http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/business-news/london_tube_blackmail_angers_northern_high_speed_rail_lobby_1_3521905

London Tube ‘blackmail’ angers Northern high-speed rail lobby
Wednesday 29 June 2011 06:00

LONDON transport bosses have been accused of “blackmail” after saying that a new underground line will have to be built if the North gets high-speed rail.

Transport for London deputy chairman Daniel Moylan told MPs that the new line would be needed to run through Euston station in London if the high-speed line comes to Yorkshire and the North West.

But the comments – which came as Yorkshire transport bosses warned that investment in other rail infrastructure should not be neglected because of high-speed rail – have sparked anger from civic leaders in the North after the billions of pounds poured into southern transport projects such as Crossrail, Thameslink and the Jubilee Lines in recent years.

Sir Richard Leese, leader of Manchester City Council, said London has had a “generous transport settlement”, adding: ”Now there is a transport investment that helps the whole country including London, it’s quite unreasonable for him to try and use it to seek new funding for a new London-only Tube line.

“Doesn’t he realise how this sort of special pleading looks to the rest of the country?

“All of us deserve transport improvements that will help boost the national economy.

“City leaders in England, Scotland and Wales have united behind HS2 even though some won’t benefit for decades and that means and we should not be undermined by this parochial attempt at civic blackmail.”

Mr Moylan’s comments came during a select committee inquiry into the £32bn high-speed rail scheme, which will see an initial 225mph line from London to Birmingham before branching north to Leeds and Manchester by 2032. The project is calculated to be worth billions to the Yorkshire economy.

But the project is exposing tensions between North and South, with a provocative advertising campaign by the Yes to High Speed Rail campaign – which was holding an event to gather support in Leeds yesterday – featuring the slogan “Their Lawns or Our Jobs?”, a reference to opposition from those living near the planned route in the Chilterns.

Yesterday MPs warned campaigners to tone down the rhetoric amid fears it will alienate potential supporters.

“I would caution you not to polarise the debate in this way,” said Tory MP Iain Stewart. “There are people and campaign groups who back high-speed rail but not this particular scheme.”

Professor David Begg, former chairman of the Northern Way group of regional development agencies and now heading the Yes to High-Speed Rail campaign, defended the campaign, saying that some people opposing the project are in a “very, very privileged position economically” while some benefiting from it are not.

He also warned that the project was not yet a “done deal”, citing opposition from major Tory party donors as being a threat to the scheme. It has previously been reported that David Allen, who gives about £50,000 a year to the party and whose estate in Northamptonshire is on the route, is threatening to withdraw support for the Tories as is Lewis Garfield, an industrialist in Northamptonshire.

Prof Begg said: “History tells us political decision making can be quite fickle. It’s especially challenging for a Conservative Government, a coalition Government, who have a number of big donors to the Conservative party threatening to withdraw funding.

“This is particularly challenging for Conservative members and Ministers who are pushing the scheme. I don’t think it’s a done deal by any means. It’s especially challenging in a difficult economic climate like this.”

Imperative that this gets off the ground its embarrassing to think how far behind our rail infrastructure is in comparison to Europe.

We must remember that Londoners, and those in the South-east, are completely up their own arses and are blissfully unaware of the North of England. Many of them, however, seem to have heard of Scotland - probably because the Queen goes there for a holiday from time to time.

I shouldn't worry about it too much, though, because this country has had it!

I say we dig a huge canal between the Mersey and the Humber and declare independance.

I really think they should link HS2 to LBIA and through to Bradford. It is planned to have spurs to Brum and Manc airports. LBIA is currently much smaller than these but due to the catchment area has potential to be as big. A rail link would be a great stimulus for the airport owners to invest in the facilities and runway.

A link would also have major economic benefits to Bradford (and boy they need it)through the obvious air related spin-offs but also better train connections to NW Leeds, Harrogate and York within LCR but also to places outside our region.

It would also help towards LCR becoming a global destination.

