressing the CBI, the Prime Minister yesterday said: “Let me tell you what we could ultimately achieve – a European network of train services that takes us quickly not just to Paris and Brussels but quickly to Cologne and to Amsterdam. “And one that starts not just in London but in the North of our country. “So from journey times today from Scotland to London of four hours 20 minutes, to three and a half hours, then three hours, and potentially even to under three hours.

“So, faster rail travel – not only within Britain, but to and from the mainland of Europe – is within our grasp,” said Mr Brown.

The developments came as Conservative leader David Cameron yesterday signalled he could not answer the region’s “wish list” of transport upgrades if elected Prime Minister. Addressing the CBI conference, he said: “I cannot give you the wish list of every piece of infrastructure spending and every tax reduction you would like because – to put it frankly – the Government has run out of money.

“Instead, I am offering the agenda that I think you know and I know this country really needs.”

Mr Cameron’s comments come after he previously said plans to upgrade the A1 Western Bypass around Newcastle and Gateshead as well as the A1 north of Newcastle had a “good chance” of being taken forward. But he told the CBI conference that a Tory Government would build a high-speed rail link between London and Leeds, taking in Birmingham and Manchester.

Sir David Rowlands, chairman of High Speed Two – the company set up by the Government – has said that Newcastle should “certainly” be connected to a future network. His preferred route would be Y-shaped, stretching up either side of the Pennines from Birmingham.

Sir David said there was a “clear business case” to ensure the route ran all the way up from London to Scotland when he spoke to the BBC earlier this month. “My own personal view is that if all the Government ever wants to do is to build a high speed line that goes to Birmingham and no further, I wouldn’t bother. It doesn’t make sense,” he added.

But Network Rail has recommended a route up the west coast of the country, bypassing the North East.

Chris, I know in the BBC Newcastle thread you've mentioned HSR, I just wondered if you think that Newcastle will get included on such plans? Also how long do you think it would take before we see a full HSR network in the UK?

I sadly have no faith at all in any of the parties delivering such a system, we seem so far behind Europe, sad considering the railway was born here :ohno:

For one I have no faith in what Gordon Brown has said, even though he didn't actually say it it, he hinted it, and never mentioned Newcastle, mearly said Northern Cities, which to him could mean Manchester and Liverpool which are already apart of the plans that go via the west.

I myself am a huge fan of Maglev, and see that as a way forward other then HSR, but it looks as though noone else agrees.

Newcastle has done alot of work on the HSR and Malev plans, along with Scotland, and Manchester, and I have do doubt about how they are trying to correct the wrongs, that the governement has made by excluding Newcatle, however again I have no faith in the Government to listen and use common sense.

I wouldn't hold our breath for HSR, but I do think that eventually it will come to Newcastle, but as for a timescale, I have no idea. It all depends on weather this or or next government will wake up to the fact that they have to do it, and they have to invest the however many £b's it will cost (though it will only be a fraction of the price more then London Crossrail) regardless or not if the country is bust, they have to get this money, otherwise this country will never make a full recovery, and it will never be as rich and productive as it can be.

For one I have no faith in what Gordon Brown has said, even though he didn't actually say it it, he hinted it, and never mentioned Newcastle, mearly said Northern Cities, which to him could mean Manchester and Liverpool which are already apart of the plans that go via the west.

I myself am a huge fan of Maglev, and see that as a way forward other then HSR, but it looks as though noone else agrees.

Newcastle has done alot of work on the HSR and Malev plans, along with Scotland, and Manchester, and I have do doubt about how they are trying to correct the wrongs, that the governement has made by excluding Newcatle, however again I have no faith in the Government to listen and use common sense.

I wouldn't hold our breath for HSR, but I do think that eventually it will come to Newcastle, but as for a timescale, I have no idea. It all depends on weather this or or next government will wake up to the fact that they have to do it, and they have to invest the however many £b's it will cost (though it will only be a fraction of the price more then London Crossrail) regardless or not if the country is bust, they have to get this money, otherwise this country will never make a full recovery, and it will never be as rich and productive as it can be.

I agree with this ENTIRELY!

Also, Maglev would be fantastic, wouldn't it?

We can but hope!

Northern Way calls for comprehensive High Speed Rail Network to drive economic growth
16th September 2009


The Northern Way is today calling on Government to implement a comprehensive High Speed Rail network to drive economic growth in the northern regions.

In the report "Transforming our Economy and our Connectivity: High Speed Rail for the North," the Northern Way sets out its recommendations for a high speed rail network for Britain that serves the City Regions of the North. This includes better utilising existing main lines before new high speed lines can be built.

Speaking at the launch of Greengauge21's "Fast Forward" report on high speed rail, which is also published today, Professor David Begg, Chairman of the Northern Way Transport Compact said:

"We need a 30 year rail strategy and high speed rail is a critical part of it. What's the alternative? There is evidence after evidence that we will run out of capacity. We would be the laughing stock of Europe and the world if we were to plan to design a railway for the 21st century to run at 200kph rather than 400kph. But it's not just about capacity. A two-line north-south high speed network serving the North's City Regions on both the east and west sides of the Pennines and linking London with Scotland can help transform our international competitiveness, lead to a more equitable spread of wealth across the country as a whole and contribute to carbon reduction as well.

"The benefits to the North's economy come about not just from better links to London, Heathrow and Europe through the Channel Tunnel, but importantly also by faster links between the North's city regions."

The report finds that a well planned network will bring significant benefits to the North and the nation, and help bridge the North-South economic divide. To secure this benefit and prevent distorting business decisions it will require careful phasing, and complementary investment in other lines. Evidence to date, endorsed by the Northern Way, suggests a line from London to Manchester should be the first stage, with the major east coast cities also firmly on the high speed map - with a second line developed in parallel east of the Pennines. And the report advocates investment in existing lines, including the Trans-Pennine, Midland and East Coast Main Lines, to pave the way for a comprehensive high speed network in the longer term.

Chairman of the Northern Way Hugh Morgan Williams said:

"International experience suggests a high speed rail network will take 20 to 30 years to complete. France started in the 1980s and is accelerating the delivery of new lines over the next few years. Spain will overtake both France and Japan and have the biggest high speed network anywhere in the world very soon.

"A British network will need to be phased, as the development of high speed networks has been abroad.

"Looking at all the evidence, including the new evidence that Greengauge21 has published today, the Northern Way recognises that a high speed line on the west side of the country from London to Manchester and linking in Heathrow and the Channel Tunnel is a compelling next phase for the implementation of a high speed rail network in Britain. But we are also very clear a second north-south high speed line serving the North's city regions east of the Pennines must be developed in parallel or otherwise be started before a line to Manchester is completed."

Professor David Begg added:

"High speed rail can only be delivered in the long term and we have to start planning now to make it happen.

"But high speed rail also has to be set in the context of a wider long term rail strategy.

Before any new high speed line can be built, we also need to see trans-Pennine links speeded up by electrification of the gap in the network between York and Manchester benefitting journey times all the way from Liverpool to Newcastle, as well as progressive plans for the existing East Coast Main and Midland Main Lines tied into the delivery of high speed rail on the east side of the country."

http://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/news.asp?id=757

MAGLEV

This LINK, which I got from Section 15 of our "WEBSITES" thread, is very interesting . . .

http://www.500kmh.com/projectinfo.html



Also . .

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature1606/

and a 'Skyscrapercity' LINK . .

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=544600





.

The sensible option for the futue is the H shaped plan, where there are east and west coast lines, and a trans-pennine route, not dissimlar to the existing rail network. (actually, thinking about it, it's more of an upside down A!) Obviously, anyone who takes this one will be looking at delivering a phased approach, so why not take on one of the other options suggested as a halfway stage. IE, a backwards S shape, where the HSR line runs up through birmingham and manchester, then cuts across the pennines through Leeds and York, then up the east coast, to Newcastle, Edinburgh and Glasgow. That way, the HSR lines cover a large portion of the country at the halfway point, and the remaining additions to both of the east and west coast lines could follow on. This ppicks up most of the major cities, missing out on Cumbria, and east midlands locations such as Nottingham, Sheffield etc, however these are already not on the normal rail main line. Are there specific routes proposed by all the different people putting plans together? ie, which cities are various people intending the HSR plan to reach?

This hand drawn map was drawn by Lord Adonis recently when asked for his preferred route for HSR in the UK.
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9351/adonism.jpg

The maglev option was rejected in 2007 high speed white paper though wasn't it? Actually, I was just reading about low speed maglev systems which could be an interesting if highly unlikley option for the t+w metro, as running and maintainence costs are supposedly low.

This hand drawn map was drawn by Lord Adonis recently when asked for his preferred route for HSR in the UK.
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9351/adonism.jpg

GL = Greater London
WM = West Midlands
GM = Greater Manchester
LB = Leeds/Bradford
G = Glasgow
E = Edinburgh
NW = ??

^^^ Near Wallsend?

http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9351/adonism.jpg

GL = Greater London
WM = West Midlands
GM = Greater Manchester
LB = Leeds/Bradford
G = Glasgow
E = Edinburgh
NW = ??[/QUOTE]

My own thoughts (just occurred to me) Newcastle & Wearside??

Mebbe!

i am guessing it is an abbreviated form of NeW, which itself stands for Newcastle. or a freudian slip showing that he wants to bypass the north-east altogether and go through the North West.

i am guessing it is an abbreviated form of NeW, which itself stands for Newcastle. or a freudian slip showing that he wants to bypass the north-east altogether and go through the North West.

Could be that, I have come across a lot of different 'abbreviations of Newcastle' in notes and letters and for e-mail addresses at work, and so on . .

Ncle.
Newc.
New.
Ne.
Nwc.

Never 'Nw', but it certainly could be!

GL = Greater London
WM = West Midlands
GM = Greater Manchester
LB = Leeds/Bradford
G = Glasgow
E = Edinburgh
NW = ??

I was going to say it was certain to mean North West, I.E. Manchester and Liverpool, untill I saw were it was located, it has to be said that there isn't any other alternative then Newcastle judging by it's location. However I do think it's too late in anyway, the prefferd route has already been said, even if 99% of people want it to go to Newcastle, once the prefferd route has been chosen then it is dead on that is how it will end up, if indeed it is actually built.

Aye I've never heard Newcastle noted down or referred to as 'NW' but it must be Newcastle on that scribble.

I was watching that 'By Any Means' with Charlie Boorman the other day and he took Taiwans version of the bullet train (cant remember the name) but he said it took something like 19 mins to travel the 300km to Taipei. Impressive!!!

I have no idea how the line will get into Newcastle. Will it require a new rail bridge over the Tyne? Are there bottlenecks in Central station or in the approach. Is Central station long enough for a 400m platform? Should the station be a parkway, say in Washington or Newcastle airport, or would we need a new city station say at Manors or near the arena. There is a lot to think about...

My personal belief is that it would reach Newcastle by following the A1(M) before tunnelling under the CLS turn off and connecting with the ECML next to the goods yard. Another section of the line might then run around to the Airport and onwards to Scotland.

I can't see the current four track formation into Central being a problem. Would take a massive increase in traffic for that to be unsuitable I'd have thought?

Also that curve just before the bridge has been upgraded to about 30mph which is quite decent.

Central station can accommodate 400 metre long platforms if the current platforms are straightened up a bit and extended onto the car park. Although this might require some slight 'trimming back' of some of the curved sections of the station - as needs must!

Would have to be Central because there is nowhere else suitable.

My personal belief is that it would reach Newcastle by following the A1(M) before tunnelling under the CLS turn off and connecting with the ECML next to the goods yard. Another section of the line might then run around to the Airport and onwards to Scotland.

I can't see the current four track formation into Central being a problem. Would take a massive increase in traffic for that to be unsuitable I'd have thought?

Also that curve just before the bridge has been upgraded to about 30mph which is quite decent.

Central station can accommodate 400 metre long platforms if the current platforms are straightened up a bit and extended onto the car park. Although this might require some slight 'trimming back' of some of the curved sections of the station - as needs must!

Would have to be Central because there is nowhere else suitable.

is that the lamesley rail yard? I think that has been pinpointed as a site for a new train factory, funnily enough, though last i heard it was doubtful.

here's the article -

Doubt clouds plan for new train fleet

Nov 26 2009 by William Green, The Journal

THE prospect of a new train assembly plant employing hundreds of workers coming to the region is hanging in the balance, The Journal can reveal.

The Government announced in February that a £7.5bn fleet of new “super express” trains would be built to run on the East Coast Main Line from 2013.

British-led consortium Agility Trains was chosen as the preferred bidder to build the fleet and it identified Gateshead as a “very strong candidate” as the location for the assembly plant for the new trains employing up to 500 workers.

Sites in Leicestershire and Sheffield are also on the shortlist of the consortium made up of Japanese train builder Hitachi and UK firms John Laing and Barclays.

But no contracts have been signed between Agility Trains and the Department for Transport.

Agility Trains says it expects contacts to be signed early next year and to make an announcement on the location of the train plant at the same time.

But that could be perilously close to the General Election, increasingly expected next May, which could throw existing plans up in the air.

Last month, Shadow transport minister Stephen Hammond said an incoming Conservative administration would evaluate every single transport project in the country to see if they offer “value for money”.

It was up to the representatives of the region to prove the business case to secure funding, he told The Journal.

Tyne Bridge MP David Clelland, who sits on the Commons transport committee, said: “We are obviously very keen to get this plant in Gateshead and we are all working towards that decision. We would hope to get a decision before the General Election.”

Mr Hammond said: “The Government announced these new trains to a great fanfare last February and East Coast main line passengers will be surprised to learn that nine months later there is still no sign the contracts will be signed soon. Labour incompetence is yet again letting people down.”

A Department for Transport spokesman said: “Commercial negotiations are continuing on a confidential basis.”

A spokeswoman for Agility Trains said: “We have been in very intense conversations with the Department for Transport to really file every single detail of the contract.

“We are talking about very technical details of the trains and specifications. With a programme of this size, it takes a considerable amount of time.

“That is why there hasn’t been a contract yet, but we are hoping there will be one early next year.”

She said no decision had yet been made on the location of the plant, but added: “We are hoping to announce that at the same time we announce the contract with the Department for Transport.”

The contract discussion should have no impact on the schedule of the train manufacture, according to the spokeswoman.

is that the lamesley rail yard? I think that has been pinpointed as a site for a new train factory, funnily enough, though last i heard it was doubtful.

Would just be a junction next to it - wouldn't require use of the site.

I created this petition a few month's back for a Maglev system going to Newcastle, Edinburgh, and Glasgow to be built, and used to see the effect of it.

So far I have only 25 signatures, and a petition needs 1,000 within a year to even get a response, so anyone wishing to sign up would be a great help, thanks.

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Scottish-Maglev/

What I never understood about Maglev is how it's supporters would insist it's much less visually intrusive then a high speed line and yet those big concrete support columns are about as visually intrusive as you can get whether in an urban area or in the countryside.

What I never understood about Maglev is how it's supporters would insist it's much less visually intrusive then a high speed line and yet those big concrete support columns are about as visually intrusive as you can get whether in an urban area or in the countryside.

Maglev doesn't need to be elevated, it's just because the test track in Germany, and the Shanghi ones are elevated people assume it needs to be, but it doesn't, it just needs to lie flat like ordinary railway lines.

Whoa.

This is well cool. Stuff the A1, stuff the proposed HSR eat your heart out on this Maglev baby

NQyj-3C99bA

.

Wow!!!!! :nuts:

Article from todays Journal...

Calls to cut carbon by linking North with high speed rail line
BRITAIN must build a new high-speed rail network connecting with the North East to cut carbon emissions, a consortium of cities has declared.

Leaders of 11 cities desperate to secure a new rail route, including Newcastle, issued a cry to arms to coincide as the Copenhagen climate change got underway.

Their call comes as a key report is due to be sent to ministers later this month, saying travel by train already produces a much lower carbon footprint than by car or air - with the gap set to widen dramatically over the next 30 years with high-speed rail producing massive green benefits.

Transport chiefs and ministers from France, Spain and Germany have now united in their support for a high-speed rail network linking the UK with mainland Europe.

There are 3,480 miles of high-speed lines in mainland Europe with a further 2,160 miles under construction and 5,280 miles planned for the future. Yet in Britain there are only 68 miles in operation despite the world’s first passenger railway being invented here.

Last night, Newcastle leaders who have led the call for High Speed trains travelling to the city called on the Government to do more to bring about the environmental benefits of a new rail route.

Newcastle Council leader John Shipley said the environmental benefits of a link were “more important even than the economic benefits”.

He added: “We have to do more to encourage people get people out of their cars and into trains. The more traffic on the roads we reduce the better it is for everyone.”

And Wendy Taylor, the councillor responsible for transport in Newcastle, said it looked as if the Government had “not really grasped the full benefits of investing in new infrastructure”.

She added: “We are the regional centre and it is vital that a new route comes through here; we cannot be left to wither away.

“There are obvious climate change benefits of replacing short haul flights with rail, but the Government has to do more to help this happen.”

The case for rail was again stressed by others who have benefited as the Government looks to a new deal on climate change.

Andreas Hambrecht, head of international business at rail group Deutsche Bahn, said: “Germany’s high speed rail network is a vital piece of our economic infrastructure, connecting a number of city regions and promoting low-emission travel across the country and Europe.”

The developments came as a Yorkshire MP Greg Mulholland said any new high-speed route must produce the greatest economic benefit, which meant linking into the North East.

Speaking in Parliament, he said: “Only that option would justify the vast investment that high-speed rail clearly needs.

“To plough ahead with one line, serving only Birmingham and Manchester – especially from Heathrow – simply does not make sense.

“It does not add up or deliver the kind of benefits that we need from such a project.”

Junior Transport Minister Chris Mole insisted: “We are planning now to ensure that we are in the strongest position possible to make the right investments in future years to continue developing the rail network.”


http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/12/09/calls-to-cut-carbon-by-linking-north-with-high-speed-rail-line-61634-25350975/2/

Maglev is totally awesome, I'd love to see a line in the UK but it's so expensive at the moment I can't see it happening.

There are 3,480 miles of high-speed lines in mainland Europe with a further 2,160 miles under construction and 5,280 miles planned for the future. Yet in Britain there are only 68 miles in operation despite the world’s first passenger railway being invented here.

says it all.

I fear we'll get left out of the plans but it's pleasing to see the council pushing the fact we need to be involved.

Whoa.

