http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2168568,00.html

Scotland Express seeks green light
Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent


PLANS for a £15 billion high-speed train link between London and Scotland will be unveiled tomorrow by Network Rail.
Iain Coucher, deputy chief executive of the infrastructure company, will outline the case for the line, which could see 180mph services running up and down the country on a half-hourly basis from 2016.

Network Rail believes the route, if given the green light by the government, should run parallel to the existing west coast main line, departing from London and stopping at Birmingham and Manchester before terminating in Glasgow or possibly Edinburgh.

The service would shave more than 30 minutes off a trip between the capital and the Midlands and would take passengers to Scotland in three hours.

Coucher will argue that if the new service can attract enough passengers from domestic airlines then it could operate without the need for any public subsidy, a key hurdle in convincing ministers of its merits.

“We must presume a high-speed line will never be built unless there is a robust business case for doing so,” Coucher is expected to tell a conference in central London hosted by the Institution of Civil Engineers.

“A high-speed line should be dedicated to major conurbations with a small number of stops, it should be based around conventional high-speed rail technology with speeds around 300kph (186mph), and should be capable of integrating with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and existing rail lines for access to city centres.”

Although the idea of a north-south high-speed link is not new, Network Rail’s decision to intervene in the debate for the first time will be interpreted by the rail industry as a sign that the project might finally get off the ground.

Sir Rod Eddington, the government’s most senior transport adviser, is expected to back the scheme in a report this summer.

While an earlier analysis envisaged a north-south link costing £33 billion, Network Rail estimates that the line could be delivered for £11 billion to £14 billion. A fleet of electric trains, similar to the TGVs that operate in France, would cost another £650m.

For the scheme to be viable, Coucher will claim the service will need to carry 21m passengers a year by 2016 and 30m passengers in 15 years’ time.

Reaching these levels will be no mean feat. Network Rail has calculated that it will require 90% of all people travelling between London and Manchester to use the train rather than fly, and 70% of market share on routes between London and Scotland.

The issue of public subsidy for rail projects was brought into sharp focus last week when the Commons public accounts committee said the economic case for the high-speed CTRL “remains marginal”. The committee warned that taxpayers may have to stump up more money for the £5.2 billion link.

the plot thickens

Not a chance of it happening.

We are still waiting on Light Rail in Manchester to be funded first.

and Light Rail in Nottingham to be funded, Zim

I'd rather this be maglev. It would cost more, but we'd get more back.

Agreed.

I think this pretty much kills any UK Maglev plan. I don't see Blair or Brown trying to get it done as a legacy project.

I don't see this getting off the ground, after the government spent £18 billion upgrading the West Coast Mainline I very much doubt they want to spend a further £15 billion minimum on a seperate HSR.

This sounds like Network Rail trying to derail any potential maglev which they wouldn't operate and would steal passengers.

I think Network Rail should operate a maglev. I think the problem here is that NR have basically done a lot of work in ensuring the current infrastructure is up-to-scratch and I think if we were to wait say another 5 years, NR and Transrapid and the government could come to a solution where they could build such a line.

Not sure I'm pleased about this news as it would very much indermine Ultraspeed's plans and quite an emphasis is placed on "conventional high-speed rail technology with speeds around 300kph (186mph), [that] should be capable of integrating with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) and existing rail lines for access to city centres.” Bascially F*** off maglev :(

Such a link is needed in one form or another and I guess the budget sounds reasonable but it still reeks of second best and those passenger projections are very very optimistic. I just don't think it offers high enough speeds. We'll see, at least they're talking about doing something!

In an ideal world we would have both. Maglev stopping only at big cities, HSR for all current intercity routes and the electrification of the rest.

I can but dream.

Well I'd actually prefer this to maglev as it'd go from city centre to city centre. Maglev is a waste of time if it doesn't go to the centres.

However they should definitely be investing in the TGV2/Shinkansen 2 technology with 360kmh/225mph running speeds.

Also I don't see why we should buy French though. I have been on TGVs, Eurostars, German ICE trains and almost all the different models of Shinkansen. The German Siemens built ICE trains and the Shinkansen feel a lot more upmarket. The ol' TGV feels a bit shabby in comparison.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the lowdown on next-gen Shinks....

FASTECH 360 is a prototype train for the next-generation Shinkansen rolling stock, and can run at speeds of up to 405 km/h. Its name is a portmanteau of Fast, Technology, and 360 km/h (the speed at which production trains will run). Production trains are expected to enter service in 2011, operated by East Japan Railway Company.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/dominiccherry1/Fastech360.jpg

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

That extra 60km/h would make a fair bit of difference for the London to Glasgow route - a 20% increase in speed. Anything to get people out of planes and onto trains. It is inexcusable that people use planes for domestic flights in the UK.

That you could hop on a train from Euston and get to say Manchester in an hour and 15 minutes or thereabouts with one of these 225mph trains is what high speed rail is all about.

I'd rather this be maglev. It would cost more, but we'd get more back.

I completely agree. However I really can't see it happening so this may be the best we're going to get.

why 180mph when other countries are moving on to next gen tgv/bullet trains now that go 200+. 180mph will be obsolete by the time 2016 comes along. this is a start thuogh if they do it and plan to expand the high speed network so that it covers MML and the ECML as well as FGW. they cannot stop with a single line but rather keep slowly expanding it until its nationwide like the french. the govt should aim for it to take no more than three hours to travel between all the major british cities. this line will totally bypass large chunks of england giving half the country decent links to london and scotland whilst yorkshire, the east mids and east anglia get zilch.

not to mention the M4 corridor, Bristol and South Wales

Well you can't build a high speed rail network that serves the whole country in one go!

Besides, this line would serve London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.... better than solely a high speed East Coast Main Line which would only serve Sheffield, Leeds, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

With a few billion for the signalling couldn't the ECML be upgraded to 160mp/h anyway?

It would also serve Stansted and Cambridge (hi-tech centre), Nottingham and Middlesborough and Newcastle.

Again why go for next-gen HSR, when the Japanese are dead cert on its Osaka-Tokyo line and thats going to cost >$70bn. Britain could build a line along say the WCML that then curves up around Tyneside and build it so that you have express services going Glasgow - Leeds - Manchester - Birmingham - London. You could then have stations inbetween that are above or below the express tracks at more stops, eg parkways, smaller cities or airports to ensure that there is greater coverage but allow for priority of express services.

But the maglev route isn't city centre. Without the city centre aspect I think its a waste of time (in both ways).

I really hope that the maglev in Japan goes from Ginza/Shinjuku (in Tokyo) to Umeda and not Shin-Osaka. Its a bit of a pain that the Shinkansen docks at Shin-Osaka as that station is about 10 minutes from Umeda and 20 minutes from Namba. Umeda (and Osaka) does really does need a fillip as its been a bit down in the dumps recently.

However to say that the Osaka-Tokyo maglev line is 'dead cert' is drastically over-egging the situation. It's been in the project books for over a decade and I doubt it will be built until the 2020s.

Unless Tokyo gets the 2016/2020 Olympics.....

Hence why it needs to be changed to take in cities, airports and parkway stations to offer as much exposure as possible.

The problem of HSR I fear though is that it could take over the routes of the fast-tracks of the WCML, when really we should have local, express and maglev.

This line sounds like its designed to use existing stations. My guess is they will come off the new line on to the old line and straight into the station and then back the same way. They should have done this in the first place instead of wasting all that money on the West Coast main line.

Not fast enough.

These idiots can only think 3 feet in front of them... 180mph is yesterdays news for tomorrows Britain.

Bollocks.

^^I agree,

What a dissapointment, given that speeds of 350kph (225mph) are being considered for other lines around the world using rail - i.e, California HSR, Japan Fastech on the Shinkansen trains, etc.. Not to forget the Spanish Madrid-Barca link using the Siements Valero E trains. Why, given that the UK has the opportunity to leap beyond other countries, are they choosing yesterday's technology?
Just not very bold at all. Maglev might be too expensive and incompatible, but at least look at the faster rail options for heaven's sake.