I really think they should link HS2 to LBIA and through to Bradford. It is planned to have spurs to Brum and Manc airports. LBIA is currently much smaller than these but due to the catchment area has potential to be as big. A rail link would be a great stimulus for the airport owners to invest in the facilities and runway.

A link would also have major economic benefits to Bradford (and boy they need it)through the obvious air related spin-offs but also better train connections to NW Leeds, Harrogate and York within LCR but also to places outside our region.

It would also help towards LCR becoming a global destination.

Indeed. If for the business and manufacturing investment if nothing else. Keep in mind Germany's growth rate this quarter (5% I believe?). Off-the-scale for most countries, but sustainable because of it's specialised manufacturing capablities (amongst other things) which, in turn can only be sustained by the incredible infrastructure - rail, autobahn and communications (great broadband etc).

If Leeds, or the UK as a whole is to succeed economically long-term, we have to give SERIOUS consideration to our high-tech manufacturing sector...

HS2 can help this of course, but key improvements need to be made in air travel and the local access to air travel itself, like you say.

I worry that HS2 may slightly help enlarge the North/South divide when it comes to services, as regional headquarters become less important...but maybe the benefits outweigh the negatives?

Imperative that this gets off the ground its embarrassing to think how far behind our rail infrastructure is in comparison to Europe.

Only Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Holland, I believe, have high speed rail. If you want to see horrible, slow rail go to Scandinavia or Ireland.. or better yet the US or Canada.. :P

It was to my understanding that Phillip Hammond already said that HS2 would go to Manchester and Leeds last year.. what on earth has occured since then? This is all so confusing.. or maybe I'm not paying attention enough!

Only Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Spain, Belgium and Holland, I believe, have high speed rail. If you want to see horrible, slow rail go to Scandinavia or Ireland.. or better yet the US or Canada.. :P


Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Spain all have a larger land area than the UK, so you'd expect them to benefit from HSR, but Belgium and Holland?

If they feel the need for a HSR system, surely we should have one!

Not quite what it seems. To grasp HSR properly you need to think of Europe as one place, not separate nations. The Netherlands and Belgium have HSR for international connections- London - Brussels for example. It's one European High Speed Rail Network that we're working towards, not separate national networks.

The issue I have with this is all lines link to London. We should have high seed connections between the core cities like they do in France, Spain and Germany.

If Leeds, Manchester Newcastle and Liverpool were linked by a high speed line covering the route in say just over an hour it would revolutionise the north as it could function as one huge agglomeration that could rival London. Think our a mini megacity of 14 million linked by high speed rail!!!!

Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Spain all have a larger land area than the UK, so you'd expect them to benefit from HSR, but Belgium and Holland?

If they feel the need for a HSR system, surely we should have one!

Surely the thing about Belgium and Holland is that they're crucial to the integration of western European rail. It's hard to get from France to Denmark or northern Germany directly without going through one or both of them. Hence the high speed through Belgium and Holland. In the same way, HS2 isn't really for Warwickshire, Ox and Bucks commuters but for the major cities several hundred miles north. There's also the point that even if HS2 isn't built, then new infrastructure will have to be, as the existing network will reach near capacity in ten years. New HS lines will also free up space for long distance freight movements, as has happened in France.

Not quite what it seems. To grasp HSR properly you need to think of Europe as one place, not separate nations. The Netherlands and Belgium have HSR for international connections- London - Brussels for example. It's one European High Speed Rail Network that we're working towards, not separate national networks.

Ah, I see what you mean. Thank you.

The issue I have with this is all lines link to London. We should have high seed connections between the core cities like they do in France, Spain and Germany.

If Leeds, Manchester Newcastle and Liverpool were linked by a high speed line covering the route in say just over an hour it would revolutionise the north as it could function as one huge agglomeration that could rival London. Think our a mini megacity of 14 million linked by high speed rail!!!!

I completely agree, but where these decisions are made (Westminster?) they are unaware of the existence of the North of England!

Some are pushing for the route to be built "backwards" - ie starting with Leeds/Manc to Brum... Bet that idea never even crossed the planners minds! Great idea though!