This is well cool. Stuff the A1, stuff the proposed HSR eat your heart out on this Maglev baby

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQyj-3C99bA

Wow.

Now that would get people off of the planes to London... Sod it, I'd go to London on that purely to get back on it and go back!

Maglev is class - the chances of us getting that are next to nothing.

Its just wrong that in this country we are trailing other developed nations when it comes to rail networks - moreso when you consider this is the 'home' of the 'Railways'

March date for key railway report
THE North East faces another three-month wait to discover whether it will be linked into a new high-speed rail link from London.

The Government will publish plans for a North-South high-speed rail network by the end of March.

A specially set-up company, HS2, is due to report to ministers on the options at the end of this month.

But Transport Secretary Lord Adonis insisted the HS2 report could not be published before the Government’s proposals because that risked unnecessary planning “blight”.

Yesterday the Tories claimed Labour was dragging its heels and may be powerless to act if a General Election is held before the proposals come out.

The developments came as Gordon Brown hailed the start of the UK’s first full domestic high-speed rail services from Kent to London – although passengers are footing the bill for the 140mph Javelin trains.

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis said: “The potential for high-speed rail (HSR) to regenerate and reinvigorate is now a reality for people in Kent.

“But the size of Britain’s high-speed network lags behind that of many of our European neighbours and doesn’t connect any of our major cities.

“This month I expect to receive a report which has the potential to change all that. This will require careful study and scrutiny – which will begin with immediate effect – before we can announce how we plan to take HSR forward.”

HS2’s report will present a detailed route plan for the first stage of the line from London to the West Midlands.

There will options to go further, including the North East. Funding options will be discussed, including a potential new central London station.

Ministers plan to unveil their proposals in March followed by a full public consultation next autumn.

Shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said only a Conservative government could “guarantee” to bring HSR to the North – although the party has only pledged to build the line as far as Leeds.


http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2009/12/15/march-date-for-key-railway-report-61634-25389848/

Don't like the sound of that last paragraph at all :ohno:

I would vote for the Tories when hell freezes - their "guarantee" (which doesnt even include newcastle) is as useful as a chocolate fireguard

I would be more worried about an incoming Tory government cancelling the Metro upgrade than I would be about them funding HSR for the North East

I would be more worried about an incoming Tory government cancelling the Metro upgrade than I would be about them funding HSR for the North East

Indeed - they would be a disaster all round BUT Gordon and his pals are doing a good job of getting the tories into power - god forbid if that did happen :bash:

Indeed - they would be a disaster all round BUT Gordon and his pals are doing a good job of getting the tories into power - god forbid if that did happen :bash:

I can remember well, all those endless years of Tories in power. You felt, at all times, that they probably didn't actually 'hate' North Eastern England, but that they thought of us as little children who needed correction. That is, when they thought of us at all.

But yes, they ARE coming back.

There seems to be very little doubt about that.

The thing is the Conservatives have said originally their line will only go to Leeds, but they are very much behind the next stage of the line going into Newcastle, then on up to Edinburgh and lastly Glasgow. I cannot for the life of me seeing them not going into Scotland (unless devolution happens), and when they do I cannot for the life of me see them going back across the country (skipping Newcastle) going up to Glasgow, to then come back along into Edinburgh.

We will see what proposlas this govenment comes out with in March, which by then the election maybe over or just around the corner, either way I think they would of chosen to appear to of chosen to of changed their minds on the proposed route, but it will have no bearing, because like we have said, the Conservatives will be forming our next government in anyway.

Even if the tories 'guaranteed' a line would go to Newcastle i would not vote for them.

Though they are pretty much nailed on to be in power - i just hope its a short stint

I'm just praying for a hung parliament.

Either that or for Labour to be obliterated and people to start seeing the Lib Dems as a viable party. They opposed the war, oppose student fees, predicted the recession before anyone else, are in favour of genuine reform of banking practices, would bring in proportional representation, are hugely pro-environment and would make Vince Cable Chancellor of the Exchequer.

What's not to like?

I'm just praying for a hung parliament.

Either that or for Labour to be obliterated and people to start seeing the Lib Dems as a viable party. They opposed the war, oppose student fees, predicted the recession before anyone else, are in favour of genuine reform of banking practices, would bring in proportional representation, are hugely pro-environment and would make Vince Cable Chancellor of the Exchequer.

What's not to like?

agreed. As horrible as labour can be, the tories are another beast altogether. quite frankly what they will do to the north-east scares me.

I feel somewhat confident that we'll get the full network over time but we'll have to be patient because it's going to be done in stages and to a set plan. France for example is over 20 years ahead of us in constructing their network and quite a few of their important cities still aren't reached by LGV's (although they are by TGV's at least running on LGV for part of their journey).

I also feel confident that we have a good base of railway infrastructure in place to meet the needs of HS2 services (or HS3, HS4, whatever it is by the time it reaches us).

The mainline into Newcastle is relatively easy to negotiate. Obviously the curvature onto and off the viaduct isn't great but it's the final approach into the station anyway. And those curves have recently had the speed raised to about 30mph which is very adequate (note - this is approximately the speed at which TGVs depart Paris Gare du Nord at on the throat).

Newcastle Central itself has enough room for enough 400 metre long platforms with a bit of parking space sacrifices. And a high speed line could be the impetus needed to press ahead with an underground passageway and new concourse for the station.

I think it's safe to expect that a new build line going all the way to Scotland will be along the West Coast. This isn't a problem though, we can get upgraded infrastructure East of Central Station. The line up to Heaton can be four tracked and that could perhaps be extended a bit further to Cramlington. Virgin Trains not so along ago had the excellent idea of a Cramlington & Morpeth by-pass which would save a lot of time. And further up another by-pass could avoid Berwick.

Increasing the loading gauge on the tracks shouldn't be too much of a hassle either in my non-expert opinion.

I'm very confident about this :)

Here is a recent post from the UK HSR thread in the transport section.

from the times yesterday...



http://i243.photobucket.com/albums/ff164/evertonia8/a52.jpg

Here is a recent post from the UK HSR thread in the transport section.

It would have been preferable to see the Newcastle line continue to Edinburgh. That would make it a great deal more likely to actually happen!

Currently they are talking about London to West Midlands perhaps starting building in 2017 with a possible finish by 2025.

On those sorts of timescales, I wonder (in reality) where that puts the Newcastle line?

It would have been preferable to see the Newcastle line continue to Edinburgh. That would make it a great deal more likely to actually happen!

Currently they are talking about London to West Midlands perhaps starting building in 2017 with a possible finish by 2025.

On those sorts of timescales, I wonder (in reality) where that puts the Newcastle line?

Yes I agree, and so do many members on SSC that the East line (Newcastle) should go up to Scotland, and the West line (Manchester) should serve Manchester and Liverpool.

I myself would also personally have the branch off's going from Manchester instead of Birmingham, but that would make it more expensive trying to get through the peninnes and would add another station and more time to the journey for those using the East line.

Out of interest, will the HS2 lines use the same Javelin trains as the HS1 route between London and Ebbsfleet?

Out of interest, will the HS2 lines use the same Javelin trains as the HS1 route between London and Ebbsfleet?

Noone knows, though I'm sure they will soon be built for the ECML aswell, and if I'm not mistaken Gateshead is in the running to build them, but the last I heard they were some way off getting the contract ahead of Sheffield and elsewhere.

There is some chatter that the state of the public finances may lead to the cancellation of new trains to replace the elderly HST units :(

There is some chatter that the state of the public finances may lead to the cancellation of new trains to replace the elderly HST units :(

yes there was an article in a couple of papers about this. apparently a study is underway to have a look at doing this instead of getting a new fleet. :ohno:

Not good news...

Still, good to see Greg back on here :okay:

Surely the Javlins would of already of been budgeted for?

They can't keep using 20-30 year old rolling stock, then again I'd swap the news train for HSR to Newcastle any day of the week.

I was also rather nonplussed to see that a "brand new" central London station, in addition to a possible Heathrow station, would be introduced for HSR. In the scheme of things wouldn't it be more cost effective to adapt one of the existing termini, and use the money saved towards extending the network? The old Eurostar platforms at Waterloo are standing idle these days, but clearly this would be the wrong side of London for HSR. Would it be feasible to make St Pancras a "superterminus" for HSR and Eurostar, possibly by switching the existing Midland and local services to Kings Cross?

Not a terrible idea Greg.

It seems a pity that the extra capacity wasn't automatically built into St Pancras with its recent redevelopment. Besides, do they have a site in mind? Surely we'd be talking about a pretty massive site, which can't be overly abundant in North London near existing tube stations?

This new station is likely to just be an extension of Euston.

Moving the Midland services out of St Pancras won't work because where do you switch them to?

Which ever station they ended up at would require expensive new tunnelled tracks to get them there.

Kings Cross can't take the services - just isn't the capacity.

And even if you could find the space elsewhere those platforms at St Pancras just aren't enough. The reason why a 10 platform station is being proposed is because 10 platforms is what will be needed for HS2.

A new station will probably work out much better value for money then rebuilding an existing station whilst trying to keep services running.

Interesting article here on the Chinese 'Harmony' HSR: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/29/china_harmony_rail/

Lord Adonis warned over high-speed rail line plans
Dec 31 2009 by Adrian Pearson, The Journal

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/nov2009/7/0/lord-adonis-265942177.jpg

TRANSPORT Secretary Lord Adonis has been warned he must not price the region out of a new high-speed rail line as the final report lands on his desk.

Lord Adonis is today going over the business case for a new rail route, which could see a high-speed train passing through Newcastle within two decades.

He has promised an “Easytrain” approach to pricing, but as yet no one has produced any clear indication of how cost will be kept down, and what it will mean for the rest of Britain’s much criticised rail pricing structure.

Plans formed by Government-rail company HS2 will see trains travelling at up to 250mph from London to Birmingham, a leg of the route which has won support from all the main political parties.

Which side of the country they then travel up is still open for debate, and will form a key part of the document Lord Adonis is expected to make public next Spring, around March 2010.

Three routes are thought to be under consideration, with two passing through Tyneside.

Newcastle Council leader John Shipley has helped lead a bid to bring a new route to the city and has called on Lord Adonis to offer more than just catchy slogans when it comes to rail pricing.

He told The Journal: “I have not seen any planning documents which have addressed the price structure, yet we know it is vitally important that there is a clear indication of the fares and what subsidies would be available. There is a real danger that without this the people who use the East Coast Main Line, the leisure users, the students and others who are there because they found a cheap ticket, they will be priced out

Mr Shipley said the best possible solution would be to have two lines running up the East and West side of the country linking the major cities.

“We know high-speed rail will not work if it takes too long, so two lines connecting the major cities is the best hope. That may mean it takes longer, but the alternative is key areas losing out.

“There would be a huge backlash if one side of the country missed out on the new line because that is where the investment will follow.

“If you avoid the North East you say to developers it is not worth investing there, and that would be disastrous.”

Mr Shipley’s price pleas were last night backed by the Association of Train Operating Companies, which said money set aside for new high-speed lines “must allow much-needed investment in other rail projects to go ahead, to ensure that no part of the network is left behind”.

The spokesman added: “The passenger must come first. It is essential to think not just about the route of any new line but also issues such as ticket prices and stations.”

Construction would begin in 2017, with the first trains running by 2025 if the project, which would cost tens of billions of pounds, is approved.

The Conservatives have criticised Labour for not providing a clear view of what will happen to the line past Birmingham, although their own plans have yet to extend as far as Newcastle.

Lord Adonis said: “I want Britain to be a pioneer in low-cost, mass-market high-speed rail. I want to see not just Easyjet but Easytrain. High-speed trains with airline-style pricing and mass market appeal so that HSR is for all and not just the wealthy.

“Scrutiny of the report will begin immediately and we will announce how we plan to take high-speed rail forward by the end of March – making 2010 the year of HSR in the UK.”

I hope it's a very very long term plan for a whole network of high speed lines rather then just the one and waiting to see how we feel later.

And equally I hope we in the North East remember that even if the line doesn't entirely reach our region we'll still be benefiting from it.

There is some chatter that the state of the public finances may lead to the cancellation of new trains to replace the elderly HST units :(

Aren't the train operating companies in the private sector?

Here's another take on HSR...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/05/high-speed-rail-crowded-island

High-speed rail will bleed us all for a few rich travellers

The politicians can drool over their new trains, but a crowded island needs a well-managed network, not an expensive fantasy

Beware. We are entering the valley of the shadow of the pledge. It is a time of maximum danger. Politicians make wild pre-election promises, and feel obliged to keep at least some of them. The campaign has hardly begun, and David Cameron this week promised billions on family tax allowances and a new quango to regulate supermarkets. He knows no shame. But the horrors are the heffalumps, gargantuan projects to build aircraft carriers, supercomputers and railways. They win a headline for a day and cost a lifetime of money.

The largest such project in living history already has politicians drooling. It is for a new high-speed railway route from London to Scotland by various controversial routes. A year ago the transport secretary, Lord Adonis, set up a quango called HS2 to lobby in favour, which it duly did last month. He spent Christmas pushing it in the press.

Adonis on high-speed trains is like Jeremy Clarkson on Ferraris. They are the climax of the "incredible democratisation of travel", and will make Britain a "pioneer in low-cost, mass-market high speed transportation", as Adonis wrote ecstatically last week. His Tory shadow, Theresa Villiers, is no less enthusiastic. "If we win," she exults, "construction can start in 2015." Who could not thrill to big, sleek silvery things snaking across England's fields, especially when the French have them?

Business leaders reportedly believe the project would "generate £55 billion", which is odd as no businessman will conceivably pay for it. We are talking £30bn-£50bn, the kind of money only a chancellor has in his back pocket. It is just possible that some new high-speed track makes sense somewhere, but it remains to be proved by independent, rather than interest-dominated, analysis. It certainly should be proved against the value of similar sums devoted to upgrading the existing track, eliminating bottlenecks and improving the reliability of rolling stock and signals.

Consider the similar case of London's Crossrail, which a more courageous Boris Johnson would have scrapped on day one of his mayoralty. It is his £16bn version of the Burj Khalifa skyscraper. Transport for London (TfL) executives wail at the project, which has parted company with all known economics.

When Tim O'Toole, the outgoing boss of TfL, spoke at his farewell dinner last April, he warned that Crossrail was a disaster that would eat money, time and effort. It would jam up London, infuriate the public and distract everyone from improving the tube. And all this to benefit, at taxpayers' expense, a cadre of City workers for whom the existing Central line gets a little overcrowded. Why not spend a fraction of the money on more trains and better management, and tell the bankers to shut up?

I love railways but have no illusions. Whitehall's combination of privatisation and over-regulation has rendered them wildly expensive to build and run: an abyss of engineers, health-and-safety inspectors and unions. The London tube is absurdly costly to maintain. Adonis's comparison of high-speed trains to competitive air travel is fantasy – largely through the doings of his own office.

Trains are romantic but not particularly green. No mechanised transport is that, least of all one that sends multi-tonne train sets trundling three-quarters empty across the country or racing city to city at 200mph. In addition, special tracks are unlikely to knock more than tens of minutes off existing high-speed journey times. Britain has not the long distances and dispersed destinations of France or Spain. In rail terms, England is one huge metropolis in which the chief constraint on time is not technology but the number of stops.

One HS2 route has the train to Scotland stopping at Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Newcastle. Even the Eurostar already stops at Ebbsfleet or Ashford, and may yet have to stop at Stratford. But frequent stops are what a crowded island demands, and vitiate the case for faster journeys.

Adonis bases his case for new track on a vague concept of "predict and provide", to meet rising demand from mass-market travellers. How this tallies with the astronomical cost of rail fares, and the even higher cost of high-speed fares, is not explained. Cars, coaches and jets are today's low-cost, mass-market transport. Yet Adonis builds few roads or runways for them. Why is he so enamoured of a transport mode that is essentially for the rich?

Britain's railways have, since pseudo-privatisation, consumed more subsidies and more top-down regulation than ever under nationalisation. Brown's government struggles to run them with roughly 20 times the number of bureaucrats needed for British Rail. Trains, even more than schools and hospitals, have been the graveyard of the Blairite thesis that public service is best delivered by private enterprises regulated by state targets constantly enforced at law.

This has put fares and service at the mercy not of professional managers, but of politicians, lawyers and officials at the Office of Rail Regulation, the Health and Safety Executive and the Department of Transport – all poring over hundred-page contracts and risk assessments, measuring costs against a complex structure of subsidies and fines. There is no room for inspirational leadership or commercial discipline. The recent east-coast mainline contract lasted barely two years before Adonis threw his toys out of the pram and banned National Express from running any trains anywhere. Today's rail directors are as good as their last Whitehall meeting.


Train services cross-country or to coastal Britain are deplorable. Stations are mostly miserable places. The Hatfield crash – the 9/11 of the railway – led Whitehall's hyper-safe inspectors to panic. They raised the cost of track maintenance by five times (according to Modern Railways magazine) as against British Rail. Meanwhile, 15 years after privatisation the west of England track is still not electrified, a contrast with Europe that is more glaring than the absence of a bullet-nosed glamour project. The trouble is that making services run on time is politically boring.

A sensible policy of rationing road-space by congestion has driven up rail passenger numbers some 40% in a decade. But it still needs to be proved that a project costing untold billions is better value for money than upgrading and properly managing the existing railway. Crossrail shows that one thing is certain. A new high-speed network would bleed the rest of the railway of money and care. Is that what travellers really want?

Ah shame, I hate it when I see a new post and start getting quite interested and then seeing it's actually just some boring whinge fest newspaper article. No offence AofN.

what a heap of shite (the article, that is).

Quite okay - not necessarily saying I agree, it just presents another argument.

Fair point. Full electrification of the railway network, along with changing main lines gradually to European loading gauge, and comprehensive rail-based public transport in all major cities (along with completion of the motorway system) would probably be much better investments than the HSR line by itself. Shame it seems to be an either/or scenario.

I think the issue is that the rail system has gotten more expensive, not less so, since privatisation. Most of the countries that are successfully installing high speed rail systems seem to have publicly owned and run rail systems.

The point that the writer makes about the UK being densely populated and the trains having to make multiple stops might be a valid one.

I would be interested to see the genuine city-to-city travel times and the associated costs for a number of different improvement options.