Aqua

Especially if they think a 3-hour Glasgow-London train link will convince anyone to not fly. I certainly wouldn't bother. I actually think a Maglev would stand a better chance of being financially successful. Even though it would cost substantially more, it would take a significant chunk of current air traffic, would be used far more extensively by tourists (not only for the novelty value, but because any other major city could become part of a trip to any other major city), and would become the tool by which each major city in the UK becomes far more integrated socially and economically. Hell, you could live in Glasgow and commute to London, if you really wanted to! (Ok, perhaps that's a stretch, but it indicates my essential point).

I don't think we should take the 180mph speed as accurate. Remeber for a minute how precise skyscraper heights are reported in our national press!

I agree with a lot of what people say here. It lacks vision. It doesn't bring any new customer groups serving simply the existing ones slightly better. This may make a dent in internal air travel, but no revolution, which really is possible.

Realistically this and an ECML upgrade are the likely future unless there is a complete change of heart towards public transport by all political parties simultaneously.

I don't see this getting off the ground, after the government spent £18 billion upgrading the West Coast Mainline I very much doubt they want to spend a further £15 billion minimum on a seperate HSR.



WCML upgrade has cost around £7.5 billion, not £18 billion.....

Since it sounds like they are planning on using some existing line and connecting it to the HSR, this could be the reason for the slower speeds. Britains rail gauge is narrower than most countries therefore speeds have to be limited, perhaps if the train was to go above 180mph it would become unstable. Therefore a completely seperate, wider line would be needed to carry trains in excess of 180mph.

I say build a Maglev to ensure Britain stays at the forefront of the world economy in the future, it would be alot more forward thinking than using 19 century rail technology.

Since it sounds like they are planning on using some existing line and connecting it to the HSR, this could be the reason for the slower speeds. Britains rail gauge is narrower than most countries therefore speeds have to be limited, perhaps if the train was to go above 180mph it would become unstable. Therefore a completely seperate, wider line would be needed to carry trains in excess of 180mph.

I say build a Maglev to ensure Britain stays at the forefront of the world economy in the future, it would be alot more forward thinking than using 19 century rail technology.

That's not entirely accurate. I think you mean loading gauge, not rail gauge. Rail gauge throughout Europe is effectively identical (1435 mm, 4'8.5") though there are some exceptions. Loading gauge on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) is W10 or W12 which is moderately large, compared with the UIC GC gauge on CTRL which is not much bigger than W12.

The reason for slow speeds on WCML are two-fold - curves (hence Pendolinos tilt) and signalling, not loading gauge.

So is this it? The only likely high-speed ( by our standards ) rail link for the foreseeable future? Theres going to be alot of unhappy people as the line is going to be London-Birmingham-Manchester-Glasgow and nothing for the easterners.

Thats always the way its been, it took EU money to get the electricfication of the ECML.

The mind boggles. We give the world the railway. The world gives back improved railway technology offering speeds of 225mph. We decide it's 20 years ago on achieveable speed and 40 in the future on ticket price. But it's ok, David Cameron has put a mini windmill on his house - that saves enough Carbon for 0.3 new cars to go on the road owing to disgruntled rail passengers.

Article in this weeks NW Enquirer (cannot find onine vesion) has quite a bit of detail on this.

Basically the proposed line is the only route that can be justified economically.

However, politically avoiding Livepool, Leeds and Newcastle is seen as a huge problem, and likely to see the proposals killed off.

In reality, it looks like extra capacity will be added to the different lines since the only economically viable solution will most probably not be politically acceptable - as such we'll end up with bugger all.

I think it's better to start out with the most viable route (London-Bham-Manc-Glasgow-Edinburgh) before branching out to less accessible areas like Newcastle, etc.

That or start off with a London Stansted - M25 Parkway - Stratford - London Liverpool Street route. The reason behind this is two fold:
1 - London Stansted is expected to become the premier airport for London and a new rail alignment into London will have to be built to handle this expected demand
2 - Good test track for a possible extended network across the UK.

Nick - part of the reasoning behind this proposal is to try to bridge the North / south divide - your proposal if anything makes things worse.

Have a read of http://www.nw-enquirer.co.uk/news/transport/the_north-south_chasm_20060511243.html for an idea as to where these proposed projects are coming from.

With regards Maglev - have any country (apart from communist countries that don't exactly play by the same economic rules as the rest of us) actually ever built any substansial maglev that would operate economically?

Transrapid Maglev was first built in China because they don't have to bother about planning laws and public enquries. They also saw an opportunity to get their hands on some of the best of future technology and have set about replicating it. They also like these sort of prestige projects. There is a solid proposal for a line in Germany to link Munich Airport to the city centre (bogged down in politics) as well as projects under consideration in the Netherlands, USA, UK, and Mid East). The japanese are also serious with their own maglev plans.

http://www.transrapid.com/

I think that maglev presents the more solid long term business case despite the perhaps higher initial cost. Infact I think you could get a good private sector funding package together for much of the UK ultraspeed proposal (provided it was owned/run/maintained as an independant private company) with the govt chipping in to cover benefits such as those to the environment, regional regeneration etc from which the private investors cannot gain a return.

Look at the route that UK Ultraspeed propose for the maglev and it clearly covers many profitable journeys that HSR cannot (HSR cannot cross the pennines without lots and lots of v expensive tunnelling). The proposal is by no means perfect (city centre access) but it shows the opportunities that this technology offers and I believe that we should persue this avenue of thought instead of HSR due to the longer term benefits it would offer.

http://www.expall.com/Resources/base72cropped.jpeg

proposed journey times http://www.expall.com/newmap.html

I should actually go for the NR proposals as they would cover important places like Preston and Carlisle instead of Leeds/Newcastle and the like ;).

Nick - part of the reasoning behind this proposal is to try to bridge the North / south divide - your proposal if anything makes things worse.

Have a read of http://www.nw-enquirer.co.uk/news/transport/the_north-south_chasm_20060511243.html for an idea as to where these proposed projects are coming from.

With regards Maglev - have any country (apart from communist countries that don't exactly play by the same economic rules as the rest of us) actually ever built any substansial maglev that would operate economically?Where did I say that this would be a North-South line via London Stansted? I mearly stated that it would be a trial line.

No country has, but then no country like Britain has built TGV across the entire length of our country. Japan though is very interested in looking at its Osaka - Tokyo maglev line (its already built one section of it) and the fact that Japan is looking at this technology really should be sounding alarms for us: why buy second grade technology that we don't have expertise in, when we can go for maglev which was invented in the UK and continues to be a revenue earner for many UK institutions.

TGV simply cuts journey times, maglev slashes them. Also TGV wouldn't stop people from say Glasgow flying to London, but maglev would. If you want to help the north, maglev is the way, not TGV.

I think Maglev or 350km/h (220mph) HSR are the only options worth considering.

http://magnetbahnforum.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=2741#2741

NETWORK RAIL’S PLANS WILL TURN THE NORTH EAST INTO “AN ECONOMIC BACKWATER”

Network Rail’s plans to create a new high-speed link between London and Scotland fail to address the fundamental transport and economic challenges facing the UK, according to UK Ultraspeed.

“A single line running from London to Scotland via Manchester will not do enough to rebalance the nation’s economy,” commented Dr Alan James, Chief Executive of UK Ultraspeed. “This line does not address the country’s £29 billion North:South productivity gap , as it misses an opportunity to bridge the gap between east and west over the Pennines. Ultraspeed would create a backbone for England’s Greater North, linking all major cities between the Mersey and the Tyne in under one hour.

“As Network Rail’s plan currently stands, the North East of England risks becoming an economic backwater.”

Ultraspeed’s maglev technology, with a top speed of 500 km/h (311 mph) could connect London to Scotland via Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Teesside and Tyneside in two and a half hours. In the same time, Network Rail’s proposed service, with trains running between 240 km/h to 270km/h , could only operate non-stop between London and Scotland.