Some are pushing for the route to be built "backwards" - ie starting with Leeds/Manc to Brum... Bet that idea never even crossed the planners minds! Great idea though!

This really has to be turned into more than an idea - It would be great for the North, bringing benefits to northern cities faster than if it was to be built London outwards. Construction should take the same amount of time (fingers crossed) so there shouldn't be too much opposition if this was raised.

This really has to be turned into more than an idea - It would be great for the North, bringing benefits to northern cities faster than if it was to be built London outwards. Construction should take the same amount of time (fingers crossed) so there shouldn't be too much opposition if this was raised.

Of course there would, I can imagine MP's from London saying "No, this is unacceptable" just "because":nuts:

whether we like it or not the British economy is London-centric, so any cost benefit analysis would indicatea lines leading into London as offering a better return.

The other side of this is that a line between Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds would not deliver as great a benefit and therefore it would be difficult to argue for the huge investment required. Thats not to say it won't happen in the future; but once the Northern Hub is introduced Leeds-Piccadilly will only be 40 mins anyway.

Even then though, the speed could be improved. London - Ashford is 90km but 37 minutes on HS1. Leeds - Manchester is 70km so journey times could be cut to 30 minutes or under.

Some are pushing for the route to be built "backwards" - ie starting with Leeds/Manc to Brum... Bet that idea never even crossed the planners minds! Great idea though!

Yeah interesting idea. It would be one way to guarantee the route gets finished. I think we can safely assume the proposed completion dates are pretty optimistic as it stands and I would be surprised if it makes it as far as Birmingham to be honest.

Even then though, the speed could be improved. London - Ashford is 90km but 37 minutes on HS1. Leeds - Manchester is 70km so journey times could be cut to 30 minutes or under.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial, its currently at least two hours Leeds-Liverpool. I just don't see there being much likelihood of a case being made as the huge costs (probably even greater due to the penines) would not deliver an 'acceptable' benefit to those commiting the spending.

That's the entire problem with this country- that everything is decided on a cost-benefit analysis. It locks places/people into a downward or upward spiral that is hard to reverse. And it's very short sighted as while the monetary cost may be high, the benefit to the environment, society and long term economy may be astronomical.

This is surely the case in the north. The immediate business case (from the government's point of view) is not there, but there's an opportunity to link together several multi-billion pound economies to create a megacity through High Speed Rail.

I suppose the only opportunity will be Tax Increment Funding, which is proposed in Nick Cleggs localism bill. We may see a lot more local infrastructure projects as a result.

I understand why cost-benefits are used, it is after all taxpayers money being invested. However, as you say, it becomes somewhat self-fulfilling in areas that need to be regenerated.

But the ultimate fact is that the average joe doesn't know what's good for them. The Thameslink upgrade money would have been much better going to upgrades of rail in the north. It would have delivered much wider economic and social benefits, but the immediate cost-benefit for Thameslink is better. It's fundamentally flawed.

Their lawns our jobs?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jun/20/high-speed-rail-campaign-lawns-jobs

From what I hear the London-Birmingham link is justified as that route is in real need of increased capacity to handle more passengers and freight... and these days if you're going to build a new line it isn't much more £ to make it high speed.

I guess it then makes sense to extend it to Scotland where you'll see the greatest time savings but I don't really see much point in going to Leeds from London via Birmingham. Especially when you have the East Coast main line which gets you to London in 2hours. Surely investing a couple of billion or so on the East Coast mainline to could see more cost effective time savings to London (and Scotland) as the route is quite sparsely populated and flat.

The first thing to be noted is that the plan for HSR in the UK has really come about due to rail overcrowding rather than the need/desire to link cities together quickly.