Yeah, I think it's right that it could be a valid point, but I'm guessing that it's just guess work, and conjecture. Stuff to sell papers. By the way did anyone see Adonis on breakfast news insisting on shifting any responsibilities for roads/ gritting onto local authorities, and seeming to me like a complete slimey weasel. If this is the guy who's going to deliver the HSR, I don't hold out much hope. Anyway, if he's doing it, it would be HSW, High Speed Wailway....

Adonis is, to be fair, very good indeed on rail and is widely regarded as the best transport minister we've had for a long time insofar as he actually knows something about the matter

Yes, an HSR line would be good. But think about the places that have them. In Japan, France, Germany, Spain, or South Korea, unless you live right next to the station, you would probably begin and/or end your journey on a fast, comprehensive metro system, so that you are able to get from the starting point to the destination rapidly. In Britain, you'd... what, take a taxi (if wealthy) or probably have to rely on whichever municipal bus system there was in place outside London, or the Tube if in London. The point-to-point argument is a good one: the overall state of the UK rail/public transport infrastructure does not compare particularly well.

So what's the answer (I'm literally throwing that out theoretically)? Should we look to created light rail/metro systems in most cities, linked in turn by high speed rail links? Obviously that would be incredibly expensive and take up a huge wedge of the nation's taxes, but would it be worth doing in the long run?

Or have we now, with the growth of video-conferencing etc, got to the point where the need for travel within the country will start to decrease?

i think cross country travel is likely to increase tbh, people have became more mobile in all sorts of ways - in work, living, studying, visiting friends, relatives, going on nights out etc. while video conferencing is not a real substitute for meeting face to face, especially when you need to work with people over a few days rather than just for a 30 minute meeting.

i would love to see Metro style systems being built in UK cities but it would need to see a real change in the way we build our cities and a change in attitudes on the part of the british people. the big problem is that our cities are too suburban and spread out, low density, autocentric environments. even with the best urban rail available, if people are living in cul-de-sacs, shopping at places like Silverlink or the Metro Centre and working in suburban office campuses or out of town industrial parks, then the car will remain the king.

Totally agree about the patterns of development Johnny. People only use public transport if the stop is close-by, so low-density development really doesn't fit with this. I think we'll see a continued increase in density over the coming years, but maybe we need a bit of a jump. I'm not suggesting we all live in high-rise flats, but maybe we should see more (high quality, well sound-insulated) terraces built?

From what I've seen in Newcastle though, most people that live close to a light-rail stop that takes them directly into the heart of the city are more than happy to use it. All peope want is something quick, affordable, clean, safe and not to densely seated.

Anyone think Newcastle will need a new station if high speed rail ever gets here?

Just I can't quite think of a station currently served by high speed trains in Europe that is as curved as Newcastle Central and I'm guessing there's a good reason for that.

Would suggest Manors would be the most likely candidate for a new station given that it's the only long enough section of straight track in Newcastle.

Anyone think Newcastle will need a new station if high speed rail ever gets here?

Just I can't quite think of a station currently served by high speed trains in Europe that is as curved as Newcastle Central and I'm guessing there's a good reason for that.

Would suggest Manors would be the most likely candidate for a new station given that it's the only long enough section of straight track in Newcastle.

I think it's a cert that it will be at the airport.

i think central would be fine as you can create pretty straight platforms if you extend them into the eastern carpark

Why the hell would it be at the airport? The only idea of High speed stations at airports are so that people from all over the UK can get to the main airports without having to use domestic flights- i.e fly to american through heathrow without having to get a flight from newcastle airport. Newcastle Airport only serves the region- maybe over in Cumbria and possibly just over the borders. You arent gonna get people travelling from the other end of the country to get a flight to Alicante from Newcastle.
Train station should be in the city centres which is their main benefit to flying- putting a station in the middle of no where (ie the airport) makes it pointless. I think the re-creation of Manors would be an excellent idea- we would have central working for all normal stations and Manors just for the high speed.
To be honest though, i know this is just a general discussion- but it will be an awful long time before the UK has high speed rail (taking the kent line out of the equation)- we are bloody almost bankrupt- the god damn government hasnt even got enough money to support 3 armed forces! We can't afford to widen the A1 so will just squeeze in a third lane and reduce speed- the country it SKINT- it is deteriorating very quickly. My guess is that IF anyline is built and open it will be in the 2020's- and simply to ensure it covers the largest populations it will go London- Heathrow- Birmingham (to start with) years later up to Manchester. I wwas gonna suggest up to Glasgow and Edinburgh but to be honest Scotland will probably be an independent country then and I think the line will stop at Manchester.

i think central would be fine as you can create pretty straight platforms if you extend them into the eastern carpark

Yeah, me too. Moving it from it's current position would be a mistake IMO.

Why the hell would it be at the airport? The only idea of High speed stations at airports are so that people from all over the UK can get to the main airports without having to use domestic flights- i.e fly to american through heathrow without having to get a flight from newcastle airport. Newcastle Airport only serves the region- maybe over in Cumbria and possibly just over the borders. You arent gonna get people travelling from the other end of the country to get a flight to Alicante from Newcastle.
Train station should be in the city centres which is their main benefit to flying- putting a station in the middle of no where (ie the airport) makes it pointless. I think the re-creation of Manors would be an excellent idea- we would have central working for all normal stations and Manors just for the high speed.
To be honest though, i know this is just a general discussion- but it will be an awful long time before the UK has high speed rail (taking the kent line out of the equation)- we are bloody almost bankrupt- the god damn government hasnt even got enough money to support 3 armed forces! We can't afford to widen the A1 so will just squeeze in a third lane and reduce speed- the country it SKINT- it is deteriorating very quickly. My guess is that IF anyline is built and open it will be in the 2020's- and simply to ensure it covers the largest populations it will go London- Heathrow- Birmingham (to start with) years later up to Manchester. I wwas gonna suggest up to Glasgow and Edinburgh but to be honest Scotland will probably be an independent country then and I think the line will stop at Manchester.

I agree with you Jon, it's just from the reports I've seen, it seems to indicate that if we were to get a HSR line here in Newcastle it would go to our airport. I would erge them to reconsider, and consider either merging the two platforms near the station doors or to consider using Manors instead, I also doubt weather or not wewill get HSR regardless of whether or not the UK gets one or not.

It would go to the airport as a by-pass for onward travelling trains but there would be plenty of services terminating in Newcastle itself as per the French model. This whole idea that it's either an out of town station or a central one is needless.

I don't think straight platform extensions at Newcastle Central would be enough. If the requirement of HSL is that the entire full length platform is straight (i.e. straight for 400 metres) that would make it impossible for Newcastle Central to be considered.

So if a new city station is needed then Manors would seem the most likely (and indeed only) plausible option. It's the sort of thing which could be used as a catalyst for growth in the East of the city.

Operational wise regional trains fro the North could still run through to Central and from the West as well on their way to Manors.

i don't think there is a requirement for platforms to be completely straight, waterloo was used for high speed trains, even if the track leading it up to it wasnt, and that had curved platforms.

True, that is a pretty curved station - but I read somewhere that almost completely straight platforms would likely be a requirement. I think HS2 might be pushing through a whole set of new higher standards then what was expected of Waterloo.

^^ It could be the end of Central as a station if we have a new station for HSR. We do not really have enough regional services to make the station viable, and the distance between Manors and Central would make it pretty hard to connect them.

Here is a pic of the station showing how long a 400m platform would be. With some serious reconfiguration... you might just accommodate this. You would lose the east carpark to accommodate local services and might have to have the HSR platforms extending out over the pavement on Forth Street.

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_EgLJDS2dIVI/S2x3SLPftMI/AAAAAAAAAmA/9hiIsoCxQPA/s800/central.jpg

The second option is a bit controversial, but would certainly add another unique and world first bridge over the tyne. It would also be a unique engineering challenge and very 21st Century. Build 4 platforms OVER the tyne, with two extra passing tracks. on each side. This would serve as a replacement for the current bridge (which would be the downside!).

http://lh4.ggpht.com/_EgLJDS2dIVI/S2x5cm3RwKI/AAAAAAAAAmc/KtTBdZPuleU/s800/bridge%20platform.jpg

They are doing it in London at Blackfriars (http://www.nce.co.uk/station-over-the-thames/5202351.article#), so it is possible!

^^ It could be the end of Central as a station if we have a new station for HSR. We do not really have enough regional services to make the station viable, and the distance between Manors and Central would make it pretty hard to connect them.

We have enough demand for enough regional services to make it work - if only our regional politicians/councillors would try and do something about it.

Morpeth and Cramlington are poorly served for large towns which generate a horrendous amount of car traffic during peak hours wanting to get to and from Newcastle. A two car hourly service just isn't sufficient.

Ashington, Bedlington and Blyth have the demand for a frequent 4 car service at least.

And I'd dare say there's a case for reintroducing the Newcastle-Edinburgh stopping service.

All these services are held back not because of any lack of demand - but because nobody wants to spend the money to provide them. Our local lines are very restrictive to local services in favour of inter-city trains.

Two stations wouldn't require two separate batch of services. Trains from the West and South would serve Central before continuing on to Manors. And trains from the North would serve Manors before continuing on to Central.

But I thought that there was simply a lack of actual trains that is causing a lot of problems in the industry at present?

Of course there is, there's a lack of everything - including attitude. There's no excuses, you either want a working railway which meets the needs of the people who need to get from A to B or you don't. No in between, sick of all this global warming bullshit from the Government when they do nothing to solve it and are happy for us all to just sit in traffic jams for hours upon end whilst increasing the cost of getting to where we need to be.

High speed rail is one thing, but this country is in even more desperate need of proper regional railway networks.

The Tyne & Wear Metro does not and cannot provide nearly enough of the journey opportunities this area needs. This area has largely by-passed the Metro network due to a combination of unregulated developments where the tracks don't reach and a free reign for the bus companies.

Love that idea of platforms over the Tyne!

.
HOPEFULLY, this is just 'rumour & speculation' . .

North East may miss out on high-speed trains
Mar 1 2010 by Adrian Pearson, The Journal

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/nov2009/7/0/lord-adonis-265942177.jpg

The North East is facing a “second best” solution to high speed rail, which will see the region handed “trains, not tracks”.

Speculation is mounting that Transport Secretary Lord Adonis is set to announce a new high-speed rail route from London to Birmingham.

He is also expected to reveal the potential for two more branches of track – one to Manchester and the other ending just south of York.

One option under consideration by Department for Transport civil servants is to run high speed trains to Newcastle but only on existing lines once past York.

That would mean the trains would be able to run at high speed only until York before switching down a gear to Newcastle and up to Scotland. Lord Adonis is understood to have given briefings already on his plans to business leaders in the North East. High speed lobby groups last night warned any suggestion of following the “Bordeaux model” would leave the North East as second best.

In France high speed TGV trains run on special lines until they near the city centre, where they switch to conventional lines and travel at a slow speed.

One benefit of adopting this approach for services past Yorkshire would come from budget savings in not having to build new bridges over the rivers Tyne, Wear and Tweed to lay the track.

It would also see capacity on the rest of the East Coast freed up, solving a growing congestion problem which many regional leaders have identified as being in greater need of a solution than the new infrastructure requirements.

Last night Newcastle Council leader John Shipley said the region would benefit from a Government which acknowledged it could not overlook the North East.

“It is essential that we do not miss out on high speed rail. If that happens it will rule us out for investment and leave us on the sidelines as business goes to the west of the country. A link or connection of some sort will help drive the future regeneration of our region.

“I welcome any news which will see improved connections to the North East but there has to be a UK-wide solution for high speed rail.”

Mr Shipley was speaking after transport lobby group Greengauge 21 urged the Government to recognise the massive economic boost improved rail lines would bring to the entire North of England.

Think tank director Jim Steer said Lord Adonis was unlikely to announce any new line up both sides of the country.

“We just have not seen that level of engineering work going into this,” Mr Steer said.

“And it’s important to say that such a move would not bring the same benefits to the North East as it would to say Manchester if they have the line and you only have the trains.

“It would bring benefits but it would not be to the same level as what others experience.”

Andrew Sugden, director of membership and policy at the North East Chamber of Commerce, added to calls for a full service to the region.

He said: “It’s speculation at the moment as to which route, if any, the Government will propose for the next phase of high speed rail.

“What we must ensure is that any proposals guarantee a high speed service direct from the North East to London from day one.

“Our region must not be a backwater to the North West and Yorkshire in terms of strategic transport investment. That mistake was made with the motorway network in the 1960s and it can’t be allowed to happen again.”

Like we all didn't figure that one out. Whats the point in trains when we want the journey time reduced?, and to make matters worse the new trains to be built may now not get built because of budget cuts.
Think again and come to the solution everyone else has, HSR to the NE.

So how much would that reduce the journey time if they could run high speed between London and York and "normal" speed the rest of the way?

A station of the tyne is very intruiging....
I can't help but think opposition would be huge though, the Tyne is Newcastle's landmark.

Why can't high speed use bendy platforms? Its not like they'll be going high speed in the city.

Manors is a weird one. Does anyone ever use it?

So is Newcastle in on HSR? It increasingly seems to me Newcastle is to be cut out with the west coast line being favoured for Scotland and no further than Leeds in the east. As is typical.

I've just been reading in the "News of the world" (their goes any sort of reliability) and it claims that Newcastle will be on the proppsed line for HSR rail going to Scotland. It looks like we will be on the line between Edinburgh and Leeds which comes out of Birmingham, which also continues to London. Also out of Birmingham their will be two others spurs, one going to Manchester, and the other going to the East Midlands.

Lets hope we will be on the mainline.

http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu341/bigchrisgfb/train_map_0703_97671a.jpg

Chris, copied this into the 'High Speed Rail' thread.

Isn't the announcement about the long-awaited chosen route, going to be made later this month

newcastle could probably be a 3rd phase extension looking at that. london - birmingham, birmingham-manchester, then birmingham-edinburgh maybe?

in any case, birmingham would become the most connected city in the uk.

Chris, copied this into the 'High Speed Rail' thread.

Isn't the announcement about the long-awaited chosen route, going to be made later this month

Thanks for copying it in here NH.

Yes I think it's later this month or early next month, however I think Salif will know about it then me. No doubt no matter what route is chosen it will all be investigated again and eventually scrapped to save money or will not go further then Birmingham or at a push Manchester. Whatever happens (if it is even built) it will be built on the cheap, and because of that I believe alot of places will be missing a stop inlcuding Newcastle and the NE.

Nothing I can really say other then what others have said Chris.

But I wouldn't be surprised if the HSL tracks don't reach all the way up here.

The West Coast is always likely to be the main route to Scotland so building another set of tracks almost all the way to Scotland on the other side of the country are never likely to make much sense.

It shouldn't be a problem though - even HSL tracks reaching up to York will have massive benefits to the North East presuming our Local Authorities don't wallow in self pity and actually push the benefits through.

At the very least we should seek to ensure the mainline is upgraded to 'TGV classic line standards'. And by that I mean 200-220km/h running.

And I really think we need a new Easterly approach to Newcastle Central to completely replace the current restricted approach. Easier said then done but ideally we need to find a quick way of getting all trains from the East and South onto the old Scotswood alignment.

Details of a 250mph rail network capable of taking passengers from London to Birmingham in three-quarters of an hour are expected to be unveiled this week.

They will include the exact proposed route between London and Birmingham and options on how to extend it into the north of England and Scotland.

The network could enable trains to reach Birmingham from London in 47 minutes and Glasgow in two hours and 40 minutes.

Lord Adonis, the Transport Secretary, wants the network to carry trains faster than any currently being used in Europe.

Sir David Rowlands, chairman of High Speed Two, the Government-owned company set up to provide the plans, will announce the details.

The favoured option north of Birmingham is thought to include one branch running north to Manchester and north west England, and the other going through the East Midlands to Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle. One of the lines would extend to Edinburgh and Glasgow.

Although the project has all-party backing, the Conservatives have refused to give the Government a blank cheque.

The Chiltern Hills contain many Tory seats.

Last month Theresa Villiers, the Shadow Transport Secretary, said: "It would be very unfair for the people affected if they thought there was a cosy political consensus on the route."

Once the Midlands route is announced conservationists are also likely to begin their opposition campaigns in ernest.

Sir Terry Pratchett, the author, who grew up in the Chilterns, has said of the high speed rail plan: "Bloody tin boxes going very, very fast don't do anything for the countryside."

But backers argue it will create some 10,000 construction jobs, 2,000 operational and maintenance roles, as well as help rejuvenate the regions.

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/7392060/High-speed-rail-link-plans-to-be-announced.html

I have also found this website which some of you maybe interested in. It gives small amounts of information about HSR and also about the cities which are onboards to have HSR going to their cities including Newcastle.

Link: http://www.highspeedrailuk.com

(Maybe worth adding to the list of useful websites NH?)

I have also found this website which some of you maybe interested in. It gives small amounts of information about HSR and also about the cities which are onboards to have HSR going to their cities including Newcastle.

Link: http://www.highspeedrailuk.com

(Maybe worth adding to the list of useful websites NH?)
DONE . . it is in 'Section 17', straight after the Maglev website link.

in any case, birmingham would become the most connected city in the uk.

Of course. Lots of marginal seats.

Of course. Lots of marginal seats.

Nah, I don't think there's anything sinister like that going on- especially since this is a long term project it'll just shoot labour in the foot. e.g. the north sea oil. Started under labour but the benefits didn't appear until the 80s when the arch-bitch got all the credit.
Birmingham is just a logical place as a HSR centre being in the centre of the country, the Manchester line to London would go through there anyway and its not too out of the way for a direct Newcastle/Leeds line to London.

Maybe, but the timing (as with so many recent pieces of news regarding new investment) seems very fortunate...

Maybe, but the timing (as with so many recent pieces of news regarding new investment) seems very fortunate...

Aye.

Details of a possible multibillion-pound high-speed rail line, featuring 250mph trains, will be announced tomorrow by the Government.

In a White Paper, the Government will outline the route, and the cost, of a high-speed rail (HSR) line running from London to Birmingham.

Transport Secretary Lord Adonis will also publish the Government's views on how HSR can be extended north of Birmingham to northern England and Scotland.

He will make public a report produced last year by the High Speed Two (HS2) company - a body commissioned by the Government to produce detailed London-Birmingham HSR plans as well as options for extending HSR further north.

Lord Adonis is expected to announce that 1,100-seater HSR trains will arrive and depart from a new London station, with the route of the line likely to pass through the picturesque Chiltern Hills to Birmingham.