“Because maglev is much faster than TGV trains, which have a maximum speed of around 300 km/h (180 mph), we are able to serve more locations and not just travel point-to-point. Consequently, Ultraspeed would do much more to reduce the economic disparity between North and South,” Dr James continued.

Dr James also questioned comments made by Iain Coucher, Network Rail’s Deputy Chief Executive, about maglev’s perceived energy requirements and lack of interconnectivity with existing transport networks.

“Calling maglev a ‘wingless plane’ and making uninformed estimates about our system’s energy costs does not help people make accurate comparisons between high-speed rail and maglev. In fact, at 300 km/h, our empirical data shows that maglev uses less power than TGV-style trains . Furthermore, both high-speed rail and maglev networks will have challenges to face when it comes to integrating with existing transport links. This will include whether new stations should be constructed within city centres or, as Network Rail has indicated this week, on the outskirts of major conurbations.

“In order to compete with Ultraspeed’s benchmark proposals, old-fashioned TGV-style trains would require two routes – one up the west and another up the east of the country. This implies at least 200 km more infrastructure, billions more to build and operating costs at least three times more than maglev.

“The whole future of high-speed ground transport in the UK, including proposed construction costs and likely economic benefits, merits detailed investigation. We’re happy to debate these issues with Network Rail as part of the government’s ongoing analysis of the country’s future transport requirements,” concluded Dr James.

Prestonian-
Maglev plans in NL are off. There's a mere mention of silly proposals since a lot of research funds went into this joint venture with Deutschland.

Eurostar should be extended, under London on to Midlands and The Wirral. But London wouldn't like to see Birmingham becoming the switchboard for HSR. I would suggest Swansea-Bristol-Midlands-South Yorkshire and a coastal HSR, say Norwich-Lands' End.

hes right about a pennine link and the fact we need two lines min going from north to south. that said, if the govt could commit to a gradual construction of a high speed network nationwide over 25 years then why not.

Yeah but the only reason you'd want TGV Goth is so that you had slightly better access into London....to the disadvantage of the rest of the country. Its either maglev or nothing.

The single route maglev serves almost the equivelent of an entire network of TGV trains and faster. Surely that has something to commend it. It could be extended in future also so that a more direct west coast London-Glasgow route becomes possible.

and tgv can run on existing tracks meaning that it can take short detours off the mainline into places it is near.

Yeah but that would mean cutting other services. What we want is to retain the current network so that we can increase speeds on these lines without being bogged down by various intercity services. TGV services on current track would create problems which would lead to delays. Instead a maglev/TGV line should have a north-south line with express services rushing past local stations (eg say Milton Keynes). I think the only place where infrastructure should be taken over, is in say termini or other large stations where intercity platforms are given to these services. In other cases where through services are the only option, new underground stations could be constructed, and so forth.....

cutting other services???? what like nick? you mean other services like lincoln to spalding? lol.

^ Lincoln to Spalding should definitely be pruned. Beeching? Where are your scissors? ;)

Time tables are about maths. Cutting services would certainly not be required for extra TGV. England is much too densely populated to gamble on Maglev. What's the point of connecting Glasgow and Edinburgh with London via minor cities, surpassing all other bigger cities of The UK?? This is prestige and thus a waste; unless railways around England's #2,3,4,5 etc cities get improved tremendously.

The Bikkel Bitmap Proposal. To be refined. And made (up) from a Russian map. The type should be a TGV/MagLev/something better hybrid. The disadvantage of MagLev is the bumpy ride. Consumers won't like that so perhaps MagLev has to wait until it would profitable to have long distances skipping many ( now profitable) stops.

In order of urgency (guessing again)

1. Norwich-Olympic City-Ashley-Brighton-Southampton-Plymouth (tourists can have an important share in the use of this line)

2. extension Eurostar -can't believe they're not working on this. Its need is so obvious

3. Midlands ring

4. Swansea-Newcastle (can go really fast between Bristol and B'ham)

5. The Hague/Rotterdam-Bristol (dyke; tunnels; bridges and new ports and holiday resorts for seals) like Copenhagen-Malmö). The NL link can wait a bit but East Anglia-Wales can cut off a lot of existing traffic

6. Plymouth-Hull

http://img234.imageshack.us/img234/287/englandmap0bx.jpg (http://img234.imageshack.us/my.php?image=englandmap0bx.jpg)

What made you think I was bored?

Instead of London-Oxford-Coventry go through the areas of greater population/major growth areas i.e London-Luton airport-Luton-Milton Keynes-Northampton-Rugby-Coventry.

cutting other services???? what like nick? you mean other services like lincoln to spalding? lol.Well whats the point of having HSR, if half the times its running on non-HSR tracks.

Fact is, only reason you'd want HSR is because maglev wouldn't necessarily stop at Lincoln. This is about national priorities, not individuals priorities.

@ Bikkel, maglev certainly doesn't have a bumpy ride, it glides through the air in rather a smooth fashion I believe. If you are trying to squeeze TGV services on existing infrastrucutre then you will need to cut some servies no matter how you fiddle the maths. And the Ultraspeed route certainly doesn't miss out the main cities. Here's a list:

*London
*Birmingham
*Manchester
*Liverpool
*Leeds
*York
*Newcastle
*Edinburgh
*Glasgow
*Several Major Airports
*Likely other as yet unspecified regional stops too

Fact is, only reason you'd want HSR is because maglev wouldn't necessarily stop at Lincoln. This is about national priorities, not individuals priorities.

Won't stop at Preston either but if it means the local trains that I use most often can run faster and on less congested tracks I'll still benefit. My country will benefit too and it shouldn't take me long to link to the ultraspeed network if I want to. Plus with time it can be extended to include more destinations and provide different routes. My environment will benefit because of reduced air travel, my flights will be cheaper because airports will be less congested and i'll have a greater range of international destinations because my airport has more slots free. An initial wave of HSR, by the sounds of it, won't be including small places either. I'd rather the government built the initial UKU maglev line sorting out the bulk of the country for a further 50years with a single investment and improve our existing mainlines so that we can take full advantage of what we already have without wasting money on a TGV network which will lst five minutes before it is out-dated. Its out dated now!

thats my point monkey. we could actually run intercity services direct from grimsby via lincoln and through spalding onto the ECML but they wont because they dont have the capacity because they are already running local train services on that route that no-one uses. the lincoln to spalding could be a route to tie intercity services into these two places (larger combined population than humberside and in the case of lincoln huge population growth) but it seems maintaining rural services that almost no one uses is more important. the point of having hsr on non hsr tracks means it can take a ten minute diversion and bring hundreds of thousands of extra people into the catchment area which with lincoln alone takes in a population of quarter of a million.
you run express services from main places, and a couple of times a day have direct services from smaller places that use non hsr tracks on a small portion to link them into the network and make it truely nationwide. the french do this successfully.

1. MagLev IS a BUMPY ride. I have been on a few ... It's a Netherlands/Deutschland project, remember?

2. Ultraspeed is not the ONGOING ride from Lille/Paris or any other EuroStar journey. If I were to travel from say Amiens to Coventry, why should I have to make a switch on a route that is ever so obvious to continue - from Kent up North to Midlands and Lancashire?

Instead of London-Oxford-Coventry go through the areas of greater population/major growth areas i.e London-Luton airport-Luton-Milton Keynes-Northampton-Rugby-Coventry.
Certainly not. Those are commuters' areas. Probably well supplied with connections already. Transporting commuters in this area (M25/Orbital) holds no national importance whatsoever.

thats my point monkey. we could actually run intercity services direct from grimsby via lincoln and through spalding onto the ECML but they wont because they dont have the capacity because they are already running local train services on that route that no-one uses. the lincoln to spalding could be a route to tie intercity services into these two places (larger combined population than humberside and in the case of lincoln huge population growth) but it seems maintaining rural services that almost no one uses is more important. the point of having hsr on non hsr tracks means it can take a ten minute diversion and bring hundreds of thousands of extra people into the catchment area which with lincoln alone takes in a population of quarter of a million.
you run express services from main places, and a couple of times a day have direct services from smaller places that use non hsr tracks on a small portion to link them into the network and make it truely nationwide. the french do this successfully.But thats it, you don't take over current infrastructure you build new infrastructure. I think the priority should be the maglev line as a backbone to the UK. Future extensions could go to Liverpool and along the ECML, who knows.