Secondly, Leeds - London via Birmingham (well, the West Midlands), would still cut the journey time by an hour to 80 minutes. However, I accept the point that ECML upgrades could turn it into a high speed line. The billions spent on the WCML could have made for a HSL on the ECML. A few expensive things would be needed though:
1) Doncaster - Leeds could never be high speed. It would either need a new line or running trains via Hambleton Junction into Leeds from the East. Major upgrades would then be needed here though in terms of electrification and new tracks.
2) One thing holding the ECML back is the mix of freight, commuter, regional and intercity services. It needs to be four tracks all the way to accommodate high speed services and other services.
3) Signalling, overhead lines and tracks would need to be upgraded. I believe they're only able to accommodate 225km/h at the moment (Although limited to 200 due to in-cab signalling issues).
4) New sections of line would be needed to bypass some of the smaller towns like Retford and Grantham. I assume only one stop (if any) would be wanted between Leeds and London, maybe at Peterborough to allow access to the East Midlands and Norfolk/Cambridgeshire.

The ECMLs clear strengths though may allow it to compete with HS2 on price. Journey times between Leeds and London could get down to 1hr 40 on the ECML if there are non stop journeys and trains are able to run up to 225km/h (potential under IEP).

If journey times on the East Coast can relatively cheaply get down to 1h40 then that's only 20 minutes slower than HSR via Birmingham. Whilst I think an extensive HSR network would be amazing I think I would rather transport money was spent on local schemes that people (not just businessmen) can use everyday. If HS2 costs £30bn in total then you could have 30 Leeds supertrams instead.

On your points:

1. Surely this should be done anyway whilst HSR would also need a new alignment.

2. Surely four tracks is easier and cheaper than a new alignment and less likely to come across NIMBY protests.

3. Some of these need upgrading every now and then anyway so just do them to a higher speed standard. Current rolling stock must need replacing sometime soon so by purchasing new rolling stock already kitted out with in-cab signalling implementation costs will be reduced.

4. Trains that don't stop at Retford and Grantham seem to go through pretty fast so the lines can't be that slow around there.

I don't think t'd be a cheap upgrade- I mean when I say 'upgrading overhead lines', I'm really saying the whole line would need rewiring. I believe the lines are not tight enough to support such high speed trains.

I believe the upgrade of the West Coast Mainline to East Coast standards cost around £10bn so I think it'd be a similar cost for the East Coast Main Line. In comparison Birmingham - Leeds/Manchester will be £16bn.

Claims that HSR will exacerbate and not reduce the north-south divide with companies potentially relocating to London with the creation of the new rail link. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14113764

I would have thought a faster train service would always be a good thing as surely there would still be advantages such as the cheaper cost of living in the north as opposed to London and the effect HSR would have in bringing the north closer to London although I can see the point about the potential relocation of companies surely such a risk could be offset by the benefits of this scheme.

Still it would of course be an awful long time before this line is constructed (if it is constructed at all) and it would benefit the London Euston - Birmingham - Manchester / Liverpool corridor first with the initial construction of the London - Birmingham line with the second phases from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds not coming until later.

If it is going to take so long to construct HS2 are any improvements to the ECML and MML proposed such as additional flyovers at the likes of Newark or an additional pair of tracks at the Welwyn Viaduct or perhaps an electrification of the Midland Mainline from London - Sheffield (presumably extending to Leeds / York)?

I can see where they're coming from, and I'd be in even more support of a Liverpool - Manchester - Leeds line but this is the only major transport investment we're going to get for a long time. Seize the opportunity.

The only conclusions we could possibly make are based on the effects of the ECML electrification. Better links to London helped make Leeds the financial capital of the north rather than resulting in a mass movement to London. I'm in the camp of thinking that companies will be attracted to Leeds and Manchester because of cheaper space but also being able to have excellent access to London.

1 strength would be London commuters would be better off going to Birmingham than Heathrow!!

Its not going to happen for many reasons, the london centric twats will claim that it will destroy northern city's bullshit !!!!!!!! its will give many companies an easy way to cut cost by moving there offices to leeds and manc ect..... cost of rental of offices and salaries are both significantly less than in london, so again we will hear all this crap talked about we dont need HSR to protect the london dominance of the country......

I've always found Heathrow to be quite a good airport. People complain about it but in honesty, I've never had any real problems there. On the other hand, Leeds is a nightmare.