If the line becomes a reality, work would not start until 2017 at the earliest, with a London-Birmingham line unlikely to open before the last part of 2025.

Initially, there would be 14 trains an hour on the route. If the line is extended north, there could be 18 trains an hour.

Tomorrow's announcement is bound to cause political and economic controversy as the route seems certain to pass through areas of outstanding natural beauty.

All three major parties are committed in principle to the idea of HSR but the Conservatives turned down an offer to view the Government plans before tomorrow's announcement.

Explaining her party's stance, shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers said she did not want "some cosy deal reached behind closed doors which closes out the communities that may be affected by the route".

The Tories are also keen to see the route include Heathrow Airport, although it is thought that the Government is unwilling to support a direct link to the west London site.

There has also been concern from some organisations that HSR will be so costly that other rail or public transport projects could be starved of cash.

Link: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/details-of-250mph-rail-line-to-be-published-1919034.html

2025! Bloody Hell. I will be 45! I am only 31 now! So going on this pace, The line may reach Manchester by the time I am 60- and if they do a 3rd line going north to scotland and assuming they go up the east rather than the west side I will be 75.

Good God the pase of transport development in this country is glacial- truely glacial.

Guys, transport planning doesnt float my boat but really this thread is pointless- there will be no high speed lines to Newcastle in most of our lifetime and if there is we will be sol old we wouldn't be arsed whether there was a rocket to the moon at that stage.

2025! Bloody Hell. I will be 45! I am only 31 now! So going on this pace, The line may reach Manchester by the time I am 60- and if they do a 3rd line going north to scotland and assuming they go up the east rather than the west side I will be 75.

Good God the pase of transport development in this country is glacial- truely glacial.

Guys, transport planning doesnt float my boat but really this thread is pointless- there will be no high speed lines to Newcastle in most of our lifetime and if there is we will be sol old we wouldn't be arsed whether there was a rocket to the moon at that stage.

While their is a possibility of it happening we still need this thread. I do agree that it won't come here (atleast not at a point in our life times when we will be botherd). But even hopeless has the word hope within it. so fingers, toes, ad legs crossed.

You need a miracle Chris- the country is pretty much bankrupt- I won't even be holding my breath that a line goes to Watford never mind Birmingham! They will struggle to support the current transport system in the coming years never mind HSR- just look at the plans for the western bypass- cheapest choice available- 3 lanes but 50mph.

You need a miracle Chris- the country is pretty much bankrupt- I won't even be holding my breath that a line goes to Watford never mind Birmingham! They will struggle to support the current transport system in the coming years never mind HSR- just look at the plans for the western bypass- cheapest choice available- 3 lanes but 50mph.

It still amazes me how they can fund corssrail and such but not a national line which wouldn't of cost much more. People in London say Crossrail was mostly privately funded, surely that can happen for a national line. I don't hold my breath but I do still hope.

Britain really does do things slowly.
By the time we get it built we'll be all moving on to stargates or whatever :D



What on earth is the point in HSR to Heathrow anyway. Surely the HSR should just go to a main London station and then it can go to Heathrow on normal lines- it won't be able to build up much speed in the area afterall.

What a bag of shite! I'll try and summarise the points as I see them after skimming the HS2 documents and the government's statement:

The government is backing the London to Birmingham route as proposed by HS2.
This route is discussed in great length, with even greater length on how it interfaces with Crossrail and the London Underground (we in the north should of course be super happy to even get a mention, and otherwise stoked for our mates in the South who now finally have a bit of funding thrown their way)
The HS2 document is here http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter1.pdf (this is the first chapter, but trust me, the second chapter is about the specific route through the chiltern hills, and discusses boring stuff like gauges etc)
The report talks at length about the route from London to Birmingham, and suggests the overall network for the country on page 13 to be a Y shaped plan, with 2 lines from Birmingham, 1 going to Manchester, 'Lancashire Interchange' (AKA Preston I'm guessing), Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the other going to 'East Midlands Interchange', 'South Yorkshire Interchange' (all of this of course smoke and mirrors for saying "It'll be nowhere near places you actually want to go, but not too far away that we can't throw in some generic place names like Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Finningley airport"), Leeds and finally Newcastle. There is no link between Edinburgh and Newcastle curiously. Presumably we should all be chuffed we're linked with London. There is also a suggested upgraded Manchester to Leeds transpennine route, which is referred to as the Northern Hub something or other. This sounds like it's already a scheme in the running, so nothing new there.
The Government has then recomended that HS2 do a bit more work and come up with potential routes to Manchester and Leeds from Birmingham, that will be complete by Summer 2011. Am I the only one who's thinking "Why don't they just plan the whole route at once? Then they can consult on the whole thing, not do it piecemeal" Essentially by the time they get to us in the North East, we will be old and grey and there'll be no money left anyway. Also by that point London will need some more infrastrcuture, so essentially we're screwed.... :-)

I guess the main reason for the Heathrow link is to reduce the need/desire for internal flights. If you can get a high speed train from half of the country straight to Heathrow, you could easily match or even undercut the time saved by flying there from a regional airport in order to catch an international flight.

If you have to fight your way there via the underground and another train, that time saving would be lost.

What a bag of shite! I'll try and summarise the points as I see them after skimming the HS2 documents and the government's statement:

The government is backing the London to Birmingham route as proposed by HS2.
This route is discussed in great length, with even greater length on how it interfaces with Crossrail and the London Underground (we in the north should of course be super happy to even get a mention, and otherwise stoked for our mates in the South who now finally have a bit of funding thrown their way)
The HS2 document is here http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/rail/pi/highspeedrail/hs2ltd/hs2report/pdf/chapter1.pdf (this is the first chapter, but trust me, the second chapter is about the specific route through the chiltern hills, and discusses boring stuff like gauges etc)
The report talks at length about the route from London to Birmingham, and suggests the overall network for the country on page 13 to be a Y shaped plan, with 2 lines from Birmingham, 1 going to Manchester, 'Lancashire Interchange' (AKA Preston I'm guessing), Glasgow and Edinburgh, and the other going to 'East Midlands Interchange', 'South Yorkshire Interchange' (all of this of course smoke and mirrors for saying "It'll be nowhere near places you actually want to go, but not too far away that we can't throw in some generic place names like Doncaster Sheffield Robin Hood Finningley airport"), Leeds and finally Newcastle. There is no link between Edinburgh and Newcastle curiously.


The below is from the mentioned 'Chapter 1' of the HS2 document. WELL, at least our name appears on the 'long-term' map!! We get precious few mentions otherwise.

I think we can safely say the Newcastle will get HSR as soon as 50 years from now . . . er . . . maybe!

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv345/manorpark_photos/HSRtoNewcastlewithin50yearsIhope.jpg


"Here's to 2060, folks!!"

It is actually the only mention of Newcastle in the whole document. The government paper does mention us a little bit more I think...sigh...

Also, showing how much these people care about the region, I wonder if anyone can tell me where Teeside is? Presumably by the side of the river Tee? I know it's a common mistake, but you don't see them ever spelling it Lodon.

Ok, Preston doesn't need an interchange with it being so close to Manchester and Liverpool, I would scrap that line going to Glasgow, along with lines in South Yorkshire, and make the end of the line from Newcastle (not that it will ever be built) go all the way up to Edinburgh. Saving needless costs on constructing a line that is in reality all ready well connected with it being so close to Manchester and so to is South Yorkshire as it's fairly well connected to to leeds, the ame applies to the east midlands where it is fairly connected to the east midlands.

Tbh I don't mind the y-shaped plan, though I would have thought it a no brainer to just finish the loop to Edinburgh. My biggest beef with it is that it isn't (as is claimed at various points in the publications and press) a national approach to HSR. In fact, it's sorting out the south of England, and then a vague statement that they should expand north somewhere, someway at some point. Why not develop a proper national strategy and route, serving everytwhere you want to, then look at the phased development of it. I would feel a lot happier if the route to Newcastle, and propositions for stations etc had all been laid out (and signed up to), and it was only the phasing and the specific funding for the project that was up in the air. I wish someone would just dump a few billion pounds on my lap, then I'd just build my own Northern HS network in a loop through Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, up the west coast to Glasgow, Edibburgh and back to Newcastle.....

Tbh I don't mind the y-shaped plan, though I would have thought it a no brainer to just finish the loop to Edinburgh. My biggest beef with it is that it isn't (as is claimed at various points in the publications and press) a national approach to HSR. In fact, it's sorting out the south of England, and then a vague statement that they should expand north somewhere, someway at some point. Why not develop a proper national strategy and route, serving everytwhere you want to, then look at the phased development of it. I would feel a lot happier if the route to Newcastle, and propositions for stations etc had all been laid out (and signed up to), and it was only the phasing and the specific funding for the project that was up in the air. I wish someone would just dump a few billion pounds on my lap, then I'd just build my own Northern HS network in a loop through Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, up the west coast to Glasgow, Edibburgh and back to Newcastle.....

Yes that would be great way to start HSR in the UK, no doubt Lodon then would get greedy and insist on being linked into the network aswell.

I've just been having a longer look through the full Government White Paper, and maybe I was a little harsh at first. One good thing is, as I understand it, from the start, there will be High Speed trains running from Newcastle, running at normal speeds on the existing track, and then High Speeds on the full track. When the HSR is upto Leeds, that will mean about a half hour reduced journey time to London. When the thing is eventually extended to Newcastle, that will be an hour reduction, to 2 hours. Not bad really, though I do wonder how all of this will affect congestion on the ECML. Also, by then I plan to have a hover car and a teleporter.

I know it's only an outline map but even so... the idea of going from London to Liverpool via Manchester? Surely you'd be just as quick going on today's fastest services direct, peeling off the WCML at Crewe, via Runcorn.

Anyway, I fully intend to celebrate my 100th birthday with a trip on the recently-opened HS line.

Anyway, I fully intend to celebrate my 100th birthday with a trip on the recently-opened HS line.

Pfft, you will be lucky.

Tbh I don't mind the y-shaped plan, though I would have thought it a no brainer to just finish the loop to Edinburgh. My biggest beef with it is that it isn't (as is claimed at various points in the publications and press) a national approach to HSR. In fact, it's sorting out the south of England, and then a vague statement that they should expand north somewhere, someway at some point. Why not develop a proper national strategy and route, serving everytwhere you want to, then look at the phased development of it. I would feel a lot happier if the route to Newcastle, and propositions for stations etc had all been laid out (and signed up to), and it was only the phasing and the specific funding for the project that was up in the air. I wish someone would just dump a few billion pounds on my lap, then I'd just build my own Northern HS network in a loop through Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, up the west coast to Glasgow, Edibburgh and back to Newcastle.....

one thing that is telling is that when the papers report the HSR Story they always write things like "leeds will be reached in 2 hours, birmingham in half an hour." reached? from where, exactly? it's taken as a given that journey times are from/to london, as if connectivity between other cities wasnt an issuse.

I find the timescale completely laughable. I wonder what the countries who have had high speed rail for years already will have by the time we complete our high speed rail... a complete farce if you ask me :bash:

Also, by then I plan to have a hover car and a teleporter.

Exactly, work is only going to be starting in 2017, god only knows when it'll actually be finished. I'll take a teleporter instead :)

Its really embarassing seeing where we are in relation to HSR (im referring to the UK) when you consider the rail heritage of this country - embarassing

A load of old rubbish, as has rightly been pointed out. Sadly I think it's what we all expected.

Anyway, I fully intend to celebrate my 100th birthday with a trip on the recently-opened HS line.

Don't be soft, they're never going to get it built within the next ten years!

There's two significant factors which this announcement seems to overlook - I guess that's not because the DfT don't understand them, but because this had to be "an announcement".

First - our rail network has to simultaneously accommodate 3 modes of transport :-
a) high-speed long-distance passenger services at a regular frequency, with peak periods,
b) local stopping passenger services at lower speeds and regular frequencies, but with different peak periods, and
c) freight and departmental traffic at lower speeds, less regular frequencies and at non-critical times.
This proposal doesn't say so, but its only addressing the first of these - passenger services, leaving the existing network to handle the others, which is reasonable. It also stops at Litchfield, which is one end of the element of the WCML upgrade that really was sucessfull - the quadrupling of the Trent Valley line. So it just completes the job that the 140mph WCML upgrade failed to deliver.
But is this proposal really delivering benefits across all three modes? Benfits that are nation-wide?

Second, the cost - benefit analysis is highly dependent on geographic factors (for any given investment, we could either construct a small length of new rail in an urban area with an anticipated high level of passenger useage, or a longer length of new rail in a rural area but lower level of passenger useage).
I argue that there are several stretches of existing infrastructure which could be replaced at a similar cost to the new high speed tunnel under Primrose Hill and Abbey Road which would actually benefit a) more long distance pasengers, b) more local passengers, and c) more freight.
Quick examples are: Bristol - Exeter, Leicester - Peterborough - Cambridge - Norwich, Edinburgh - Stirling - Perth and Glasgow - Stirling, Hull - Leeds - Manchester - Liverpool, Exeter - Tavistock - Plymouth and others, not forgetting our own Darlington - Morpeth and Berwick - Edinburgh. We really could see massive improvements to long-distance, local & suburban and freight services if we provided the high capacity infrastructure in those areas. Similary improvements from more localised improvements such as Moy - Inverness - Dingwall - Golspie in the Highlands, linking Glasgow Queen St and Central, linking Aberystwyth effectively to North, South and West and some effective east - west links across the Pennines These will benefit millions of travellers and freight operators, and provide real alternatives to road and air travel, at much much lower costs per mile of a new high speed tunnel through north London suburbs.

And does anyone else agree with me that one aspect of the current network that works well as it is, is the last few miles in and out of London?
The overall benfits accrue from investing in longer stretches of route that accomodate all three modes where there is a potential demand rather than short stretches in and around London.

And while were planning, could we also get on with providing economically attractive and well placed freight terminals and crossovers/unders rather than the antiquated points that hold everything up when trains diverge, and other upgrades which increase the capacity of the infrastructure we have already, a highly stressed network?

And I'm out of my depth! I'll have to take your word for all that DX, I couldn't tell you which bits of track are fast or in good condition or what, all I know is when I get a train (about twice a year to go to London), I get on at one point, and get off in London about 3 hours later!

.
Everything is ALL RIGHT then . . nothing for US to worry about ( SILLY US ) . . .

Lord Adonis assures North will get high-speed trains
Mar 12 2010 by William Green, The Journal

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/jan2010/5/0/lord-adonis-trains-rail-transport-445260553.jpg

LORD Adonis was last night told he will be held to his "multi-billion pound promise" after appearing to snub the region’s high-speed rail hopes.

The transport secretary gave Labour’s backing to a new 335-mile network slashing journey times, which experts say is critical to boosting businesses.

Construction of the first London-Birmingham section would start in 2017, before the £30 billion network is extended on to Manchester and Leeds.

For Newcastle and Scotland the transport secretary could only offer the prospect of high-speed trains running on conventional East Coast Main Line tracks, as revealed in The Journal earlier this month. He has promised trains will eventually run on new tracks through the region, but would not commit to a start date.

The "tracks not trains" approach will see the 250mph fleet forced to travel at around 100mph once past Leeds.

But with journey times coming down by more than 30 minutes, Lord Adonis insisted the route would bring real benefits to the region.

He told The Journal: "It is very important to me that the North East does not miss out. Absolutely so. That is why I gave the firm assurances that there will be, from day one, direct services to Newcastle."

Lord Adonis was "confident that the high speed line will come to the North East" but said he chose to copy the French model of ensuring high-speed trains travel to the region while tracks are built in order to share the benefits.

"Our immediate priority is to bring the line as we build out to make sure we do not stall economic growth."

Transport officials say this approach helps tackle the immediate problems facing planners, such as the cost of building over the Rivers Wear and Tyne. But last night there were worries that extra trains running on the East Coast Main Line would see the region pay, through taxes, for a service that only adds to rail congestion north of Leeds.

There were also concerns the time benefits of the trains not tracks approach could have been achieved just by investing in the East Coast Main Line.

Many, though, have welcomed the commitment to bring trains now and a firm promise from Adonis that tracks will eventually make it to Tyneside and Scotland.

Newcastle Council leader John Shipley said: "It is good news that we have not been left out. I’m disappointed that we have not been fully integrated with the new system. "It’s good to have rolling stock but we won’t have tracks, leaving us with trains running at conventional speeds. Our objective remains to get investment in these tracks".

Full high speed rail services, Mr Shipley added, would be worth billions of pounds to the Northern economy.

Rail expert Prof David Begg has already told the Government it could add £10billion to the economy if it built high-speed links, with the lines adding £3.5 billon to the North East alone.

"If we don’t get this investment we will fall behind," Mr Shipley said.

For that reason both businesses and politicians in the region have urged the Department for Transport to, at the very least, increase investment in the
current East Coast routes.

Lord Adonis said: "We fully intend to keep investing in the East Cast Main Line. It is critical to the North East and to the rest of the country."

The Government’s autumn consultation on the extension of the line will give regional leaders the chance to secure further concessions.

Alan Clarke, chief executive at development agency One North East, said that while the train promise was welcome, the Government had to ensure its phasing of tracks does "not lead to areas of economic disadvantage".

He added: "The development of a High Speed rail network is a medium to long term aspiration, and it is important that investment in new rolling stock and the classic rail network - in particular the East Coast mainline - is maintained to ensure the North East can continue to enjoy good and competitive links to London and the rest of the country.

"One North East will begin to prepare a detailed regional response to the Government’s planned formal consultation in the autumn."

Regional Minister Nick Brown said the North East would benefit as the network was built in phases over three decades. He said: "The opportunities for us are substantial, not just to do with north-south connectivity but east-west connectivity."

Dave Anderson, Labour MP for Blaydon, said: "They should go back to the drawing board and realise that if they don’t get this sorted, it is going to make us even less likely to compete." Shadow Transport Secretary Theresa Villiers accused Labour of robbing the North, Scotland and Wales of "massive" social, economic and regeneration benefits.

If elected, the Tories have vowed to build a line from London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds from 2015.

She added: "As George Osborne said last year, the Conservatives are committed to taking our high speed rail line from Leeds north to the North East and Scotland as the second stage."

Passengers face rises in air and rail fares

PASSENGERS face higher train and airline fares to pay for the new £30bn high-speed rail network.

A levy on tickets on existing and new high-speed routes has been forward by experts, who say a 1% charge could provide up to £75m a year.