No, Nick. MagLev suits places like China or Texas. MagLev is useless in UK, NL or any other highly populated part of the EU.

MagLev can't be profitable when it cannot connect several urban regions. MagLev is a mean of transport for long distances, and the EU has very few of those.

youve lost the point nick. read about how the japanese and french have their networks designed. its not entirely new. once they get into urban areas they are sharing track.

No, Nick. MagLev suits places like China or Texas. MagLev is useless in UK, NL or any other highly populated part of the EU.

MagLev can't be profitable when it cannot connect several urban regions. MagLev is a mean of transport for long distances, and the EU has very few of those.Considering maglev would only cost a bit more than a TGV line, but has far more benefits I'd be interested to see your fiscal analysis of the breakdown of a maglev and TGV line in the UK.

Also maglev is suited to the UK: which is essentially a 'corridor'.




youve lost the point nick. read about how the japanese and french have their networks designed. its not entirely new. once they get into urban areas they are sharing track.No...the only reason you're against the idea of a maglev is because it wouldn't stop at Lincoln.

Thats the case in Germany in some areas and because of that you have slower journey times. I mean jesus, that is why the CTRL was and is being built! Its to by-pass the slower lines and be totally seperate from other rail traffic so that higher average speeds can be obtained. If you'd ever taken Eurostar out of Waterloo, you'd know that it loops around South London as it tries to get out: it takes a long time, takes up line capacity that delays and/or reduces commuter traffic capacity and decreases the efficiency of it being HSR.

The main reason for problems on UK railways is that we have not enough fast-lines and too many congested routes. In other words: congestion. Your idea would make the situation worse by creating multiple bottlenecks, not only where HSR trains would have to slow down drastically as they converge onto shared tracks, but also forcing other train services to 'hold back' until a HSR had crossed or gone ahead of its tracks. On top of that, you'd have to re-signal and re-lay track along the shared track areas to be able to handle commuter and TGV services, which would mean delay for years for commuters and intercity train users.

At least if we opted for maglev we could have a system where we have the current infrastructure and on top of that maglev lines to increase overall capacity of the network. If there was the freak chance of something wrong with maglev, people could take a train service on the rail network. If there was a TGV accident on shared track, you'd create a bottleneck that couldn't handle intercity or commuter traffic.

I end my post with saying you ought to look at the CTRL to see my point of creating new infrastructure.

maglev wouldnt stop anywhere, not just lincoln. most of the people in this country do not live in half a dozen cities. they live in the dozens of smaller ones. we pay our taxes to central govt and get diddly squat in return... partly because they love taking a place with 270,000 people (growing by 3500 a year) and then sticking it in three different councils and claiming it has a population of 84,000.

it might be quicker for people travelling straight from leeds to london but what about anyone who doesnt live in leeds? theyd have to travel to leeds and then down to london from there making it even longer. incidentally nick, maglev is slower than tgv on average. youd really want us to build a network using comlpetely new technology that hasnt been run that way before and have a huge working experiment?

TGV trains can also run on conventional track (lignes classiques), albeit at the normal maximum safe speed for those lines, up to a maximum of 220 km/h (137 mph). This is an advantage that the TGV has over, for example, magnetic levitation trains, as it means that TGVs can serve many more destinations and can use city-centre stations (as in Paris, Lyon, and Dijon). They now serve around 200 destinations in France and abroad.

if the french had built a maglev network they would not be serving 200 destinations with it. centrally funded networks should be entirely nationwide. we all pay taxes, why should a few large cities get almost all the money whilst other places (and lincolnshire/east anglia is a great example of this) get fuck all for public transport? compare funding for lincoln to hull to see what i mean. hell, compare funding of lincoln, grimsby and cleethorpes to hull and see what i mean as their city populations alone match hull without including the built up area around them and in particular lincoln.

^ Why would Maglev not stop anywhere? It can accelerate and decelarate much faster than HSR so stops are actually less of a drag on the timetable. Also Maglev tracks can have points just like rail tracks so there could be stopping trains and non-stop trains running up the same track at the same time. It can be timed so that the non-stop trains can pass the stopping trains whilst the latter are in a station just as we do now with conventional trains.

youve lost the point nick. read about how the japanese and french have their networks designed. its not entirely new. once they get into urban areas they are sharing track.No the Shinkansen always has separate track and platforms.

The Shinkansen is also an entirely different gauge. I.e., it is international guage, versus the rest of the Japanese metric which is 1 meter.

No, Nick. MagLev suits places like China or Texas. MagLev is useless in UK, NL or any other highly populated part of the EU.

MagLev can't be profitable when it cannot connect several urban regions. MagLev is a mean of transport for long distances, and the EU has very few of those.Rubbish. The only Maglev currently in service is used for a very short distance (30km) connecting Shanghai's airport and the city. The extension that is currently under construction will connect Shanghai to the city of Hangzhou (160km away). The population density in eastern China is much higher than the EU and bears no relation to Texas. Maglev is faster than HSR over every distance - long or short. It's not just Maglev's top speed that is much higher (500km/h is conservative....) it also has much faster acceleration and deceleration than HSR.

The Shinkansen is also an entirely different gauge. I.e., it is international guage, versus the rest of the Japanese metric which is 1 meter.No the Japanese railways use the standard gauge (1435mm) on both Shinkansen and local tracks - just the same as the UK or the rest of Europe. Japan's loading gauge is very high however. Japanese trains are very wide and spacious.

1. MagLev IS a BUMPY ride. I have been on a few ... It's a Netherlands/Deutschland project, remember?Rubbish. Transrapid Maglev is definitely not a bumpy ride. I have been on the Shanghai Maglev 8 times now (most recently just two weeks ago) and it's smooth and comfortable.

No the Japanese railways use the standard gauge (1435mm) on both Shinkansen and local tracks - just the same as the UK or the rest of Europe. Japan's loading gauge is very high however. Japanese trains are very wide and spacious.
No. They have a different gauge.

Initially, the companies remained government-owned, but privatisation began for some of the companies in the early 1990s. The six companies had 18,800 kilometers of routes (mostly 1.1-metre track) in use in the late 1980s. About 25 % of the routes were in double-track and multitrack sections, and the rest were single-track. In 1988 about 51 % of the six companies' 1,000 locomotives were diesel, and the rest were electric
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Railway

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Shanghai/ph-17698.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Shanghai/Shanghaicity.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Shanghai/Shanghaicity2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Shanghai/Shanghaicity3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v496/Fatmonkey/Shanghai/Shanghaicity4.jpg

No. They have a different gauge.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_RailwayAll the local trains in Tokyo and Osaka use standard gauge just like Shinkansen - not 1.1m gauge.

All the local trains in Tokyo and Osaka use standard gauge just like Shinkansen - not 1.1m gauge.
Japan has more than two cities now don't it?

;)

And what do you mean by local trains, from my knowledge, the Japanese metro is like the majority of the non-Shinkansen network, i.e., 1.1 meters in gauge.

Japan was the first country to build dedicated railway lines for high speed travel. Due to the largely mountainous nature of the country, the pre-existing network consisted of 3 ft 6 in gauge (1,067 mm) narrow gauge lines, which generally took indirect routes and could not be adapted to higher speeds. In consequence, Japan had a greater need for new high speed lines than countries where the existing standard gauge or broad gauge rail system had more upgrade potential. In contrast to the older lines, Shinkansen lines are standard gauge, and use tunnels and viaducts to go through and over obstacles, rather than around them.