I don't see why any firm would want their staff based in London, to serve the North using HSR - surely base them in the north to serve London by HSR and then it's cheaper? Also there is then more benefit to being based in the North than presently, since all the London services/amenities are much closer (time-wise).

Exactly my point leedslad, the building of HSR would lead to many many jobs relacating outside of london and we could not have that so we will have to start a scare campaign stating the opposite, london biast shit.

HSR should not and has no need to go to birmingham at all, the travel time from brum to london is not that great, and therefore should go to the north before any where else.

But mark my words they might build the first section to brum but it will be well over due and over cost on purpose and then the second section will be put on hold and never get built or it will be delivered well over budget and timescale, i bet it will not get of the drawing board IMHO.....

HSR is about fixing capacity problems between Milton Keynes and Euston, very little to do with speed improvements.

The reason this is being built is not as you seem to suggest TOTL.

HSR should not and has no need to go to birmingham at all, the travel time from brum to london is not that great, and therefore should go to the north before any where else.

But mark my words they might build the first section to brum but it will be well over due and over cost on purpose and then the second section will be put on hold and never get built or it will be delivered well over budget and timescale, i bet it will not get of the drawing board IMHO.....

Though a cynic myself, I'm can't agree with what is essentially a conspiracy theory against the north.

I don't think we should dismiss evidence based report produced (and linked above) out of hand, unless you're aware of a reason the author wanted to put the boot into HSR?

Regardless of whether it 'geographically rebalances' the economy, it will increase capacity. If we don't plan for increased usage on the existing network congestion will damage regional economies.

Whilst I'd love HSR, a mass subsidy of the existing rail network to make it cheaper and more reliable (in the style of Germany) would perhaps be more useful.

Deregulation of the rail network was the worst thing the government ever did in their orgy of privatisation. State-owned enterprises on the continent are clearly far superior. Not leasing all the trains off private finance organisations would be nice too.

They didn't de-regulate the rail network, in fact the activities of the train operators (especially the vast majority which operate under DfT contracts) are very heavily regulated for the most part. Costs do seem to have spiralled though, no doubt in part due to the leasing, and this coupled with a government policy to aim for 50% farepayer cost coverage has led to the huge fare increases.

Many aspects of other countries rail networks are better than ours such as fares and ticketing (though German walk on fares are rarely all that cheap either), timetabling and integration of services, integration with other modes, electrification levels, maybe even reliability.

On the other hand, nothing outside of the purpose built HSR network matches the service speeds on things like the ECML, WCML and GWML, and French public transport timetables in general rarely make any sense whatsoever in my experience. Service levels are often rather low too.

We reformed our rail industry following the EU's first rail package mandating the separation of infrastructure from operations. This led to the deregulation of freight and international passenger services, and now they are looking at mandating some sort of market opening for domestic passenger services as well, probably through DfT style contracts coupled with open access HSR. The Dutch are to tender their main rail network in five years with branch lines already done, Italy seems to have new private operators opening high speed services already, even Austria has a new private operator competing with OEBB as far as I know? It will be interesting to see how long these state services last.

EU transport policy these days seems to be that marketing opening in some form or another will automatically lead to a huge improvement in quality, and consequent improvements for the modal share of public transport, rail freight etc, it will be interesting to see how this works out in practise. And with Estonian communist-turned-free market liberal Siim Kallas as the transport commissioner and the vice president of the European Commission, under a somewhat right wing European Parliament, I suspect this way of thinking shall prevail for some time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-14251368
Institution of Civil Engineer backs HS2 high-speed link

The high-speed rail link would be good value for money and encourage long-term economic growth, the Institution of Civil Engineers (Ice) says.

HS2, which would cost a total of £32bn with £17bn spent linking London and Birmingham, is expected to be built by about 2026.

Ice said the proposed route would free up capacity on the UK's "congested" rail network.

Earlier this week, a think tank said the plan was "economically flawed".

A report by the Institute of Economic Affairs said HS2 would require a £1,000 contribution per income taxpayer and was not commercially viable.