A controversial tax on flying could also be used to pay for the new train network, with Transport Secretary Lord Adonis only committing at this stage to it going from London to the Midlands and onto Manchester and Leeds.

Air passenger duty has also been suggested as a way of raising money by HS2, the company set up by Government to examine high-speed rail options.

Other options include a top-up on council tax bills in the West Midlands and Greater London, councils providing money, as well as accessing cash from the Europe Union. Lord Adonis said they were options that had been put forward but stressed they were not Government policy.

He also rejected a proposal that private companies could sponsor the new line or stations or even get “naming rights” in return for helping pay for the proposals.

In its report to Lord Adonis, the HS2 company said: “It is impossible to reach detailed conclusions at such an early stage of the development of the project and, given the uncertainties as to how non-Government funding contributions might be secured, for example, the political support required for a train fare levy.

“We are, however, clear that they will amount to only a small contribution towards the overall cost of HS2, up to a maximum of about £1bn. And it may be very much less.”

Fares rises will amount to only a small contribution towards the overall cost of HS2

I hate it when they say things like 'journey times coming down by more than 30 minutes'. Yeah, 32 minutes, but in reality, that's going to fluctuate, and it's all just approximate at the moment, so why not just say 30 minutes.

this is pre-election bombast. it wont happen in the next twenty five years.there is no evidence from the past twenty years of government that either party will invest in vital infrastructure outside of london.

He has promised trains will eventually run on new tracks through the region, but would not commit to a start date.


Tells you everything you need to know.

Did any of us really expect anything different..? In all fairness, the North East has a relatively small population and would need a fair length of extra track to link us in. If they can't be bothered to lay a bit of extra tarmac beside the A1 we were never going to get this.

Put it another way - this was never about whether the North East needs fast access to London, but whether London needs fast access to the North East. And they've never needed to speed up cargo trains that carry our industrial output to them by an extra hour, so they're not going to bother.

The last few days i have given this some thought and i am less and less enthusiastic about HSR - in general, not just talking from a North East pov

The figure that has been mentioned is £30 Billion - undoubtedly it will end up costing much more than that

I would rather we upgrade the current system by creating links to other areas, improving facilities, reducing fares (as they are currently pretty pricey) than spend £30 Billion on this HSR that has been proposed. As it stands we can get from Newcastle to London in 3 hours on the ECML, thats not bad at all - is shaving 60 mins of that time worth that extra cost?????

(Admittedly i dont know too much about this so maybe there are plenty of benefits to this and im just talking rubbish)

^^
I'm highly in favour of HSR, it's just their is no real evidence this will ever come to the NE/Newcastle (which is the region which needs it most) despite what they say and even when it does it will be pretty slow for tech and transport of the time period it does arrive. The cost is pretty high and yes will go ober budget, but I'd rather they put that money our way instead of keeping it for themselves again, a la Crossrail.


Peopel have said to me that I'm only in favour of HSR if it comes to mwhere I live, do you honestly think many people in London give a crap about it, they have already been given their Crossrail, and people in Manchester won't give a crap if it doesn't go to Glasgow, Leeds, and Newcastle, like Glasgow won't give a crap if it goes up the West coast or East coast, so long as each city is involved then their happy and I make no effort to cover that up.

BUT would you not prefer us to spend that kind of money on reducing fares and improving the current system - as it stands getting to London takes 3 hours, thats pretty canny like

Am i right in assuming that the current tracks can only take trains going at a certain speed? and obviosuly HSR will required new tracks?

BUT would you not prefer us to spend that kind of money on reducing fares and improving the current system - as it stands getting to London takes 3 hours, thats pretty canny like

Am i right in assuming that the current tracks can only take trains going at a certain speed? and obviosuly HSR will required new tracks?

Well thats the problem really, for how much it's costing and how long it's going to take the system is fairly slow, and will really be outdated by the time it's completed or indeed arguably now. The reason a new line is needed is because the system doesn't have the capacity to go that fast with too many sharp corners, loads of stations in between, speed limits, and of course the over capacity aswell.

I'm also beginning to get cold feet about the HSR proposal, at least at the current price level. The UK's railways aren't in especially good shape as it is, and this would certainly drain funding from less glamorous projects that would provide much greater benefits, such as national railway electrification (which would provide much greater benefit in terms of reducing fossil fuel use) and reopening existing lines to create additional capacity, especially for freight, that would free up the existing mainlines (the Leamside line being just one example). Local rail services outside London are not especially good, and detract mightily from the point-to-point benefits of any theoretical HSR line. Yep, it's a cost/benefit thing.

.
Now, THIS sounds more like the truth, about a London-based political decision . .

Minister rejected advice to include
North East in high speed rail link
Mar 13 2010 by William Green, The Journal


TRANSPORT Secretary Lord Adonis rejected expert advice to link the region to a 250mph rail network, it emerged yesterday.

The HS2 company set up by Lord Adonis to advise him on new high-speed rail links found that the “best” business case included a network reaching to the North East.

But he backed a £30bn “Y-shaped” network from London to Birmingham and on to Leeds and Manchester, to be built from 2017.

That was despite the HS2 team saying an “inverse A” network was better.

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv345/manorpark_photos/HSRRouteOptions.jpg

The inverse A would have linked London to Birmingham and then Manchester and Leeds before heading onto Newcastle and Glasgow.

The network would have included a cross-Pennine link between Leeds and Manchester, a spur to Liverpool and connection to Edinburgh. London-Newcastle journey times would have been slashed to just two hours.

But Lord Adonis rejected the proposals because of the £52.2bn price tag, despite the scheme delivering £103bn worth of benefits.

The region will have to do with trains running on the new network and swapping to existing slower lines – with no guarantee it will ever get a direct high-speed link.

That would trim Newcastle-London journeys from three hours and nine minutes to two hours and 37 minutes. Dave Anderson, Labour MP for Blaydon, promised to raise the revelations with Lord Adonis in Parliament.

“If he has been advised by people that would be a more beneficial route, we really need to know why that advice wasn’t followed up,” he said.

Tyne Bridge MP David Clelland, a member of the influential Commons transport committee, insisted the region still had everything to play for in terms of getting high-speed rail to the North East.

Referring to the HS2 company’s findings, the Labour MP added: “I think we have still got plenty of time to argue our case and that strengthens our hand.”

A Department for Transport report said: “HS2 Ltd’s analysis suggests that although it is not the shortest or cheapest option, the ‘Inverse A’ is likely to present the best business case.

“This is because its additional costs are more than outweighed by the improved journey times it offers to the widest range of destinations, and the additional growth in the market, including as a result of modal shift from aviation, that it would attract as a result.”

The reports adds that this option could be built in stages, beginning with the legs to Manchester and Leeds. There would also be a Teesside stop offering wider connections.

But rejecting the proposal, the DfT said: “At around 335 miles, this Y-shaped network would be less than half the length of the ‘Inverse A’ and substantially lower in cost.”

HS2 Ltd’s analysis suggests that the infrastructure cost would be around £30bn, compared to around £52.2bn for the full ‘Inverse A’, yet it would be likely to deliver the great majority of its benefits.

“It would directly link all of the UK’s four largest conurbations, as well as enhancing connectivity to two more key city regions through possible stations in the East Midlands and Sheffield.”

The DfT added a link into the East Coast Main Line at York would provide “significantly improved” journey times to Teesside, Newcastle and destinations further north by running onto the conventional network

Line funding a priority

REGIONAL minister Nick Brown has promised to make East Coast Main Line investment a priority.

The Newcastle East and Wallsend MP was speaking after the North East was told it will get high-speed trains but not tracks as part of a £30bn Government infrastructure project.

Mr Brown said he was well aware of concerns from business groups that the compromise solution for the North East will see resources taken from existing rail routes.

Rail improvements announced by Lord Adonis last month will bring rapid improvements, the minister said.

Mr Brown, who is also the chief whip, said there were other developments coming which would improve connections further.

“The most exciting of these is a new service from London to York. The knock-on effect will mean there is less congestion for trains up to Newcastle.”

He added: “The high-speed rail announcement was good news for the region, we will see an east-west link which will bring us real benefits.

“The key thing for us was to ensure we did not see a purely west coast solution to this would have cause us real damage.

“There is a much greater population density on the east coast and that is why we had to secure this route.”

The real routes than need speeding up (in my - albeit selfish - view) are Newcastle-Manchester-Liverpool and Newcastle-Birmingham. I go to Manchester quite frequently and it takes as long as it does to get to London, while Liverpool is nearly four hours!

"But rejecting the proposal, the DfT said: “At around 335 miles, this Y-shaped network would be less than half the length of the ‘Inverse A’ and substantially lower in cost.”

"HS2 Ltd’s analysis suggests that the infrastructure cost would be around £30bn, compared to around £52.2bn for the full ‘Inverse A’, yet it would be likely to deliver the great majority of its benefits."

Less than half the length, but considerably more than half the cost! All down to ludicrously inflated land prices in the south east, no doubt. How about a 'reverse-Y' linking Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff/the south-west. Perhaps a branch to London could be added on when funds permit.

It's a little miss-leading saying they reject plans for us being on a HSR network when we still appear to be on the plans released on Thursday. But then again it's miss-leading against a Labour government coming up to a general election.

To be honest I've never taken a train Journey past Manchester. Whenever I visit London I always fly, 2hours 45minutes on a train doesn't appeal to me, whereas having some breakfast/lunch/tea then 45minutes on an aircraft does. Not to mention the competitive rates of flying. It looks as though that won't be changing in the near future (2050 earliest), so aslong as our air connections with the capital are kept strong, and reasonable, I'll be happy. Anything quicker on rails is a bonus.

I actually prefer the train, as long as there's not a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots nearby singing and shouting and being morons. Everyone's been on a train with a bunch like that. I have to admit that when that Tory MP came out and said that MPs should travel first class because the people in second class were "different", I'm guessing that this is what he was pointing towards, which I have some sympathy for. Although at the same time I don't doubt that that MP is an idiot in general.

Anyway, if the prices were the same, I'd take the train on balance. Once you factor in the travel to and from airports at either end, check-in time etc, it's not that different timewise. Plus there's the carbon issue.

I actually prefer the train, as long as there's not a bunch of knuckle-dragging idiots nearby singing and shouting and being morons. Everyone's been on a train with a bunch like that. I have to admit that when that Tory MP came out and said that MPs should travel first class because the people in second class were "different", I'm guessing that this is what he was pointing towards, which I have some sympathy for. Although at the same time I don't doubt that that MP is an idiot in general.

Anyway, if the prices were the same, I'd take the train on balance. Once you factor in the travel to and from airports at either end, check-in time etc, it's not that different timewise. Plus there's the carbon issue.

By the time we receive high speed rail the aircraft will be flown with bio-fuel :bash:

These 'route plans' were not initially posted from the on-line article from todays Journal posted on this thread earlier this morning. I have added them now, they were in the actual hard-copy newspaper, which I now have.

They do help clarify some of the points made in the article, so I have added them below also . .

http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv345/manorpark_photos/HSRRouteOptions.jpg

2 hours 37 minutes to london? the quickest journeys you can get now are 2 hours 49 minutes. so all this time and money will get us 12 minutes benefit for journeys to london. great. we could better those times by simply upgrading existing track and buying new trains. the way i see it, we're going to be relatively worse off after this system is built.

Won't the new direct non-stop routes palnned to start later this year save that time?

By the time we receive high speed rail the aircraft will be flown with bio-fuel :bash:

Doubt it - biofuels seem to be just a stop-gap until fuel cells or high efficiency electric batteries are in use. Plus biofuels seem to use arable land in most cases...

Won't the new direct non-stop routes palnned to start later this year save that time?

You would think so wouldn't you. I think the initial benefit to Newcastle of the HSR2 plans would be to reduce demand on the ECML so we get more Edinburgh - Newcastle - Darlington/York (maybe!) - London only services, thus saving some time.

Its a bloody joke - the whole thing is a bloody joke. I hope we do away with it and just upgrade/improve the current system

Does any one seriously think a dedicated line should be built to the North East to reach about two million people?

Getting the line up to York and upgrading the ECML onwards would be great for this region.

Two recent "HSR" posts from the Transport in Newcastle thread . .


I'm going to go back to HSR here. But I noticed this when reading UKIP's manifesto:

"Invest in 3 new 200mph plus high-speed lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route via Birmingham"
page 11 on here http://www.ukip.org/media/policies/UKIPManifestoWeb.pdf

This will be paid for as (I'm quoting UKIP, don't bash me about anything) Britain pays (net) 6.4 billion to the EU, and they want to invest 3 billion in transport.


As far as national politics goes - we basically have a choice of Labour or Conservative... Neither of which I can see doing this country any big favours any time soon...

I have to say - I really dont think HSR is something that should be getting looked at just now...

I would say that improving the capacity and reach of the rail network is a far bigger priority...

Jon

We should all juust protest and start flying to London. Its fast and not that expensive.

Perhaps we're better off without link
Mar 24 2010 by Kevan Carrick, The Journal


NEVER has the phrase on the wrong side of the tracks meant more than when Lord Adonis announced that Labour's plans for the multi-billion high-speed rail track did not include the North East.

Perhaps the phrase should be at the wrong end of the tracks because that is clearly where we are, not just in this case but in terms of many decisions taken in Westminster and Whitehall.

It would be interesting to know why the east coast high-speed rail track stops at Leeds.

What is the justification for such a decision – could it be that we are just not worth it?

The announcement that the line from Leeds to Edinburgh will be the subject of a rolling stock upgrade is but a palliative. Such ongoing improvements are long overdue. As I have said previously, connectivity to, from and within the region is a basic requirement for achieving economic growth.

Such investment in infrastructure would help the region to compete on a more even basis and add value to the regional economy. It would increase demand for space and begin to grow our economic activity and employment.

Without it we will see a drift away from the region by our active workforce, leaving behind an ailing economy which is a greater burden on the state.

The negative effect, in particular on our property economy, will have already begun. In general, property values in the north of England will have fallen relative to those below a line that dissects the country from Manchester to Leeds.

As Alan Clarke, chief executive of regional development agency One North East, said, the Government must ensure that upgrading some parts of the east coast line to high- speed rail and not others does not lead to areas of economic disadvant- age. On the other hand, we might have had a lucky escape.

High-speed rail will blight many homes and businesses along the proposed ‘Y’ route.

Uncertainty is the worst part about this as no one is quite sure where the new lines will go, so local property markets along the anticipated course will stagnate.

As work won’t start until 2017 (at the earliest) and is expected to take 20 years (at least) that is blight on a major, long-term scale.

When work does begin we will find out whose property is to be compulsory purchased and demolished and whose will have a 250mph supertrain running past the bottom of the garden.

There will be planning objections galore and those thinking of asking for compensation will need to navigate through the Town and Country Planning Act of 1990. It will be a bureaucratic and time- consuming process.

Looking at the glass half full, we have avoided all that and we still get half an hour cut off the journey to London.

I can’t be the only one thinking that by the time high-speed rail reaches Newcastle, in 30 to 40 years, it might not be needed – by that time scientists will have invented a pollution-free method of flying.

Perhaps we're better off without link
Mar 24 2010 by Kevan Carrick, The Journal

I can’t be the only one thinking that by the time high-speed rail reaches Newcastle, in 30 to 40 years, it might not be needed – by that time scientists will have invented a pollution-free method of flying.

Some interesting reflections, but this last comment misses the point entirely. Short haul flight is much more inconvenient and can only at best match the speed of rail, centre to centre - even at present. Having to trash out to the airport, check in some extended, commercially-driven period prior to travel, and reverse the process at the other end... no thanks.

Some interesting reflections, but this last comment misses the point entirely. Short haul flight is much more inconvenient and can only at best match the speed of rail, centre to centre - even at present. Having to trash out to the airport, check in some extended, commercially-driven period prior to travel, and reverse the process at the other end... no thanks.

It is for that very reason I would rather take a slower but more comfortable train any day...

Furthermore, the article kind of misses the point in that the real statement applying to the situation is "in 30-40 years time video confrencing and other similar technologies will be fully socially accepted, removing a large amount of the need for business related inter-city travel."

To be honest, high speed rail is kind of pointless. Why invest in a new high speed network, when the rest of the railway network is in such a state?

Also - introducing a new system that will not repay the govenment money used to build it for many decades to come, when at the same time trying to reduce the railways reliance on subsidys, etc is just contradictory.

Jon

I see the Conservatives have pledged to start work on HSR immediately if they are elected. That would be good news even if it is only high speed for us to Leeds.

I see the Conservatives have pledged to start work on HSR immediately if they are elected. That would be good news even if it is only high speed for us to Leeds.
They have also said that the North East will be on the 2nd section of the line.
It does't matter in anyway, as the time saving on the HSR line they propose isn't much of a benafit especially when compared against the cost.

We should all juust protest and start flying to London. Its fast and not that expensive.

Its horrible though.

Its weird but though it takes 10 times as long (or something silly anyway) I just far prefer the lack of stress and lesser sense of adventure that trains give.

likewise Tyr. you'd have to force me at gunpoint to get me to take the plane down when i can hop on the train instead. the only times i use the plane is when i have a connecting flight out of heathrow - even then i've used the train a couple of times and stayed over at a mate's the night before, taking away the early morning stress of a connecting flight out of newcastle.

I'd hate to ever have to go to London again, and god help me if I ever have to use that sorry excuse of public transport called the Underground again. I really can't stand the place at all.

So I think in future I will use other airports for connecting fligts if ever need them instead, or start my jouneys from Manchester or Glasgow instead.

No good for those of you who need to be in London from time to time though.

To be honest, I dont think the current journey times are all that bad. And the proposed reductions certainly come nowhere near to justifying the cost.

Really, the focus should be on local connections - given that in many areas passengers are able to take an inter city service to the centre, and are then forced to use busses or taxis to reach their final destination.

More electrification would also be a good idea too...

Jon

Here is a link to a report done redarding HSR for the Conservative party.

http://www.bowgroup.org/files/bowgroup/The_Right_Track_PDF.pdf

and, (as has probably been posed in many other places) is today's announcement from our coalition governments strategy:-

http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf

Transport is in S.30 on p 31
On High Speed Rail, they say:We will establish a high speed rail network as part of our programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for creating a low carbon economy. Our vision is of a truly national high speed rail network for the whole of Britain. Given financial constraints, we will have to achieve this in phases.

Is it just me, or does that plan suggest a brand new route between Leeds and Newcastle and Morpeth (or somewhere in Northumberland), that appears to go via Harrogate or similar?