Another example as why the Shinkansen should not used as an example for shared tracks into pre-existing stations:

When building the Shinkansen network, it was not often feasible to build the line to connect to an already existing station and therefore a new second station was built. Many Shinkansen stations (eg. Shin-Yokohama Station and Shin-Osaka Station) thus have the prefix shin- in their name, but this simply means "new" in Japanese and is not a direct reference to the Shinkansen.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen

Japan has more than two cities now don't it?

;)You should have stuck to your original argument. ;)

I have been checking up on the stats and actually you are right - much of the urban rail transport does indeed use 1.1m gauge - amazing given that the trains are wider than any I have seen in Europe. The Osaka Metro uses 1435mm standard gauge as do some lines of the Tokyo Subway. However much of the Tokyo Subway, the Yamanote Line, etc.... use the 1.1m gauge.

You should have stuck to your original argument. ;)

I have been checking up on the stats and actually you are right - much of the urban rail transport does indeed use 1.1m gauge - amazing given that the trains are wider than any I have seen in Europe. The Osaka Metro uses 1435mm standard gauge as do some lines of the Tokyo Subway. However much of the Tokyo Subway, the Yamanote Line, etc.... use the 1.1m gauge.
It is quite amazing. I wonder how stable they are. :runaway:

The Spanish have done the same in the Basque city of Bilbao. Those trains are wide as hell and are on a 1.000 meter network.

http://www.przegubowiec.com/travel/200005/bilbao-metro.JPG

http://www.protectowire.com/images/applications/tunnels/profile/metro/bilbao-metro-station.jpg

I am trying to find a picture of a train as it curves. Looks like its about to tip over!

maglev wouldnt stop anywhere, not just lincoln. most of the people in this country do not live in half a dozen cities. they live in the dozens of smaller ones. we pay our taxes to central govt and get diddly squat in return... partly because they love taking a place with 270,000 people (growing by 3500 a year) and then sticking it in three different councils and claiming it has a population of 84,000.

it might be quicker for people travelling straight from leeds to london but what about anyone who doesnt live in leeds? theyd have to travel to leeds and then down to london from there making it even longer. incidentally nick, maglev is slower than tgv on average. youd really want us to build a network using comlpetely new technology that hasnt been run that way before and have a huge working experiment?

if the french had built a maglev network they would not be serving 200 destinations with it. centrally funded networks should be entirely nationwide. we all pay taxes, why should a few large cities get almost all the money whilst other places (and lincolnshire/east anglia is a great example of this) get fuck all for public transport? compare funding for lincoln to hull to see what i mean. hell, compare funding of lincoln, grimsby and cleethorpes to hull and see what i mean as their city populations alone match hull without including the built up area around them and in particular lincoln.Oh deary me.....

Maglev could stop as many times at TGV, yet still have drastically faster journey times. Fact is, an intercity network isn't about connecting dozens of cities, but several. That means cities like Lincoln wouldn't have a stop, because if we were to go for TGV which would require two north-south lines, the eastern line would go along Nottingham-Sheffield-Leeds, not up past your bleeding Lincoln. Infact don't go on about Lincoln, especially when there would be far more deserving cities either economically or demographically that could use a HSR/maglev station all over the country.

Fact is, if every large town or city started complaining about wanting a maglev or TGV station, we'd either end up with a network that would be slower than it is now or not get it built at all. Every other country has limits to opinion in such nationally important projects and that is why Germany, France and Italy can get these things built. We need to stop talking about a small city, and start thinking of the nation as a whole and the busiest routes - this would be the WCML.

Instead, what we should do is build maglev, and then ensure connections to these stations from other areas is increased creating a fully integrated, local-regional-national transport network.

Under what measure is maglev on average than TGV? The only way I could think that you came to that conclusion is if you were comparing the Shanghai Maglev to say a national network of France. Fact is, maglev attains far higher average speeds, can accelerate and deccelerate quicker. Factor in that the entire network would be computer controlled instead of having person input and you cut out the cost for a driver and any possible strike action by drivers. The benefit of also being computer controlled is that you can have very high frequencies without worry of accident: you can't do this with TGV, and that is why there are limits to new lines such as the CTRL. You couldn't get say a frequency of 1 TGV train a minute at rush hour on the same track, but you could with maglev - the technology is that far ahead.

350kph hasn't been put to commercial usage yet and won't be for a few more years. Yet we have 430kph maglev running in Shanghai and an intercity route in China u/c. Quite simply you can't use the argument that we don't know how maglev would work, when 350kph TGV hasn't run commercially anywhere on the planet!

I think you forget one small thing: France is a vastly larger country and the gaps between urban areas are far larger meaning it can afford to slow down onto older infrastructure because it can attain a higher speed through the countryside without interuption. The distance between Lyon and Paris on TGV is just over 400km, while London and Glasgow is 600km.... yet your plan would see multiple urban slow-downs which drastically decrease the benefits of the service. If we were to do that in the UK, there would be only a few km where the train could actually reach 300kph, infact it would probably be only slightly faster than the current Pendolinos and for vast new tracks that would be incredibly wasteful. Factor in that the only reason the trains can run that fast, is because they built the infrastructure to cope for the HSR traings in the first place. That would mean closing down large chunks of the network to relay signalling, track and re-wiring.

I also don't think you understand that if you put HSR onto current infrastructure, you would have to either cut or cancel future services altogether. Your idea would be creating a worse scenario for the national rail network, where bottlenecks would be formed where a commuter train could not proceed because it has to wait for the TGV service to rush past so that it can be allowed to go forward. This itself would mean entire new rolling stock to ensure the trains are fast enough inbetween local or express stations so that you could fit more trains on the line. If we ever did that, then we'd be creating a worse rail network - not a better one and I think its beyond stupidity that you or anyone could suggest this as a viable alternative.

Fact: Its new lines built alongside, above or below current routes or motorways in urban areas and new alignments outside. This is the only way for both TGV or maglev to be viable either as revenue services or as national economic benefit.

^ Spain will get regular commerical HSR speeds of 350km/h this year on the new Madrid-Barcelona route. The 430km/h speed of the Shanghai Maglev is simply because of the short length of the track (30km). The Shanghai to Hangzhou run currently under construction (160km) will operate at 500km/h with exactly the same trains.

I thought that project was delayed until 2008?

Is it just me or are the new AVE Spanish trains absolutely minging. A complete disgrace for the fastest train in the world. Anything looks better. The Mallard, Shinkansen 0 series, TGV and the Shinkansen 500 Series (previous fastest trains) are so, so much better looking.

Even the Intercity 125s which are the fastest diesel trains have quite a funky 70s design.

It doesn't matter that much in the end but it is undeniable that these new Spanish high speed trains are absolutely hideous creatures.

^ There are two types of 350km/h trainsets running on the Madrid-Barcelona line. The Talgo AVE-350 sets are indeed very ugly with their duck-bill noses but the ICE-3 sets are gorgeous.

AVE will operate 16 x Siemens built ICE3s (beautiful) and 16 x Talgo350s (hideous) on their Madrid-Barcelona route:


ICE3 AVE:

http://www.railfaneurope.net/ice/ice3_ave_300x165.jpg


Talgo 350:

http://www.railfaneurope.net/ice/talgo350.jpg

350km/h capable AVE ICE3:

http://************/e8u7h5.jpg

I thought that project was delayed until 2008?It is delayed. They were supposed to open at 350km/h in 2006 but now they will operate at 350km/h from Deecmber 2007. I have found that the 16 x ugly duck-billed Talgo-350 sets will be used for the more frequently stopping services wheras the 16 x gorgeous ICE3 sets will be used for the non-stop Madrid-Barcelona services. I wonder whether the ICE3 will capture the average speed record from the 500-Series Shinkansen?

Considering maglev would only cost a bit more than a TGV line, but has far more benefits I'd be interested to see your fiscal analysis of the breakdown of a maglev and TGV line in the UK.
Just what does fiscality have to do with this? Fiscality is dtermined by law and has nothing to with infrastructure proposals.