'Time to invest'
The high-speed route is set to run through rural parts of Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Northamptonshire, Warwickshire and Staffordshire.

There are also plans for a Y-shaped section taking branches to Manchester, Leeds and possibly further north, which could be finished by 2033.

Many residents against the plans have got together and formed an action group called Stop HS2.

But Ice spokesman Steven Hayter said: "The opportunity should be taken to invest in growth by providing a new railway that is fit for the 21st Century - significantly increasing capacity, strengthening connectivity between Britain's city regions and linking up with the trans-European rail network.

"The time to invest is now and we endorse the government's strategy.

"In addition to better connectivity between regions, the benefit of improved connectivity to the capital should also not be understated.

"Faster, more reliable connections to London could propel a region's economic competitiveness and act as a catalyst for regeneration as city developers, planners and businesses alike take advantage of the opportunities, especially in the Midlands, the North and Scotland.

"We believe the benefits are not limited to those cities served by HS2. Many will benefit from released capacity and significantly improved services on the existing lines, such as communities that are currently not well served by the West Coast main line."

http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/main-section/a_million_jobs_hinge_on_green_light_for_fast_trains_1_3617781
A million jobs hinge on green light for fast trains
Wednesday 27 July 2011 06:00

ONE million jobs are under threat if the Government does not build a high-speed rail network connecting London with the North, according to new research which warns that without it Britain also risks being left behind by its competitors.

Experts say the planned £32bn project would transform the economies of the eight major city regions outside of London, closing the North-South divide and generating more than quarter of a million jobs in Yorkshire alone.

However, the Department for Transport is locked in a fierce battle with campaign groups along the first stage of the line, from London to Birmingham through Tory heartlands in the Chilterns and rural Buckinghamshire and Warwickshire. A number of party donors have threatened to pull their funding if the line is built.

The latest research, complied by engineering firm Arup and economics consultancy Volterra, claims one million jobs rely on the support of the Government‘s investment in high-speed rail. It states that 400,000 jobs could be created in core cities outside London – Leeds, Sheffield, Birmingham, Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle and Nottingham.

The report found there could be substantial regeneration benefits along the first stage of the line alone, including 15,000 homes and 70,000 jobs estimated to be worth £4.4bn per year.

The chairman of Volterra, Bridget Rosewell, said: “Our transport system cannot keep up with the growing demand by businesses for domestic and international travel and the only way of delivering hundreds of thousands of travellers to city centres each day is by train.

“Retro-fitting our existing network is uneconomic, disruptive and fails to meet the demand. That is why a new national high-speed rail network is critical to Britain’s future economic prosperity.”

The Yorkshire Post campaign Fast Track to Yorkshire has been calling for a direct route from the region to the capital – a plan now supported by the Government, which has put forward a Y-shape route that splits after Birmingham, travelling east through South Yorkshire and Leeds and west towards Manchester.

The Government has launched a national consultation process and Transport Secretary Philip Hammond this week urged supporters to make their voices heard before the Friday deadline for responses.

Volterra’s research warns the UK risks being left behind by international competitors if the investment is not made – Britain ranks only 34th in the world for its infrastructure and sixth in the G8 group. The UK only spends 1.5 per cent of GDP on infrastructure, half that of France.

It states that British businesses need a significant investment in inter-city transport infrastructure to reach new markets and recruit the best people, and that firms in the North will be hardest hit if this is not carried out.

High speed rail will encourage economic growth in the core cities by up to three per cent, it says.

The leader of Sheffield City Council, Julie Dore, said: “High speed rail is key to delivering a better balanced national economy, supporting the economic future of our cities. Backtracking on high-speed rail would be a massive step backwards for job creation in Sheffield.”

The leader of Leeds City Council, Keith Wakefield, said: “We need this investment to provide jobs and training opportunities, particularly for this city’s young people, and to tackle what is a growing economic divide between the North and South.

“Improving transport links between Leeds and other cities will create sustainable, long-term economic growth in the North.”