And surely going Newcastle-London via Leeds and Manchester will actually increase the journey time?

Jon

Is it just me, or does that plan suggest a brand new route between Leeds and Newcastle and Morpeth (or somewhere in Northumberland), that appears to go via Harrogate or similar?

And surely going Newcastle-London via Leeds and Manchester will actually increase the journey time?

JonOn one map it seems to show the new line would go to somewhere just past Morpeth (I'm assuming to avoid to congestion that maybe caused to trains going to Morpeth and the Morpeth curve that limits train speed), and on another it suggest the new line could go up somwhere near the borders.

As for new route to London taking longer, I'm not so sure, the speed will of increased along the line, and I'm assuming less stations will also be on the line aswell. It is well know that a rail based HSR system can't really increase the journey time very much considering the cost, a major factor why I prefer the Maglev option.

Here is a link to a report done redarding HSR for the Conservative party.

http://www.bowgroup.org/files/bowgroup/The_Right_Track_PDF.pdf

I love the fact that nimby was included in the glossary of terms :lol::lol:

Hmmm, I'm (as mentioned earlier) unconvinced about the benefit of HSR by itself, when the money would be better spent electrifying existing railways, building mass transit in larger cities, increasing the loading gauge to the continental standard, etc.

Surely a small reduction in journey times (compared to the already reasonably fast 125s and 225s, which, nota bene, are not a lot slower than e.g. the average speeds of the German ICE) isn't the only advantage of the system, but by offloading faster passenger services to a new track, there would be a dramatic improvement in capacity on the ECML and WCML for freight and local services - not simply by subtracting the passenger trains, but by streamlining the operating speeds of the services remaining. I don't really remember seeing this as a main argument, though.

Here's an article that suggests HSR isn't all it's cracked up to be:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/17/high-speed-rail-policy-carbon-emissions

What's not to like about high-speed rail? The case simply hasn't been made

I wanted to be convinced of the benefits but the figures don't work – nor, for this little island, does a plan for perpetual growth

By George Monbiot

Hallelujah. Heathrow's third runway is history, the biggest victory for the environment movement since the scrapping of the last Tory government's road-building programme. Gone, too, is the planned expansion of Gatwick and Stansted (though the government has so far said nothing about airport expansion elsewhere). Instead we'll have a high-speed railway connecting London to Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. All hail to the new age of the train. Perhaps.

I don't dispute the problem. Both roads and railways are close to gridlock. New motorways, government figures show, scarcely improve journey times between city centres. Upgrading old railways snarls up the system even more, costs a fortune and adds little to their capacity.

New lines, by contrast, free up the old tracks for freight and local trains. They allow companies to run longer trains and additional services. High-speed rail cuts journey times almost twice as much as new conventional tracks while costing scarcely any more. The greenhouse gases it produces will be cancelled out by people switching from planes to trains. What's not to like?

What's not to like is that the case has not been made. The background data on which these claims are based isn't just sparse – in some cases it's non-existent. Where it does exist, it starkly contradicts other government figures. I wanted to be convinced, perhaps I still could be. But the Department for Transport's argument currently consists of several thousand pages of wishful thinking.

The last government's command paper contains a graph showing carbon figures for air, road, conventional rail and high-speed trains. This creates the impression that high-speed rail produces less than half as much carbon per passenger kilometre as conventional railways, and just a fraction of the emissions from cars. How did it produce these results? By selecting Eurostar – and apparently only the French section – as its example of a high-speed train. French electricity is mostly produced by nuclear power, so high-speed trains there create much smaller emissions than ours would cause. It also appears to have ignored the carbon costs of construction.

Compare this to a paper commissioned by the Department for Transport in 2007. When construction is taken into account, high-speed rail journeys from London to Manchester will produce 60% more carbon than conventional rail and 35% more carbon than car journeys. They will generate only 25% less carbon than plane travel (all references are on my website).

Throughout the recent government documents there's an assumption that the new railway will be sustainable because it will draw people out of planes. But buried on page 162 of the report on which the department has based its case, published in March 2010, are the figures that derail this assumption. Of the passengers expected to use the new railway, 57% would otherwise have travelled by conventional train, 27% wouldn't have travelled at all, 8% would have gone by car and 8% by air. In other words, 92% of its customers are expected to switch to high-speed rail from less polluting alternatives. Yet the same report contains a table (page 179) suggesting that the savings from flights not taken outweigh the entire carbon costs of the railway. It provides neither source nor justification.

The 2007 report shows that even if everyone flying between London and Manchester switched to the train, the savings wouldn't compensate for the extra emissions a new line would cause. "There is no potential carbon benefit in building a new line on the London to Manchester route over the 60-year appraisal period." A switch from plane to train could even increase emissions. Unless the landing slots at present used by domestic flights are withdrawn by the government, they are likely to be used instead for international flights. The government has no plan for reducing total airport space.

The business case the department has produced is just as shaky. The first thing that jumps out at you is that the government has conflated it with the cost-benefit analysis. They are not the same thing. The business case is as follows: the government shells out £25.5bn, loses a net £1.5bn in tax and gets £15bn back over 60 years from fares. Net loss to the government: £12bn. The cost-benefit analysis (which the government calls "the business case") produces benefits of £32.3bn. The department concludes that the scheme has a benefit-cost ratio of 2.7. But where did the £32.3bn come from?

Almost all of it is money deemed to have been saved by reducing travel times. Business customers, it says, will save £17.6bn by getting there faster; leisure customers £11.1bn. Nowhere in the documents are these figures explained or justified. I spent the whole of Monday pressing the Department for Transport, asking for an explanation of how it converted time into money. The department spent eight hours of frantic searching to discover, just before 5pm, that it did indeed have a model, which it described as "frightfully complicated".

By then my copy deadline was almost up, so I cannot tell you whether or not its consultants accounted for the fact that business travellers can work on the train, sometimes as productively as they can in the office. Nor can I say how it priced leisure travel. Are we to assume that an extra 20 minutes spent watching the telly when you get to your hotel is a benefit to which a price can be attached? How much is an hour with your granny worth? Whatever the answers may be, none of it translates into government revenue: assumed and equivocal benefits are being weighed against real spending.


Underlying these questions is a much bigger one: what's it all for? The department argues that high-speed rail is necessary because economic growth encourages people to travel more. High-speed rail, it says, will stimulate growth. This will encourage people to travel more, which will … For how much longer can this go on? At what point do we decide that this crowded little island is busy enough?

The answer from old and new governments appears to be never. The Department for Transport expects flying to increase by 178% between 2008 and 2033, driving by 43% and train journeys by 150%. It does not seek to cut this demand, only to accommodate it, until England becomes a giant transport corridor. Progress is measured by the number of people in transit. Civilisation will have reached its apogee when the entire population of Manchester takes the train every day to London and the entire population of London takes the train every day to Manchester. Perhaps we should resolve Britain's railway network into a single orbital system, so we can all remain in constant circulation. Then we'll know we're getting somewhere.

Yes, it's better to take a high-speed train than to fly. It would be better still not to have to make the journey at all, and to have some peace and stillness in our lives. And it would be better to have an honest, informed discussion about high-speed rail, rather than a wild guess based on unfounded assumptions and dodgy figures.

North business chiefs in high-speed rail call
May 26 2010 by William Green, The Journal


BUSINESS chiefs and MPs have stressed the North East must be included in a national high-speed rail network to boost the economy.

The calls came after the coalition Government yesterday promised to build a “truly” national system, but failed to offer any details on which areas might be included in that network.

No timescale on when the new network will be built was offered either, other than confirmation that it would be built in phases.

Special legislation will also need to be passed to even get the scheme off the ground, meaning it could be decades before the North East gets direct high-speed rail links.


REST OF ARTICLE HERE - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/05/26/north-business-chiefs-in-high-speed-rail-call-61634-26522237/

Just to provide with this link I recieved today from UKUltraspeed. They are in the running to create a Maglev route and have been informed by the new government that this is the case.

They also say that a Maglev line between Teesside and Tyneside is a possible initial line.

Here is the link for the whole document: http://www.500kmh.biz/UltraspeedMedia/Latest_News/Entries/2010/5/25_UK_Ultraspeed_welcomes_Queens_Speech.html

A maglev?
Wow....coolness to the extreme but....somehow I doubt that it'll ever happen. Especially when we're haviong trouble just paying the bills.

A maglev?
Wow....coolness to the extreme but....somehow I doubt that it'll ever happen. Especially when we're haviong trouble just paying the bills.I doubt it aswell, but it would be my preferd option.

Just to provide with this link I recieved today from UKUltraspeed. They are in the running to create a Maglev route and have been informed by the new government that this is the case.

They also say that a Maglev line between Teesside and Tyneside is a possible initial line.

Here is the link for the whole document: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=53913685

That link takes you to reply to this thread

I'm not sure about the usefulness of a maglev line to Teeside. One to Edinburgh would be much better, although massively expensive.

Is there that much Tyneside-Teesside traffic that needs to cut 20 mins off of the journey? Especially at such massive expense.

I'm not sure about the usefulness of a maglev line to Teeside. One to Edinburgh would be much better, although massively expensive.

Is there that much Tyneside-Teesside traffic that needs to cut 20 mins off of the journey? Especially at such massive expense.

You're both quite right to question that suggestion.
Add to the costs you both mention:-
- it is a technology which is completely incompatible with our existing road and rail (and water!) networks,
- it would use largely untested and wholly non-production components, with structural difficulties in creating branching and crossing routes,
- it requires a whole new set of lineside and signalling equipment, control and safety approvals, and
- it requires large new city centre stations to be constructed with almost straight access at each end.

The H&S exec would churn through this lot for years before anything happened! BTW what about the maglev equivalent of all those level crossings on the ECML alone (I think there was about 40 or 50 between London and Edinburgh).?

I do know that better Tyne-Wear-Tees links are pretty high priority for the future. I'm sure I remember seeing that was the idea with reopening Leamside-Newcastle to Middlesbrough.
Currently I've no idea how the situation is but the government thinks there's potential.

I do know that better Tyne-Wear-Tees links are pretty high priority for the future. I'm sure I remember saying that was the idea with reopening Leamside-Newcastle to Middlesbrough.
Currently I've no idea how the situation is but the government thinks there's potential.This question comes up quite often, so I'll reply at length.
Its not really surprising that the question keeps coming up, because the DfT and Network Rail have simply preferred to leave the question "on-hold", realising that a re-opened Leamside Line has the potential to increase overall capacity (passenger & freight traffic) and to provide diversionary routes, but that the cost is not currently justified by the benefits, recognising that the needs may increase dramatically in the future and the benefit may then justify the costs.

Here are the references from :
Network Rail
Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) - Easy Coast Main Line - 2008

York to Newcastle: Improvements to timetable spread
Operational analysis
A standard hourly pattern for the London services would allow a regular pattern of passenger and freight services on this section. However, to have an even spread of services would require significant infrastructure investment, such as reopening the Leamside route, to provide robust freight paths with reasonable journey times, but the level of benefit would be limited to journeys both joining and alighting at or between York and Newcastle.

Capability of Ferryhill to Newcastle
Potential alternative routes
Another diversionary route could be created by the reinstatement of the Leamside Line (which runs from Ferryhill on the ECML to Pelaw Junction on the Durham Coast Line).

Ananysis
The reinstatement of the former Leamside Line would require major capital expenditure, and it is very unlikely that this could be justified with network flexibility benefits alone.

Conclusion and/or recommendation
It is recommended that opportunities and requirements for using this diversionary route are examined by the 7-Day Railway workstream, taking into account planned headway improvements between Hartlepool and Dawdon, and the IEP programme. It should also confirm the level of benefits that could contribute to the Leamside reinstatement costs.

Freight
Running additional passenger services north of Northallerton by 2036 would probably require enhancement and increased use of the parallel route via Eaglescliffe, Stockton and Ferryhill; and reinstatement of the Leamside route (Ferryhill – Washington – Pelaw Junction) might be beneficial to provide sufficient overall capacity between Ferryhill and Newcastle. Both routes would need to allow intermodal freights to run at 75mph and have the necessary gauge clearance.


Possible requirements after 2019:
Re-instatement of the Leamside route (Ferryhill – Washington – Pelaw Junction).
This would provide additional capacity south of Newcastle.

Elsewhere, NR recognises :
"Long term opportunities and challenges
Stakeholders in the North East are keen to examine opportunities that the former Leamside route between Ferryhill and Pelaw via Washington may provide and have commissioned a study."

.
Not 'exactly' HSR, but . . .

High speed train set for East Coast line
August 12th 2010, by Adrian Pearson, The Journal


A HIGH-SPEED Pendolino tilting train could soon be running on the London to Scotland East Coast main line, it has been announced.

Pendolinos already operate on the West Coast main line and a new 11-carriage version could be used on the East Coast line from next July.

The train is being built in Italy by train-maker Alstom and is capable of speeds up to 140mph, although it will be restricted to 125mph on the East Coast line.

East Coast chairman Elaine Holt said: “I’m very pleased that East Coast has been asked to commission the new Pendolino on the East Coast line.

“While a final decision has not yet been made, if it goes ahead the train would add extra capacity to our fleet – and we’re sure our customers would appreciate the comfort and facilities that the new Pendolino has to offer.

“We’re currently talking with the manufacturers Alstom and other key industry partners to understand the challenges and opportunities involved in the commissioning and certification of the Pendolino on East Coast.”

The Pendolino is one of four ordered by the Department for Transport (DfT), with Virgin, which is seeking a two-year extension to its 2012-expiring West Coast franchise. The firm hopes to use them on West Coast.

Virgin Trains said: “We have made a proposal to the DfT to seek an extension to our franchise and one of the many benefits would be to assist the DfT with the tricky integration of new vehicles and offering options to put the new 11-car (Pendolino) trains into revenue-earning service earlier than previously envisaged, to provide maximum capacity before and during the Olympic Games in 2012.

“We are sure the DfT will not dismiss out of hand our revenue-earning proposals over an experiment on the East Coast and we are just waiting to discuss our proposals in more detail.”

The East Coast line has been operated in the public sector since last year after transport giant National Express gave up the franchise.


FULL ARTICLE HERE - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/08/12/high-speed-train-set-for-east-coast-line-61634-27046117/

Not 'exactly' HSR, but . . .No, its not, but it is a good story.

There were a few red faces on the day this story leaked.
(more on this (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1191875) thread)
It was a press release from Alstom, the Pendolino's manufacturers, which became public first. They need to be able to commission the new sets they've been given orders for somewhere. But East Coast (Directly Operated Railway Company) weren't prepared and hadn't any statement to make, hence the " . . if it goes ahead the train would add extra capacity to our fleet . . "

The madness is that the Department for Transport had confirmed the order for 4 new trainsets from Alstom, but does not have any contract in place to give these to Virgin (who currently are the only operator of Pendolinos in the UK), and indeed Virgin may not be awarded the renewal of their franchise in 2012 so may never see these new sets. The risk is that they would likely just go into storeage; (this is just another mad consequence of our disjointed railway system - that is already risk for some of the new Hitachi Javelin sets which Southeastern are strugging to run profitably). Alstom needed to avoid a delay between delivery and snagging/commisssioning so pushed DfT to allowing one to be commissioned on the ECML for a 9 month trial period and, er, forgot to coordinate this with EC. The one set being trialled on the ECML will presumably be used in their new Eureka timetable, launching in May 2010.

More crap from the DfT in my opinion. Standardizing our networks rolling stock should be a priority, and in the meantime the various types should be kept together to keep operating costs down.

I also totally fail to see why these sets will likely go into storage, when Virgin by all rights should be given an (indefinite?) extension of their franchise. After all, the WCML is better than ever thanks to their efforts, and Virgin have even talked of getting even more stock without the requirement for financial backing from the DfT.

Either way, this seems to reak of the search for a cheap alternative to the IEP program.

Jon

More crap from the DfT in my opinion. Standardizing our networks rolling stock should be a priority, and in the meantime the various types should be kept together to keep operating costs down.

I also totally fail to see why these sets will likely go into storage, when Virgin by all rights should be given an (indefinite?) extension of their franchise. After all, the WCML is better than ever thanks to their efforts, . . .I don't want to stray too far off topic, but . . .
No. The "efforts" were by Network Rail.
Virgin were the complainants. They argued that they'd been promised 140mph paths on the WCML but instead (at no cost to Virgin) they got the Pendolino trainsets to play with and an up-graded Trent Valley and a few adjoining sections of WCML.

They complained. But they didn't invest either.

When we look at our ECML offering to/from Newcastle, we'll be seeing the introduction of a new, high frequency and fast-ish timetable in May (the Eureka timetable), plus some other on-board enticements, all of which will be offered up to a new bidder (DB, Virgin, Stagecoach or whoever), but it won't be High Speed Rail. It won't have the one Pendolino to keep beyond the commissioning period (unless the WCML franchise goes wrong) and we won't have more restaurant services nor more staff nor more of a network.
In fact, all we'll get, is different paintwork and higher prices.

So nothing to look forward to at all.

how much time would the pendelino trains shave off a Newcastle-London,Newcastle-Edinburgh journey anyway?

None.

The one Pendolino which "if it happens", is given to EC for a commissioning period will operate to the same timetable as served by their existing trainsets.
There are some time savings in the new timetable (May 2011) which are to do with revised stopping patterns (ie Newark, Retford, Grantham will be served by the Leeds services). But there will be no increase in linespeed, no operation of the Pendolino's tilt and none of the new in-cab signalling which might have allowed them to operate at 140mph on the West Coast.

Anyway, Virgin are now bawling their heads off 'cos they're not getting the new trains to play with.

Here (http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/about-us/Latest-News1/New-East-Coast-Timetable/) is the draft of the new timetable. Note that its already changed since that was published.
The only way that the headline speed in "One service in each direction between Edinburgh and King’s Cross will call at Newcastle only with a view to meeting the Secretary of State for Transport’s aspiration for a journey time of under 4 hours" can be achieved is by making the whole ECML even more critically dependent on everything running to schedule and ensuring that the capacity leaves some slack in front of the one train that has to acheive the headline timing. Not good timetable planning - pure spin by Adonis.

What is the point in these new trains then? The money would be better spent on improving road transport ifrastructure and keeping our old trains.