TGV is an operating, profitable and smooth mean of transport. All reports from Maglev projects at least mention a much less smooth ride. Maglev is OK on a small traject with lift off and arrival, and nothing inbetween. Or longer distance travels in isolated countries with a few big cities.

Just what does fiscality have to do with this? Fiscality is dtermined by law and has nothing to with infrastructure proposals.What rubbish! Fiscal analysis relates to government expenditures of taxpayers money - such as spending on infrastructure projects (amongst other things....). :|TGV is an operating, profitable and smooth mean of transport. All reports from Maglev projects at least mention a much less smooth ride.Well my report from Maglev bloody well doesn't mention a less smooth ride does it!? Two weeks ago I was on Maglev just one day after riding the Tokaido Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka. I have ridden on TGV's (especially Eurostar), Shinkansen, and the Shanghai Maglev lots of times - and I can tell you now - Maglev is very smooth indeed!!Maglev is OK on a small traject with lift off and arrival, and nothing inbetween. Or longer distance travels in isolated countries with a few big cities.This makes no sense at all. Maglev makes sense in exactly the same places that HSR makes sense - ie between relatively close cities in densely populated parts of the world (eg Europe, Japan, eastern China, coastal USA etc). There is absolutely no point building a Maglev between, say, Perth and Sydney, because it is so much cheaper and faster to fly (airliners cruise at ~900km/h). Neither Maglev nor HSR could ever justify their costs on this kind of route. And what exactly do you mean by "small traject" here?

no nick, i have just described how the network works on continental europe perfectly.

no nick, i have just described how the network works on continental europe perfectly.No it works on the continent because they are larger countries with more space between urban areas. Your plan would see trains having to slow down for pretty much every urban area and creating bottlenecks on an already over-crowded network.

Quite simply using the same planning and routing as done in France or Germany would see our network in the UK become negligible. Either way Lincoln would never get a HSR station.

No it works on the continent because they are larger countries with more space between urban areas. Your plan would see trains having to slow down for pretty much every urban area and creating bottlenecks on an already over-crowded network.

Quite simply using the same planning and routing as done in France or Germany would see our network in the UK become negligible. Either way Lincoln would never get a HSR station.
Avignon, Valence are smaller than Lincoln. Besides the population density in BNLX is much higher than England, and Germany is close to that of England's.
That's why we have a very efficient and smooth network of faster connections. HSR is impractible.
Of course you need to make stops, few people need to travel from Glasgow to London.
It's quite simple - thus effective: long routes along populated areas. Prestigious projects like a MagLev from Glasgow to London is for fools like your beloved François Mitterand or Chirac.

Excuse me for bothering, but could someone tell me what the new East Midlands Trains (replacing Central Trains) will be? Will it be High Speed?

https://www.gnn.gov.uk/content/deta...683,706,718,674

23/05/2006 10:00

Department for Transport (National)


NEW BENEFITS IDENTIFIED FOR PASSENGERS FOLLOWING UPGRADE OF WEST COAST MAIN LINE




The West Coast Main Line modernisation will benefit passengers more than previously anticipated, a Government report confirms today.




The West Coast Main Line modernisation will benefit passengers more than previously anticipated, a Government report confirms today.

From 2009 passengers will benefit from faster journey times and more services to key cities on the route such as Birmingham and Manchester.

The West Coast Main Line Progress Report details the planned timetable to be introduced following the completion of the project in 2008. Highlights of the new timetable include:

* London to West Midlands will be served by a train every 20 minutes to Coventry, Birmingham International and Birmingham New St, with a standard journey time of 1hr 23min to Birmingham.
* London to Manchester frequency increased from every half hour to every 20 minutes and accelerated to an end to end time of only 2hr 6min. The fastest train will take less than 2 hours.
* The regular timetable will make journeys between London and Liverpool around 20 minutes quicker than today. Extra peak trains will operate.
* Frequencies will be increased between London, Lancashire, Cumbria and Scotland. Journey times will be considerably reduced, with Glasgow trains being half an hour quicker than today's norm.
* A major improvement in weekend services throughout the route, with journey times and frequencies close to weekday levels.

The report also found that track improvements are being delivered on schedule, costs have been brought under control, reliability has been transformed and is exceeding target levels, and passenger numbers are up 30%.

Launching the report on his visit to view the planned works at Milton Keynes Central station, Rail Minister Derek Twigg said:

"This project has been a tremendous engineering feat, with over 1,200 miles of track laid already and improvements made so that trains can run at 125mph in tilt mode along the entire track. There is still hard work ahead, but credit must go to everyone involved in this remarkable project.

"Passengers have already seen faster journey times and improving reliability delivered by this project, and this is why so many more passengers are now using the West Coast Main Line. Now we have details of the second stage of benefits they will enjoy after the upgrade completes in 2008. These improvements from the project are even greater than we thought would be possible when this work started. Passengers on the West Coast Main Line can look forward to the future with confidence."

Notes to Editors

1. A copy of the West Coast Main Line Progress Report is available on the DfT website at http://www.dft.gov.uk

2. The timetable improvements once the project is completed in 2008 will be better than previously anticipated. The regular journey times and trains per hour frequency from London to major stations will be:

London Euston to/from

Pre-Project
Time (hr min) / Stops / Freq. (tph)

Current (2006)
Time (hr min) / Stops / Freq. (tph)

Latest Indicative Timetable for Post-project
Time (hr min) / Stops / Freq. (tph)

Birmingham 1h 43m 3 2 1h 30m 3 2 1h 23m 3 3
New St.
Coventry 1h 11m 1 2 1h 04m 1 2 1h 00m 1 3
Manchester 2h 41m 4 1 2h 15m 3 2 2h 06m 3 2
via Stoke
Manchester 2h 56m n/a 2/day n/a n/a 4/day 2h 08m 3 1
via Crewe
Stoke 1h 51m 1 1 1h 31m 0 2 1h 28m 0 2
Liverpool 2h 53m 5 1 2h 30m 5 1 2h 09m 2 1**
Crewe 2h 08m 3 2 1h 45m 2 2 1h 35m 0 2**
Preston 3h 01m 5 1 2h 29m 5 1 2h 12m 2 1**
Carlisle 4h 04m 8 0-1 3h 44m 9 0-1 3h 22m 5 1*
Glasgow 5h 35m 10 0-1 5h 00m 10 0-1 4h 29m 6 1*
Chester 2h 38m 3 3/day 2h 10m 2 5/day 2h 02m 2 1
Holyhead 4h 28m 9 3/day 3h 52m 9 4/day 3h 45m 9 5/day





* - Final timetable being prepared. It is expected there will be two off-peak occasions when the service will be 2-hourly and extra trains will run at peak times of day.
** - Additional trains will operate at peak times of day

3. The fastest journey times on the route from London will be:

London Euston Pre- Current Latest
to/from project (2006) Indicative
Timetable for
Post-project
Time Stops Time Stops Time Stops
Birmingham N St 1h 39m 1 1hr 21m 1 1h 18m 1
Manchester n/a n/a 2hr 05m 1 1h 59m 1
Liverpool n/a n/a 2hr 09m 1 2h 06m 1
Preston 2h 25m 0 2hr 10m 0 2h 07m 0
Glasgow 5h 06m 3 4hr 24m 1 4h 15m 1





4. The West Coast Main Line is 1,660 miles long and runs from Euston to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, North Wales and Scotland. It is responsible for over 2,000 train movements each day and caters for over 75m passenger journeys every year.

5. The engineering work completed so far includes line speed improvements throughout the route to 125mph in tilt mode, 1,266 miles of track renewed and 2,802 miles of signalling cable laid. Major individual projects include new platforms at Birmingham New Street, Wolverhampton and Stockport, a new flyover and platforms at Nuneaton and three major new junctions on the route.

6. Remaining engineering work which will complete the modernisation project include additional line speed improvements on the London-Northampton line, and further work on the line at Stoke, Crewe and sections of Liverpool and Glasgow. Milton Keynes and Rugby stations will be enlarged, the Trent Valley route will be widened and a new depot will be opened at Northampton.