By the time HS2 is finished we will still be behind in terms of high speed rail..

http://wymetro.com/news/releases/110726hsrsimultaneous
Simultaneous construction for High-Speed Rail beyond Birmingham

Metro Chairman welcomes Minister’s pledge on Leeds & Manchester routes.

Metro Chairman Cllr James Lewis has welcomed the pledge made by Transport Secretary Philip Hammond to the BBC’s Look North that high-speed rail links to Leeds and Manchester will be built at the same time.

Mr Hammond told Look North correspondent Alan Whitehouse that once the high-speed line had reached Birmingham, ‘we will then build out the Manchester and the Leeds branches simultaneously’.

“It’s great news to hear this pledge from Philip Hammond, because fears had been expressed that the western line to Manchester might be built before the eastern one,” said Cllr Lewis.

“Having gained the support of the Transport Secretary, we now need local businesses and individuals to go to the Yorkshire Needs High-Speed Rail website and show their support for High-Speed 2 and the £2bn+ transformation it will bring to our region before the Department for Transport’s consultation closes this Friday,” warned Cllr Lewis.

“Because if the well-organised opponents of high-speed prevent it reaching Birmingham, we’re never going to feel the benefits in West Yorkshire and the Leeds City Region.”

As well as delivering economic benefits, High-Speed Rail would also bring much-needed extra capacity for the North’s congested rail networks. The transfer of a significant number of the journeys currently made on the East Coast Main Line to the high-speed route would free up the space in the timetable and on track for more, fast, frequent commuter services, local trains and freight.

“Now that we have the Secretary of State’s assurance that both legs will be built at the same time, we’d like to see the plans for the whole network brought forward so that the benefits can be felt as quickly as possible,” added Cllr Lewis.

Research by the Eastern Network Partnership, which brings together the Leeds, Sheffield, Tyne & Wear, Tees Valley, Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire regions showed that the benefit : cost ratio for the eastern arm of the high-speed network is 5.6.

:cheers:

Just wish they'd get a move on with it! [slight pun intended]

Good try. I can tell you're tired :) But no, you make a valid point!

Fight the cuts!! to pay for wealthy engineers jobs!

Have any suggested locations of station been suggested yet? I know in other cities the suggestions have been to locate them at airports, is the suggestion that this would be the case at Leeds/ Bradford?

Have any suggested locations of station been suggested yet? I know in other cities the suggestions have been to locate them at airports, is the suggestion that this would be the case at Leeds/ Bradford?

Doubt it'd extend to Leeds-Bradford, as the airport is in quite an inaccessible location to the mainline train routes. There's a railway that passes within a mile of the airport, but it's a busy commuter line and there's a very steep gradient up to where the airport sits so probably a non-starter.

A high speed station would need to be underground at the airport to cope with the gradient.

I don't think high speed services need to serve the airport, but a regular shuttle would be welcome on any normal rail link.

I think the best location for the HS Terminus would be on the current site of Crown Point Retail park. This would leave it directly across from both the redeveloped Brewery site & very close to Clarence Dock. Assuming this would allow a new boulevard to be built from the station through to the Leeds Bridge (pedestrianised as part of the South Bank scheme) this would give a great entrance to Briggate & the city centre. It would also really help catalyse regeneration in Hunslet & Holbeck.

Have any suggested locations of station been suggested yet? I know in other cities the suggestions have been to locate them at airports, is the suggestion that this would be the case at Leeds/ Bradford?

Dont build Wellington Place and build it on the sight of the old Central Station!!or even flatten the Whitehall Riverside and build it there!!:nuts::nuts:

Have any suggested locations of station been suggested yet? I know in other cities the suggestions have been to locate them at airports, is the suggestion that this would be the case at Leeds/ Bradford?

I think I read somewhere that Leeds City could accommodate High Speed trains and be expanded.

I think the best location for the HS Terminus would be on the current site of Crown Point Retail park. This would leave it directly across from both the redeveloped Brewery site & very close to Clarence Dock. Assuming this would allow a new boulevard to be built from the station through to the Leeds Bridge (pedestrianised as part of the South Bank scheme) this would give a great entrance to Briggate & the city centre. It would also really help catalyse regeneration in Hunslet & Holbeck.