What is the point in these new trains then? The money would be better spent on improving road transport ifrastructure and keeping our old trains.

possibly, but trains are what the Government prefers.

this is probably biased since it was someone from the RAC who said it, but apparently for every passenger mile travelled by train, the Government pays 22p whereas for every passenger mile travelled by road, the Government receives 6p.

I'd guess to get this figure, RAC have added up total receipts from Vehicle Excise Duty, VAT on fuel, fuel duty and possibly road charges which are publicly controlled and then added the amount they spend on road maintenance divided it by total road miles driven. But that of course would be flawed because you can't get an accurate figure for total miles driven in a year and also, VED isn't hypothecated despite the fact it is known as road tax.

But as I say, that's just a guess.

What is the point in these new trains then? The money would be better spent on improving road transport ifrastructure and keeping our old trains.Interesting point of view!
The majority of comment from rail users and from Train Operating Companies (TOCs) appears to have been that we have a desperate shortage of trains, particularly in some areas where even standing-room-only is over subscribed!

But to answer your specific question, these four are part of the allocation which the DfT will be offering whoever wins the WCML franchise bidding round for the franchise beginning in 2012. One of them merely replaces the train lost in the Greyrigg incident.
The DfT had pledged to provide a lot more new rolling stock and some surely will be provided, though some of these have recently been cancelled in the recent round of cuts.
But as it will be approaching 10 years since Alstom built a Pendolino for the UK market, it seems reasonable that they'd want to spend some time commissioning one of them for a time to evaluate and correct any defects, and we on the ECML have been asked to be the lucky guinea pigs!

North East transport at the centre of Tory debate
October 5th 2010, by William Green, The Journal


THERE is news last night that the Coalition is looking at new plans for high-speed rail that could bring trains to the region, and this was welcomed by the North East Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

But the Chamber urged the Government to make clear when the North East will be linked into the network, saying that current timescales envisaged by Ministers “will not provide any confidence that the North East will ever benefit”.

Elsewhere at yesterday’s Tory conference, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond came under renewed pressure to dual the A1 through Northumberland after he met campaigners.

Under the Government’s plans for high speed rail, the first phase of the network would be built between London and Birmingham by 2025-26.

The network would split into a Y-shape heading to Leeds and Manchester in the following seven to eight years. It would join the East Coast Main Line north of Leeds – with the plan for it to extend to the North East, although no timescales have been given for the third phase.

Journey times between Newcastle and London would be slashed from three hours and nine minutes to two hours and 37 minutes


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/10/05/north-east-transport-at-the-centre-of-tory-debate-61634-27401629/#ixzz11TH95mB8

It won't even make a massive difference to Newcastle. ~30 minutes saved. It's not really worth it.

. . . . . ~30 minutes saved. It's not really worth it.But that's not the purpose behind constructing a High Speed Line!
It relieves the congestion which already stifles our rail network, particularly where there are conflicts between long-distance passenger services, local and regional stopping services and freight. (In peak periods this leads to regular overcrowding and suspension of freight movements, most noticeable on the multi-purpose mainlines radiating out of London, some of which are just 2 tracks).

Its often been argued that what the railways REALLY need to solve that congestion is simply a series of upgrades to the existing bottlenecks (eg widening a viaduct, new tunnel bores through a hill, or split level junctions etc.). However, those sort of works are so massively expensive and disruptive to existing services, and a great many of them would be required, that it appears to be more cost-effective to construct a new, independent line.
So the plans for HS2 should be judged on whether they enable the network as a whole, to convey more passengers and freight and to provide more journey opportunities.
The 30 minute saving (London-Newcastle in each direction) is just a bonus.

North East transport at the centre of Tory debate
October 5th 2010, by William Green, The Journal


THERE is news last night that the Coalition is looking at new plans for high-speed rail that could bring trains to the region, and this was welcomed by the North East Chamber of Commerce yesterday.

But the Chamber urged the Government to make clear when the North East will be linked into the network, saying that current timescales envisaged by Ministers “will not provide any confidence that the North East will ever benefit”.

Elsewhere at yesterday’s Tory conference, Transport Secretary Philip Hammond came under renewed pressure to dual the A1 through Northumberland after he met campaigners.

Under the Government’s plans for high speed rail, the first phase of the network would be built between London and Birmingham by 2025-26.

The network would split into a Y-shape heading to Leeds and Manchester in the following seven to eight years. It would join the East Coast Main Line north of Leeds – with the plan for it to extend to the North East, although no timescales have been given for the third phase.

Journey times between Newcastle and London would be slashed from three hours and nine minutes to two hours and 37 minutes


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/10/05/north-east-transport-at-the-centre-of-tory-debate-61634-27401629/#ixzz11TH95mB8

:lol: so realistically it would be built by 2030, the 2nd phase by 2040, and final phase by 2050... whats the point?! 40 years just to catch up to where everyone else was in the 80's and 90's! Imagine what the rest of the world will have by then; complete joke!

It is a crazy time scale.

.
A very long and interesting article (partly reproduced below). As always, when the articles are first added to the 'online' version of the Journal, there are no graphics or photos. This article constantly refers to a 'graphic / plan', so hopefully it will appear later in the day . . .

Ringing the changes with new vision of a high-speed future for UK
December 16th 2010, by Andrew Hebden, The Journal


High-speed rail has the potential to benefit the economies of cities across the UK, but the proposed route is premised on a misleading and very London-centric view, argues Michael Bell.

After decades of talk and hopes that it would bring prosperity to the North, it now seems that a high-speed north-south railway will be built. It can’t be started before 2017 because Crossrail in London comes first and the financial crisis is causing further delay, but the thinking and planning starts early next year. It is important to think hard to ensure we get it right.

We should remember what Ernest J Simmons wrote in 1879 in his ‘Memoirs of a station master’: “The Fame [Thame] people clamoured loudly for the new line to be opened to Snorum [Oxford], which expected event was to be an immense boon, but which has, in reality, worked against them by bringing the trade of the town into competition with that of a much larger one, and by affording means of escape for commercial travellers and others who were obliged in the old days to spend the night. Railways drain small towns and feed large ones.”

We have got so used to seeing maps like that pictured opposite – the Farm Track Layout – that they have come to look reasonable. But look again; it connects all cities to London, but none of them to each other. The thinking behind it might have been to drain everything to London (Simmons’ “larger city” in this case) because that’s the way you lay out the tracks on a farm. There is no value in bringing the hay to the cornfield nor the cows to the potato field; all must be brought to the farmhouse, London, to have value. Traffic between provincial centres is not to be encouraged! But it may not be a result of calculation, it may be due to London-limited childishness.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/12/16/ringing-the-changes-with-new-vision-of-a-high-speed-future-for-uk-61634-27832085/#ixzz18GVmnnYT

It's disgraceful really. It seems we're planning a network that is already behind the rest of Europe and the world but it won't be ready for at the very least 10 years and probably more like 15 to 20.

I don't really buy the argument for Crossrail. Giving the most connected city in the country more infrastructure at the expense of the rest of the country is very short-sighted. It's a 'nice to have' not an essential.

.
A very long and interesting article (partly reproduced below). As always, when the articles are first added to the 'online' version of the Journal, there are no graphics or photos. This article constantly refers to a 'graphic / plan', so hopefully it will appear later in the day . . .

Ringing the changes with new vision of a high-speed future for UK
December 16th 2010, by Andrew Hebden, The Journal


High-speed rail has the potential to benefit the economies of cities across the UK, but the proposed route is premised on a misleading and very London-centric view, argues Michael Bell.

After decades of talk and hopes that it would bring prosperity to the North, it now seems that a high-speed north-south railway will be built. It can’t be started before 2017 because Crossrail in London comes first and the financial crisis is causing further delay, but the thinking and planning starts early next year. It is important to think hard to ensure we get it right.

We should remember what Ernest J Simmons wrote in 1879 in his ‘Memoirs of a station master’: “The Fame [Thame] people clamoured loudly for the new line to be opened to Snorum [Oxford], which expected event was to be an immense boon, but which has, in reality, worked against them by bringing the trade of the town into competition with that of a much larger one, and by affording means of escape for commercial travellers and others who were obliged in the old days to spend the night. Railways drain small towns and feed large ones.”

We have got so used to seeing maps like that pictured opposite – the Farm Track Layout – that they have come to look reasonable. But look again; it connects all cities to London, but none of them to each other. The thinking behind it might have been to drain everything to London (Simmons’ “larger city” in this case) because that’s the way you lay out the tracks on a farm. There is no value in bringing the hay to the cornfield nor the cows to the potato field; all must be brought to the farmhouse, London, to have value. Traffic between provincial centres is not to be encouraged! But it may not be a result of calculation, it may be due to London-limited childishness.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/12/16/ringing-the-changes-with-new-vision-of-a-high-speed-future-for-uk-61634-27832085/#ixzz18GVmnnYT


The full lenth PDF of Michael Bell's writings, is even more useful . . .

http://www.beaverbell.co.uk/

Isn't Crossrail mostly funded through the private sector?, atleast that is what the forumers from London say. If so how come it has a knock on effect to HSR when HSR will be funded from the public sector?

Very interesting argument that. Probably true as well.

Isn't Crossrail mostly funded through the private sector?, atleast that is what the forumers from London say. If so how come it has a knock on effect to HSR when HSR will be funded from the public sector?
Of the £15.9bn budget for Crossrail, £4.1bn will be raised from a "Supplimentary Business Rate" applied to businesses in the areas of benefit and about £5bn is expected to be raised through fares; that still leaves over £5bn to be funded by DfT.

See http://www.crossrail.co.uk/railway/funding

Following the CPR, around 10% of that overall budget is under pressure to be cut.

Disclaimer: My understanding of crossrail is limited...

Is this new system essentially a railway that goes under the business districts (City of London and Canary Wharf area), so the bankers/etc don't have to change trains from a Tube/DLR line to a mainline enabling them to get home quicker?

Disclaimer: My understanding of crossrail is limited...

Is this new system essentially a railway that goes under the business districts (City of London and Canary Wharf area), so the bankers/etc don't have to change trains from a Tube/DLR line to a mainline enabling them to get home quicker?Basically, yes. Thats all it is, just a non stop service that is a bit quicker. London already has a very good public transport system, Crossrail is just an extension of that. You really have to question any government that builds a railway line across one city instead of building one across the nation.

HSR should have alway came before Crossrail, no matter who is funding it.
I'd love to see the day when Newcastle gets a Crossrail line, it wil then mean that I could get from Whitley Bay to Newcastle via a train within 20 minutes, oh I can already do that?

Disclaimer: My understanding of crossrail is limited...

Is this new system essentially a railway that goes under the business districts (City of London and Canary Wharf area), so the bankers/etc don't have to change trains from a Tube/DLR line to a mainline enabling them to get home quicker?

Probably - that or it allows them to get their cleaners/secretaries/mail room staff from further afield and therefore can pay them even less...

Thats all it is, just a non stop service that is a bit quicker.There are 34 station stops on the Crossrail Route. Route Map (http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/maps/)
London already has a very good public transport system, Crossrail is just an extension of that.The network appraisal confirmed what many commuters and rail staff in the London region complain of regularly:- acute overcrowding and under-capacity of the network. The Rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS) provides an in-depth analysis of useage, capacity, gaps in provision and Options for improvement.
In common with High Speed 2, Crossrail is not being provided simply to enable new journey possibilities between points on the line - it relieves the existing congestion on existing routes and services which arise from an actual demand at present and a very significant anticipated growth.You really have to question any government that builds a railway line across one city instead of building one across the nation.The RUS is produced by Network Rail (NR)in conjunction with their industry partners. It is for the DfT to decide what budget is made available within each control period. That budget is allocated across NR's aspirations (though I admit that our rail partnership of NR, the TOCs and FOCs suffers badly from micromanagement by the DfT at regular intervals!)
The most recent RUS for London was published only last week. Here (http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/rus%20generation%202/london%20and%20south%20east/london%20and%20south%20east%20route%20utilisation%20strategy.pdf). It fully anticipates High Speed 2 but note that this is quite independent from the current committment to complete Crossrail.HSR should have alway came before Crossrail, no matter who is funding it.Perhaps. But they are both currently in development and plans for Crossrail began a decade or more ago. You might be pleasantly surprised to find support for HS2 remains quite strong, for various reasons, some of which relate to the potential I've mentioned for a new route to relieve pressure on existing parts of the network (for local services and freight as well as long distance travel).I'd love to see the day when Newcastle gets a Crossrail line, it wil then mean that I could get from Whitley Bay to Newcastle via a train within 20 minutes, oh I can already do that?The demand for that, and therefore the Cost Benefit Ratio, is not apparent from the RUS for our region - but perhaps you are being humourous!

I would agree that there are several transport interventions in the NE where rail would be an excellent solution, and I even argue that a HS2 which didn't come to Newcastle would benefit us (by reducing demand on the ECML elsewhere and providing more paths for freight and local services). I find it unfortunate that many of the critics of HS2 base their arguments on their personal loss or benefit and the contrasted gain or benefit to some other sub-division of our nations. The benefits of long-distance travel, if there are any, are to all of us, even if that only appears as less people crowding onto the same train (Crosrail and HS2), more journet opportunities (arising from new lines and/or fewer connections), more freight taken off the roads, or reduced fares.

If we, in the North East, were to be concerned at any of the priorities being proposed bt NR for the next control period, then I suggest it might be the continuing reluctance to even determine the costs of quadrupling the Welwyn Viaduct and the 2 little tunnels north of it. These are the biggest single impediment to growth and increased capacity on the ECML. If these are deferred on the basis of uncertainty about HS2 then we can all hope that HS2 will, somehow, free up enough capacity to meet the future demand for local commuter traffic and freight to provide us with the level of service we currently enjoy to and through Newcastle (on good days, at least!).

My first point meant that Crossrail only really takes out the need to change trains etc.

Also I accept that Crossrail was planned over a devade ago, but before then HSR should have been propsed, infact HSR should have been proposed before the tunnel, and atleast with the tunnel in mind.

I'd like to think that in time rail in our region can grow bigger, not only due to HSR but the introduction of un-use and new lines, with or without it being a part of the Metro system. The Blyth and North Tyne re-opening proposals are a great example of how many pasengers could beneifit from more railways in our region.

Welcome to post Thatcher Britain, aka the Empire of London. Its nothing knew, V for Vendetta was attacking this sort of thing way back in the 80s.

That HSR anywhere will still benefit the north east- yeah, of course.
But a east coast line actually serving us would give far far more benefits.

The Blyth and North Tyne re-opening proposals are a great example of how many pasengers could beneifit from more railways in our region.
North Tyne?
i've heard the Blythe talk but this is new.

Welcome to post Thatcher Britain, aka the Empire of London. Its nothing knew, V for Vendetta was attacking this sort of thing way back in the 80s.

That HSR anywhere will still benefit the north east- yeah, of course.
But a east coast line actually serving us would give far far more benefits.


North Tyne?
I've heard the Blyth talk but this is new.It's the same line. The North Tyne is the bit in Tyneside, it continued to Tynemouth, it follows the Metro Line from Benton allt he way to Northumberland Park.

North East is urged to fight for high-speed rail
December 29th 2010, by Adrian Pearson, The Journal

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/dec2010/5/7/the-transport-secretary-is-hoping-the-north-east-will-lead-the-fight-for-high-speed-rail-even-though-it-may-never-come-to-the-north-east-691217182.jpg

THE TRANSPORT SECRETARY is hoping the North East will lead the fight for high-speed rail in the face of fierce opposition from within the Conservative party.

Philip Hammond has urged the region to take part in a consultation on the preferred route of the new track even though the railway itself may never come to the North East.

Those tracks will, however, pass through land in many strongly-Tory constituencies, including those of Government ministers, where there is already a vocal opposition.

The £33bn route will travel from London to Birmingham and then split into two routes, one heading to Leeds and the other to Manchester. Trains on the new line will slow down past Leeds as they switch over to the current railway lines and head to Newcastle.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/12/29/north-east-is-urged-to-fight-for-high-speed-rail-61634-27899020/#ixzz19UTWc2Zq

So hang on - the route will now only go as far as Leeds and Manchester, plus it doesn't link the two northern cities to each other but instead brings them straight down towards London. The article NH posted above on 16 Dec seems right - all roads must lead to London because that's the only place you're allowed to do business. It already takes almost as long to get to Manchester from Newcastle as it does to London for crying out loud...

And now the Tories want us to wade into the fight against opposition to the High Speed Rail, despite us not benefitting from it (and despite the fact that we'll pay towards it with our taxes too).

"Sod off" seems like a reasonable response... Either that or "We don't want it built either".

It's been the case that it would only go as far as Leeds for a while now. I disagree that it doesn't benefit us as it still speeds up the journey time to London and may reduce overcrowding on the ECML.

So hang on - the route will now only go as far as Leeds and Manchester, plus it doesn't link the two northern cities to each other but instead brings them straight down towards London. The article NH posted above on 16 Dec seems right - all roads must lead to London because that's the only place you're allowed to do business. It already takes almost as long to get to Manchester from Newcastle as it does to London for crying out loud...

And now the Tories want us to wade into the fight against opposition to the High Speed Rail, despite us not benefitting from it (and despite the fact that we'll pay towards it with our taxes too).

"Sod off" seems like a reasonable response... Either that or "We don't want it built either".


A Tory minister wants the people of this region to do his campaigning for him, in favour of spending money on something which will only be of marginal benefit to us ?
"Sod Off" seems to me to be a very restrained response.

Surely the fact that you need to leave a minimum of 8-10 minutes for a change-over from your high-speed train onto the "normal" one which will take you to Newcastle will nearly cancel out the quicker journey as far as Leeds?

Assuming we're only talking about a reduction in journey time of about 20 minutes, I see no point in spending billions.

I don't think there'd be a change of trains, just the high speed ones going onto regular tracks and travelling regular speed.

Its silly though, I've said it a million times before- Tyne & Wear: 5th biggest urban area in the UK, Teeside: Well up there in the top 20 iirc. That's the east coast which would be served. In the west meanwhile you've Carlisle: Is that even in the top 50?

President of the AA criticises HSR plans
by William Green, The Journal, February 23rd 2011


THE president of the AA has called on the coalition Government needs to get a grip on transport policy and axe "ridiculous" high speed rail plans.

Edmund King, who is also a visiting professor at Newcastle University, questioned the benefits claimed for the proposed £33bn high-speed rail network, initially running from London to Birmingham before heading further north.