I'm not normally one to get too excited about fantasy projects, but I totally agree with this. A HS station on the Crown Point site would work well, and could really help the development of the South Bank. London's stations helped to reinforce the Central London boundary- well, they were the key to it in truth. This could have a similar effect for Leeds.

The only concern would be onward connections which of course would all be at Leeds City. It's not necessarily negative though- it could create a strong business case for a rapid transit link between the stations like how Metrolink came about. (This is assuming NGT never sees the light of day).

The other option would be to have shuttle trains between City station and the high speed station using the Pontefract Line, and a new curve of track into Platform 17 and a shuttle platform at the high speed station. Could be a cheap solution.

I would love to see another 'boulevard' solution to the change problem. New, wide, paved & tree-lined street over the existing ASDA House site, over a pedestrian bridge on the Aire (hopefully something we could spend some money on to look iconic) and then into a South-eastern entrance at Criterion Place (under a new Skyscraper?) to a new eastern concourse built between the existing footbridge & the service bridge.

This would be hugely regenerative for the southbank & the southeast of the city centre. In conjunction with this I would (controversially) remove Junction 4 from the M621. I think it's unnecessary and can be provided for by 3a & 5, linking into the IRR via the Gyratory & Quarry Hill via the eastern bridge.

I would love to see another 'boulevard' solution to the change problem. New, wide, paved & tree-lined street over the existing ASDA House site, over a pedestrian bridge on the Aire (hopefully something we could spend some money on to look iconic) and then into a South-eastern entrance at Criterion Place (under a new Skyscraper?) to a new eastern concourse built between the existing footbridge & the service bridge.

This would be hugely regenerative for the southbank & the southeast of the city centre. In conjunction with this I would (controversially) remove Junction 4 from the M621. I think it's unnecessary and can be provided for by 3a & 5, linking into the IRR via the Gyratory & Quarry Hill via the eastern bridge.

You could argue that demolishing a building that is home to two and a half thousand jobs is degenerative.

I have heard that the HSR station is intended to be - like Birmingham Curzon street - within ten minutes walk of the cities main rail hub. I guess Crowne Point fits the bill?

You could argue that demolishing a building that is home to two and a half thousand jobs is degenerative.

I have heard that the HSR station is intended to be - like Birmingham Curzon street - within ten minutes walk of the cities main rail hub. I guess Crowne Point fits the bill?

This is assuming that some of the southbank plans had come to fruition and ASDA had moved out to Saltaire or somewhere similar.

No way would I ever support ASDA moving to Saltaire, or anywhere out of the city. They should be in the City. Yes, it'd be nice if they relocated to a denser development within Central Leeds- but I'd never support their relocation if it meant kicking out the city for the sake of a boulevard.

More importantly, why would a boulevard from Crown Point - Briggate/City Park need to cross the ASDA site anyway?

Can't see Crown Point becoming the site. The developers that own it make far too much money from retail rents to want to hand it over. I'd imagine It'd take an almighty compulsory purchase order and a whole lot of cash...

Well, is there not an argument that the amount of people that would pass through could be a huge money spinner. St. Pancras is a shopping and leisure destination as well as a station. Leeds station also pulls in loads of money from its shops.

the assumption I made was that there'd be two-one across the current Brewery site to Briggate, and one across the ASDA House site and a new, iconic bridge, to a new southeastern entrance at City station.

Sadly, I think this whole HSR thing is going to evaporate like a puff of smoke over the next couple of years. Not because of technical arguments about routes, but the wider economy is going to go into freefall as the various financial crises that are playing out finally bring some chickens home to roost.

Already, there doesn't seem to be enough money to keep the road network in decent shape away from the motorways (small but telling detail: check potholes) so the idea that any government of any stripe is going to be able to summon up billions for this or any other major infrastructural project is a tragic joke.

As you were.