Mr King called for money to be spent upgrading the country’s creaking road network instead, including full dualling of the A1 through Northumberland. His comments to The Journal may alarm Transport Secretary Philip Hammond because the AA motoring organisation has 15m members.

The coalition has made high speed rail a flagship policy, particularly as it has ruled out new runways at airports in South East England. With work due to begin in 2015, Mr Hammond has declared it will transform the economy and environment by cutting journey times and providing an alternative to domestic air travel.

The first phase of the network is due to run between London and Birmingham, with the second stage running to Leeds and Manchester. But no concrete plans have been drawn up for it to continue to the North East.

“The whole thing, the debate over high speed rail and the benefits, quite frankly are ridiculous,” said Mr King. “Look at the money, look at what it is going to do, look at the capacity questions.”

Referring to a meeting with Mr Hammond, he said: “I looked him in the eye and I said: ‘Look okay, how many cars will it take off the A1 or M1 or the M40’? “He looked at his officials, and said: ‘Well, it’s not just a question of that’.

“I think for regions like the North East who still haven’t got a decent link on the A1 to Scotland that’s dual carriageway, when you him talking about multi-billion high speed rail, it is ludicrous.”

A Department for Transport source said: “While we understand motorists are always going to want more money for the roads, businesses in the North East are square behind our plans for high speed rail and see it as crucial to the country’s economic future.”


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/02/23/president-of-the-aa-backs-a1-dualling-61634-28216816/#ixzz1Elyb8xbn

North East businesses back high speed rail
by Adrian Pearson, The Journal, February 25th 2011

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/feb2011/5/2/the-government-must-not-be-distracted-from-ongoing-rail-issues-as-they-seek-to-promote-a-new-high-speed-rail-line-30523967.jpg
The Government must not be distracted from ongoing rail issues as they seek to promote a new rail line

LEADING North East businesses have told the Government they back its high speed rail plans and warned ministers not to delay further train investment.

Campaigners say the Government must not be distracted from ongoing rail issues as they seek to promote a new high speed rail line.

A consultation will be opened on the next step of the £33bn route next week. A letter sent to the Financial Times, signed by 69 big businesses, offered substantial support to the Government.

Among the signatories from the North East were regional chamber of commerce chief executive James Ramsbotham, Alastair MacColl, head of Business and Enterprise North East and Greggs boss Ken McMeikan.

Their letter read: “We believe the Government is right to develop a new high speed rail line linking the major cities in the Midlands, the north of England and London. A high speed rail link will give the economy a much-needed boost, particularly in the north and Midlands.”

In January The Journal revealed Transport Secretary Philip Hammond had made a plea to North East firms to take part in the consultation over high speed rail in order to offset the expected opposition from Southern Conservatives whose rural constituencies the new line will run through. Despite this plea, the high speed route will not itself come to the North East. The trains will switch from a new track to the existing slower line in Yorkshire.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/02/25/north-east-businesses-back-high-speed-rail-61634-28232669/#ixzz1Exgs8CBP

President of the AA criticises HSR plans

Well of course he's going to say that! It's his job, he's the president of a motoring organisation.

Doesn't mean he's wrong, though. I think HSR is an (expensive) false panacea; much better to spend the money on improvements and expansion of the existing network, including faster transpennine/cross country routes, reopening Woodhead tunnel and the Great Central (which would free capacity on other n-s lines) etc. And that is not to mention more local restorations such as the Ashington, Blyth & Tyne line.

I agree that there is a huge amount that needs to be done to the existing rail infrastructure before they spend billions on a whole new line.

MP challenged over East Coast Main Line
High Speed Rail (HSR) service
by Adrian Pearson, The Journal, March 25th 2011

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/dec2010/5/7/the-transport-secretary-is-hoping-the-north-east-will-lead-the-fight-for-high-speed-rail-even-though-it-may-never-come-to-the-north-east-691217182.jpg

A HIGH-SPEED rail train service to Newcastle will not reduce journey times past what can be achieved already on the East Coast Main Line, it has been claimed. Transport minister Theresa Villiers was in Newcastle yesterday to promote the new line and was asked why the North East is not seeing capacity problems solved ahead of any future investment in a high-speed line.

Documents presented to the Tyne and Wear Integrated Transport Authority yesterday showed the £33bn route will have a journey time of two hours 37 minutes. This, they say, is the same as what can already be achieved on the East Coast Main Line, but not many trains are timetabled at this journey time due to problems with capacity.

Network Rail says there is too much traffic on the East Coast Main Line to make the time regularly achievable. But for around £7bn, the East Coast could be improved to remove the pinch points which prevent faster journey times.

Ms Villiers said she was aware of the potential journey time on the existing line, but insisted that as far as capacity issues were concerned, there was only so much that could be solved on the East Coast without a new line. She said: “High speed rail will significantly shorten journey time and that will yield significant benefits. And in a future phase we think there is a really strong case for extending the line through the North East to Scotland.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/03/25/mp-challenged-over-east-coast-main-line-high-speed-rail-service-61634-28400838/#ixzz1HbKYSr8u

We do need better local rail before we need HSR.
But then HSR, even if it doesn't improve speeds, is adding more capacity, it frees up the conventional main line for local services. And at a cost not particlarly greater than building a new regular speed line.

And yeah, would be nice if they could reopen some lines instead but...they're not going to do that. So at least we're getting something in the neglected area of rail transport.

Are they doing HSR to the north then? I thought even their most far out plans had them stopping at Leeds.

Are they doing HSR to the north then? I thought even their most far out plans had them stopping at Leeds.


Yes, from earlier in this thread, it stops at Leeds . . .


North East is urged to fight for high-speed rail
December 29th 2010, by Adrian Pearson, The Journal

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/nejournal/dec2010/5/7/the-transport-secretary-is-hoping-the-north-east-will-lead-the-fight-for-high-speed-rail-even-though-it-may-never-come-to-the-north-east-691217182.jpg

THE TRANSPORT SECRETARY is hoping the North East will lead the fight for high-speed rail in the face of fierce opposition from within the Conservative party. Philip Hammond has urged the region to take part in a consultation on the preferred route of the new track even though the railway itself may never come to the North East.

The £33bn route will travel from London to Birmingham and then split into two routes, one heading to Leeds and the other to Manchester. Trains on the new line will slow down past Leeds as they switch over to the current railway lines and head to Newcastle.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2010/12/29/north-east-is-urged-to-fight-for-high-speed-rail-61634-27899020/#ixzz19UTWc2Zq

Just saw this:

http://www.newsbiscuit.com/2011/07/01/hornby-wins-contract-for-high-speed-rail-link/

Rather amusing, so I thought I'd share!

Jon

"MPs told high speed rail may widen north south divide"
"London will accrue the majority of the benefits of the investment”


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14113764

North regional development expert
questions high speed rail link benefits
by William Green, The Journal, July 13th 2011


MPS have been told that claims a new high-speed rail line will transform the British economy are “weak” by a leading North expert on regional development.

Professor John Tomaney, who is based at Newcastle University, also said London would probably be the biggest winner if a new high-speed rail line was built and that it would only benefit rich people.

He made his comments to the Commons transport committee yesterday after submitting a review of evidence about the impact of high-speed rail to an MPs’ inquiry into the Government’s plans for a new North-South link. Prof Tomaney said: “The evidence for high-speed rail to transform the economic geography of the UK, I think, is fairly weak. It is very difficult to find and we have looked hard for it.

“On the other hand I think the evidence that investment in metropolitan public transport systems can make a difference to local economic development is quite strong, certainly much stronger than the other case.”

He added: “If the objective of this is to transform the economic geography of the UK, you’d go about it in a different way to the way that is being proposed in ministerial speeches and DfT consultation documents.

“You could say that if I had £30-odd billion to spend on regional development, I wouldn’t necessarily be spending it on a high speed rail system.”

Prof Tomaney said evidence showed that Lilles in France – often highlighted for its success after the arrival of Eurostar – had progressed economically at the expense of surrounding cities. And there was “very strong” evidence that the “bulk” of gains went to a dominant capital.


Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/07/13/north-regional-development-expert-questions-high-speed-rail-link-benefits-61634-29042660/#ixzz1RyKtDr9F

The thing is though most of the stations will only be based in regional capitals in anyway, thats where the potential is, but it will still offer better transport links to surrounding cities. Sunderland would have a better rail connection if HSR came to Newcastle, I know it now has it's own direct rail link to the capital but it will still only be a Metro journey away from a faster journey to other cities on the network, the same as most residents in Tyneside.

I hate this talk about a north and South divide though. I've seen other places in the North and nowhere suffers as badly as the North East. IN rougher parts of Yorkshire, I.E. places like doncaster, the standard wage and jobs prospect is much better and higher then what is here, though Doncaster itself is a shit hole it's got good transport links to nearby places and is in easy travel arrangements to nearby places, like for example Leeds which has high end retail, plentiful of leisure facilities, and Sheffield which has an arena and Meadowhall shopping centre. It's also one train stop away from York. Birmingham and Manchester are nearby. Manchester and Liverpool both do well in terms of investment, yes both laces have their bad parts but in general their jobs prospects, independent business's, travel times etc are all better than here in the North East. The real divide is the North East and the rest of the mainland Britain.

The thing is though most of the stations will only be based in regional capitals in anyway, thats where the potential is, but it will still offer better transport links to surrounding cities. Sunderland would have a better rail connection if HSR came to Newcastle, I know it now has it's own direct rail link to the capital but it will still only be a Metro journey away from a faster journey to other cities on the network, the same as most residents in Tyneside.

I hate this talk about a north and South divide though. I've seen other places in the North and nowhere suffers as badly as the North East. IN rougher parts of Yorkshire, I.E. places like doncaster, the standard wage and jobs prospect is much better and higher then what is here, though Doncaster itself is a shit hole it's got good transport links to nearby places and is in easy travel arrangements to nearby places, like for example Leeds which has high end retail, plentiful of leisure facilities, and Sheffield which has an arena and Meadowhall shopping centre. It's also one train stop away from York. Birmingham and Manchester are nearby. Manchester and Liverpool both do well in terms of investment, yes both laces have their bad parts but in general their jobs prospects, independent business's, travel times etc are all better than here in the North East. The real divide is the North East and the rest of the mainland Britain.

North/South divide or North/North North/South divide. Doncaster V the rest of the North East: I think you answered your own debate in the second paragraph ;)

North regional development expert
questions high speed rail link benefits
by William Green, The Journal, July 13th 2011


MPs have been told that claims a new high-speed rail line will transform the British economy are “weak” by a leading North expert on regional development.

Professor John Tomaney, who is based at Newcastle University, also said London would probably be the biggest winner if a new high-speed rail line was built and that it would only benefit rich people.

Read More - http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-east-news/todays-news/2011/07/13/north-regional-development-expert-questions-high-speed-rail-link-benefits-61634-29042660/#ixzz1RyKtDr9F


It seems that not everyone agrees with ^^ him . . .


Journal, Wednesday 13th July 2011 . .
http://i698.photobucket.com/albums/vv345/manorpark_photos/Newcastle%203/HSTforNewcastle.jpg

.

It is ridiculous that they're building the line up the west coast where there's pretty much just Carlisle and avoiding the north east where we've one of the five biggest urban areas in the country and one of the iirc top 20.
Where would the trains go in Newcastle however? Not much space around for a new station or a new line. The airport? Trouble is if it hooks that far west its in super hilly ground coming into the newcastle area.

Could quite easily run up the Leamside Line, a new bridge over the Tyne to the east of the city and either terminate in the old east facing central station platforms, travel through the station and then westwards towards the Airport & Scotland or a new interchange station built somewhere around Heaton depot for travel Northwards.

The Leamside line could kind of work as an approach (though maybe better would be shunting local services onto Leamside and converting the current mainline to HSR, its a lot straighter- have a bi-pass to the east of Durham so it can still get its full local services and it'll make things straighter) but I've heard Newcastle station just wouldn't fit the HS trains and then you've the trouble of how to get out of the middle of Newcastle with the line.
Maybe the existing mainline then along past the metro and up the west city of the city with a station somewhere up there, the airport perhaps.

hmm....I smell a little bit of fun with maps to keep me occupied if the weather is bad tomorrow.

To find a place in the city centre or on the edge to accommodate a project like a new station is going to be difficult when this becomes a prospect in 20/30 years. Perhaps if the Baltic Business Park or what ever its called isn’t realised in that period perhaps that could some how come forward as a solution to host a station. Although I’m sure they are logistic problems regarding this option.

Jamie

It's not often that a large enough area of land becomes available in/near the City Centre for a new inter-city station, with the potential to connect to routes out in both directions and at about the right elevation. I wonder if the Ruben Brothers realise that their East Pilgrim Street site could be exactly that?

It won't be city centre, it's well known that if an actual HSR line does come to Newcastle (I say line meaning an actual new line and not just the trains crossing over to the ECML) then the station would be at the airport.

It won't be city centre, it's well known that if an actual HSR line does come to Newcastle (I say line meaning an actual new line and not just the trains crossing over to the ECML) then the station would be at the airport.

Yeah, so I hear.
Thinking about this though...isn't that adding an extra hour or so onto journeys? Not ideal :(

Been messing around. Maybe the east of the metro centre could be a good place for a Tyneside HSR station?

Been messing around. Maybe the east of the metro centre could be a good place for a Tyneside HSR station?

thinking of using the existing line to the Metro, or building a spur south of Team Valley travelling by lobley hill and dunston/whickham? I think the hill down to the Metro Centre may be a bit steep for the latter.

Gah, my file didn't post.

http://www.multiupload.com/VLYS2IUBHI

Is what I mean.

Was thinking existing line at first but then I realised that is the main place capacity is overloaded and there isn't much room for existing line expansion going past team valley so...putting more trains there isn't good.

So yeah, we're going to the west of team valley.

And true, the hill does look rather big, never noticed that. Even hugging as close to Dunston as possible puts us on a hill.
But...
If we're going west of Newcastle I don't see any other way, go much further west and the hills are even more numerous and bigger.
I suppose we could look to Japan where they're bulding their new train 60% underground through some super mountainy terrain; its a lot but it won't be as big a project as say cross rail. Or many other tunnels. A mile long tunnel (at most) is a bit of a baby.

East of Newcastle was also considered but...its very built up over there, not too many gaps. Would have to tunnel just as much and through built up areas, the river is a lot more of an obstacle over there too, have to keep in mind navigation down there.

Yeah, so I hear.
Thinking about this though...isn't that adding an extra hour or so onto journeys? Not ideal :(

Surely more like half an hour ?

Or the other way of doing it is you run the high-speed line past the town and put a link in to one of the existing lines eg the Tyne Valley or the ECML. Then the Scotland trains run straight through on a relatively easy route and the Newcastle ones turn off, have to slow down a bit - but just for the last few miles - and end up in Central.

It won't be city centre, it's well known that if an actual HSR line does come to Newcastle (I say line meaning an actual new line and not just the trains crossing over to the ECML) then the station would be at the airport.

Your right I've been scouring google maps and there is no easy way to get High speed to the centre of Newcastle and through the other side.

Basically we have a steep river gorge with a small city centre. Also look at the fundamental reason High speed is being looked at. Capacity; It's those 400 metre double deck European loading gauge trains that is the main point.

How full are the tracks through Newcastle and the station itself?

Also will a high speed line ever be built between Newcastle and Edinburgh. I can't believe more than one high speed line to Scotland will ever be built and everyone seems to favour the West Coast favouring the old Carstairs split. If that happened there would be no demand for intercity travel via the east coast from Scotland, other than people heading for Newcastle or Yorkshire. They could be covered by regional cross country services instead and Newcastle could become the end point for the high speed route.

This of course depends on implementation, re the Leeds and Manchester spurs. But I suspect by the time those are being built other parts of the country will be clamouring for their own lines to relieve the crush on their trains. If the West Coast line gets the full treatment, would there be much need for a new line past Darlington?

At the end of the day service that run on classic compatible lines will only be able to expand if there is space on the conventional network.

Which the line to Newcastle does not at the moment. How much capacity would a revived Leamside line make? In an ideal world a new line could quite easily scoot up as far as the Team Valley allowing a local service to develop along the old line.

In other words it could be a long long time before you see a high speed line be built out of Yorkshire. If the speed of the Network build out increases, and more and people need to travel by train because fuels to expensive and your electric car is only good for local journeys, then we may be looking at a different scenario.

If a high speed line does not need to go North of Newcastle where would you build a Station? It needs straight 400m platforms and you can't fit those in next to Central Station. It has to be near its customers for maximum benefit. I suspect the majority come from Newcastles wealthier suburbs, North Tyneside and the Tyne valley towards Hexham. It should also be on the Metro.

Looking near the city centre there aren't many options.

Manors has now almost developed, 10 years ago you could of done it, but it's one thing to propose to demolish some student flats but Northumbrias fancy Campus extension? Not sure about that. No hope either South of Central Station because of all the recent regeneration that will soon fill the site. St James is no good either as it is now the centre of the cities modern office district, no demolition here. There are on the other hand several undeveloped sites near Gateshead town centre, a bit of long travelator link to Gateshead Metro though. You could build a half underground station just West of the Gateshead Metro. The council would demolish those tower blocks west of the A184 in a blink of an eye to get the high speed station in Gateshead town centre.

If a new station can not be built at Central station then Gateshead is the most logical point, as it is on the main road and the main Metro line, with a direct line to those Northern Suburbs.


If on the other hand a new line was to continue to Edinburgh then an Airport station would be cheaper and very accessible by car. But no high speed trains would access the city centre then.

We really do need HSR between Darlington and Newcastle at the least.
South of Darlington and we already pretty much have HSR and no major capacity problems that I know of.
North of Darlington though and we've a lot of need for local trains, some huge capacity problems and very curvy slow track.

How about a Tyne station?! It's about 400m from either side of the Tyne Gorge at bridge level, so a new station on a new bridge, walk one way for Newcastle, and the other way fro Gateshead... erm, I don't know about railways, so I have of course ignored the myriad of problems regarding actually getting the lines to and from this imaginary bridge station!

How about a Tyne station?! It's about 400m from either side of the Tyne Gorge at bridge level, so a new station on a new bridge, walk one way for Newcastle, and the other way fro Gateshead... erm, I don't know about railways, so I have of course ignored the myriad of problems regarding actually getting the lines to and from this imaginary bridge station!


Tyne Bridge Station?

Build it on here, like this . . .

http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5139/5569339318_c9b899e08b_z.jpg

:)

DELETED