Public Enquiries: 020 7944 8300
Department for Transport Website: http://www.dft.gov.uk

Client ref 049

GNN ref 133275P

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Other information
Derek Twigg
NEW BENEFITS IDENTIFIED FOR PASSENGERS FOLLOWING UPGRADE OF WEST COAST MAIN LINE




© Crown Copyright 2006

good news, at least we're heading in the right direction for a change!

nick given the current growth of lincoln and the surrounding conurbation if youre gonna plan for a network based on population in 20 years time lincoln gets a population of 440,000 roughly at current growth rates (and thats not compound). 15% of total population growth for the UK outside of london is happening around lincoln.
nick, the EMCL already goes through lincoln. secondly if youre gonna make a new ecml thats HSR then youre gonna pick the quickest route... the difference between newark and lincoln is a mere 2km extra to track length and takes in a very substantial amount of population, another 270,000 or so people increasing by 8,500 a year.
if hull is deserving of its very own spur why not build a spur through lincoln to grimsby as their combined population of city areas alone is larger than hull. the whole idea of a national rail network is it serves the country nationally. are you gonna build a network bypassing modern growth areas such as milton keynes, cambridge and lincoln for old and rapidly declining industrial cities or in the case of the ECML bypass population centres entirely for the likes of grantham, newark and retford.

Avignon, Valence are smaller than Lincoln. Besides the population density in BNLX is much higher than England, and Germany is close to that of England's.
That's why we have a very efficient and smooth network of faster connections. HSR is impractible.
Of course you need to make stops, few people need to travel from Glasgow to London.
It's quite simple - thus effective: long routes along populated areas. Prestigious projects like a MagLev from Glasgow to London is for fools like your beloved François Mitterand or Chirac.The difference is that they are sparsely inbetween. if Lincoln was located on a route that couldn't be served along the WCML then it might have a route, even then it would go through the nearby cities of Nottingham and Sheffield because there are far more people living there.




nick given the current growth of lincoln and the surrounding conurbation if youre gonna plan for a network based on population in 20 years time lincoln gets a population of 440,000 roughly at current growth rates (and thats not compound). 15% of total population growth for the UK outside of london is happening around lincoln.
nick, the EMCL already goes through lincoln. secondly if youre gonna make a new ecml thats HSR then youre gonna pick the quickest route... the difference between newark and lincoln is a mere 2km extra to track length and takes in a very substantial amount of population, another 270,000 or so people increasing by 8,500 a year.
if hull is deserving of its very own spur why not build a spur through lincoln to grimsby as their combined population of city areas alone is larger than hull. the whole idea of a national rail network is it serves the country nationally. are you gonna build a network bypassing modern growth areas such as milton keynes, cambridge and lincoln for old and rapidly declining industrial cities or in the case of the ECML bypass population centres entirely for the likes of grantham, newark and retford.I don't care about population growth rates for Lincoln when you are referring to the surrounding areas of Lincoln and not just the city which over the last 4 years has only seen population growth of 905. If that was the case, you'd get a 2mn+ area for the joint Southampton-Portsmouth area...but it isn't get a HSR or maglev connection...despite the fact that they have far greater international connections and far larger populations.

I know the route of the ECML, but you wouldn't have stops there if you were to upgrade to 300kph. I'd also re-align the route to go through Sheffield and Nottingham because these are far more needy population centres.

Hull wouldn't be a spur but a Liverpool-Hull line that would essentially create a northern mega city line: Liverpool - Warrington - Manchester - Oldham - Huddersfield/M62 - Leeds - York - Kingston upon Hull. Mainline maglev would come up inbetween Warrington and Manchester and diverge northwards after York. You could achieve speeds of over 430kph on all stretches otherthan the Manchester-Oldham stretch. Liverpool-Hull: 60mins (inc stops), yet you'd only need stretches inbetween Liverpool-Manchester and York-Hull for creating a new northern mega city. National maglev stations would stop at only Leeds and Manchester and York, while Liverpool-London services could be offered. Currently it takes 3hrs 12mins to go from Liverpool to Kingston upon Hull.

Lets be realistic here, with mindless babblings by yourself, this network won't even get built. This is a major problem in the UK: there is far too much say in such important projects and this drives up cost and creates delays. The French or Japanese would ignore you if you wanted a station at Lincoln, because they only nationally before looking down. That is why we really need a single north-south maglev line, before we begin to create other branches. If maglev does get built, then HSR could be built to link York with London on the ECML, who knows, but we need to get this single mainline built rather than go on about a little settlement.

I wouldn't avoid the likes of Milton Keynes, what I would do is create at first a mainline. I'd then create stations at Milton Keynes alongside current infrastructure that could be local services (due to the computer controlled nature of the system, it would be possible to allow for pin-point timing for express services to passby local stopped services). After that, maybe a Brighton-London Gatwick Airport-Croydon-London line and Cambridge-London Stansted Airport-M25-Stratford-London line could be on the table.

ok nick, youre right and the council records are wrong on population - this is continuous urban area. it is doubly the case for lincoln as unlike almost every other british city it isnt near anything else. the portsmouth conurbation by the way has 422,000 people, growth there is 2.8%.
now you do an ECML and you tell me whether it should go through major population centres or miss them completely and take in a couple of market towns with the passenger service whilst routing the freight through the major conurbations?
rather amazingly network rail happen to agree that the railways are crap and not serving the area after it was pointed out that they are exactly the same as in 1860.
the current planning for the railways is completely stupid because it takes in former urban areas like hull for example that are in serious economic and demographic decline whilst ignoring areas that are experiencing massive continuous growth. its like that with everything though, look at the number of MPs we have and then compare it to hull. if youre giong to build a network that will serve the country for the next 100 years youd better build it so it serves the country in 100 years time.

I agree that the ECML route should be changed. I’m sure GNER will transform the ECML route to serve the major cities that it skips on the Mainline. There are two things I would do if the ECML route was to change.

GNER calls at Grantham- instead of calling at Retford, GNER joins the Lincoln route (to serve Lincoln) and continues on to Doncaster and beyond.

or

GNER calls at Grantham- instead of calling at Retford or Newark, GNER joins the Nottingham route. Then it goes on to Sheffield with a branch calling at Doncaster (to Hull) and the other Main Line branch to Leeds and beyond.

I have found that the 16 x ugly duck-billed Talgo-350 sets
I frankly think that they are gorgeous!

Now four European countries have pioneered high speed, and each one distinctive: Germany, France, Spain, and Italy (and their various high speed sets in my order of preference).


¡Hola!
:hi:
El 19 de septiembre no me apetecía coger el bus de MAD a BCN, me fui a la estación Puerta de Atocha para reservar un ALTARIA pero todos los trenes MAD-BCN estaban completos, entonces ni corto ni perezoso me compré un billete en AVE de MAD a Lleida y un billete en ALTARIA de Lleida a BCN. La bromita me salió por un ojo de la cara, pero al menos aproveché para hacerle más de 100 fotos al "pato" de TALGO.
:happy:
(Además ligué en el tren :D)

Dedico este reportaje a mi "DiRDi".
Aquí pongo las fotos que mejor me salieron, son 36:

Mi "pato" en el andén de Puerta de Atocha:
http://************/e8amgh.jpg
http://************/e8ampy.jpg
:)
Números de chasis:
http://************/e8amu1.jpg
http://************/e8amx0.jpg
:)
Panel exterior:
http://************/e8an0y.jpg
:)
Clase turista:
http://************/e8an7s.jpg
:)
Indicador interior, 13 grados en Atocha a las 6.37:
http://************/e8anes.jpg
:)
Comunicación entre 2 coches de clase turista:
http://************/e8ango.jpg
:)
Portaequipajes de turista:
http://************/e8anhx.jpg
:)
Plataforma entre 2 coches de turista:
http://************/e8anmf.jpg
:)
Baño en turista:
http://************/e8anns.jpg
:)
Coche de clase turista:
http://************/e8ansz.jpg
:)
Pantallas en clase turista:
http://************/e8anv9.jpg
:)
Portaequipajes en clase turista:
http://************/e8anwh.jpg
:)
Andén de la estación:
http://************/e8ao0o.jpg
:)
Coche de clase preferente:
http://************/e8jo6e.jpg
:)
"Minibar" en clase preferente:
http://************/e8jo8i.jpg
:)
Acceso desde clase preferente a la cafetería:
http://************/e8jod5.jpg
:)
Cafetería:
http://************/e8jojp.jpg
:)
Coche de clase preferente:
http://************/e8jolj.jpg
:)
Clase preferente, con cabina de teléfono:
http://************/e8jomv.jpg
:)
Coche de clase preferente:
http://************/e8jor9.jpg
:)
Acceso a la cabina del tren:
http://************/e8josx.jpg
:)
"Puesto de control" de las "azafatas/os":
http://************/e8kebc.jpg
:)
Mandos de apertura y cierre de puerta:
http://************/e8kegn.jpg
:)
Panel exterior:
http://************/e8keih.jpg
:)
Portaequipajes superior en clase turista:
http://************/e8kenl.jpg
:)
Almohadilla en butaca de turista:
http://************/e8kgee.jpg
:)
Portaequipajes superiores transparentes, en turista:
http://************/e8kgib.jpg
:)
Pantalla en clase turista:
http://************/e8kgpd.jpg
:)
Andén de la estación de Calatayud:
http://************/e8kguu.jpg
:)
Vías en Calatayud:
http://************/e8kh1c.jpg
:)
Estación de Zaragoza Delicias, me prohibieron tomar fotos:
http://************/e8khaw.jpg
:)
Estación de Lleida Pirineus:
http://************/e8khfr.jpg
http://************/e8khkw.jpg
:)
Al fondo mi AVE, y llegando mi ALTARiA hacia BCN:
http://************/e8kho7.jpg
:wink2:

More pictures of the "duck" as they approach one of themain stations in Madrid.

There are shitloads more, but there is now need for me to :spam1: this thread even more as it is unrelated to the thread's topic.

El viernes, tras hacer la compra en Méndez Álvaro, me decidí a probar la cámara nueva y acercarme a ver si pillaba algún Alvia. Y en poco tiempo cacé muchos de los otros pájaros que anidan en las vías del ADIF.

Empiezo por mi especie predilecta, el 102:

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/773/foto0059my.jpg

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/7702/foto0063sy.jpg

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/9426/foto0088fz.jpg

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/9849/foto0102me.jpg

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/1326/foto0126gs.jpg

http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/4740/foto0419yu.jpg

^^ Did you know what the deal was? Spain would buy from France these trains and in return France would surrender members of ETA.

But you can't compare Britain to Spain. Britain has loads of agglomerations of 3,4,500 thousand. Britain needs a web with split-level stations so the passenger can switch services smoothly. Much like BNLX, N-France, Ruhr/Cologne and Frankfurt.

One typical difference between Paris and London: You can travel past Paris by TGV - via Marne-L/V. The first time I took that TGV, I thought what the heck are we halting for? Such a mindset of passing by the nation's capital should be introduced to Britain.

The title of this thread is really starting to annoy me now.

No capital 'S' is why?

^^ Did you know what the deal was? Spain would buy from France these trains and in return France would surrender members of ETA.
Those trainsets are not even French though. :sly:

It should be, High-speed link from London to Scotland to be unveiled.

In its current incarnation, not only is "for" being used incorrectly, but is makes it seem like you are physically going from London to Scotland showing people some plans for a high speed link.

As far as I know the whole HSR netwerk of Spain is made under license from France.

Quite daring to change the syntax with Charlie on board. Shouldn't it read a link of LDN and Sc? The word link suggests a connection already so there's no need for the use of prepositions at all.

It's not a marriage from, to or whatever either, innit? A link is some kind of unison.

ok nick, youre right and the council records are wrong on population - this is continuous urban area. it is doubly the case for lincoln as unlike almost every other british city it isnt near anything else. the portsmouth conurbation by the way has 422,000 people, growth there is 2.8%.
now you do an ECML and you tell me whether it should go through major population centres or miss them completely and take in a couple of market towns with the passenger service whilst routing the freight through the major conurbations?
rather amazingly network rail happen to agree that the railways are crap and not serving the area after it was pointed out that they are exactly the same as in 1860.
the current planning for the railways is completely stupid because it takes in former urban areas like hull for example that are in serious economic and demographic decline whilst ignoring areas that are experiencing massive continuous growth. its like that with everything though, look at the number of MPs we have and then compare it to hull. if youre giong to build a network that will serve the country for the next 100 years youd better build it so it serves the country in 100 years time.Note how I said Southampton-Portsmouth, they are practically twin cities with a far larger population catchment area than Lincoln. That alone is larger than any future Lincoln would ever be.

A HSR ECML would bypass market towns, but it would by-pass Lincoln altogether and go straight for Nottingham and Sheffield.

No the planning is flawed because it allows individuals like you wanting their own station so that they could get more benefit, even though as a whole this benefit would be negligible. And what is wrong with giving declining areas a helping hand? That is what happened with the Docklands and look where they are now - more 150m+ skyscrapers than anywhere else in the UK. Fact is, Lincoln is out of the way of a major corridor going through the major eastern cities like Sheffield and Nottingham its ill-placed and I don't care if predictions say that by 2050, that it will have a population - it very well might not and it could go the other way. Hull will remain significantly larger than Lincoln for the forseeable future

At the end, this has nothing to do with national wellbeing for 100 years, or for the benefit of Lincoln, this would all be a beneift for you and because of that you are illustrating precisely why we need fewer input from locals wanting a bit of a cake which pushes up costs or sees nothing happening.




Bikkel - No, cause in Britain we already have that sort of network, it is the by-passing of these at faster speeds that we need.

LOL. I'm waiting for the wrath of goth!

Btw re the WCML extension looks like it will go at 140mph after all (along parts of the line anyway).

It is clear that the journey times are quite a significant improvement upon the previous ones. When the WCML is finished people will not just notice the extra speed but the timetabling will allow a far higher frequency of trains... I think something like 50% more capacity on the busiest train line in Europe. When looking back at this project in the future the public may not regard it as money thrown down the drain but a solid investment in the future of Britain's railways.

A 135mph/140mph speed limit on one of the World's most complex railway lines is no mean feat and the WCML will be a sound, cheaper alternative to the High Speed Line/Maglev which is likely to be completed before 2025 if we are being realistic and 2020 if we are lucky!

As far as I know the whole HSR netwerk of Spain is made under license from France.

Quite daring to change the syntax with Charlie on board. Shouldn't it read a link of LDN and Sc? The word link suggests a connection already so there's no need for the use of prepositions at all.

It's not a marriage from, to or whatever either, innit? A link is some kind of unison.
Me thinks not. The trains are French, German, and Spanish. The signaling system is Italian, and the construction companies, Spanish. ;)

LOL. I'm waiting for the wrath of goth!

Btw re the WCML extension looks like it will go at 140mph after all (along parts of the line anyway).

It is clear that the journey times are quite a significant improvement upon the previous ones. When the WCML is finished people will not just notice the extra speed but the timetabling will allow a far higher frequency of trains... I think something like 50% more capacity on the busiest train line in Europe. When looking back at this project in the future the public may not regard it as money thrown down the drain but a solid investment in the future of Britain's railways.

A 135mph/140mph speed limit on one of the World's most complex railway lines is no mean feat and the WCML will be a sound, cheaper alternative to the High Speed Line/Maglev which is likely to be completed before 2025 if we are being realistic and 2020 if we are lucky!I 100% agree. The problem with WCML was not the concept - the concept was clearly the best value - however Railtrack had no control over the costs charged by construction companies so the project ended up costing far more than originally forecast. If the new structure with the SRA is able to control costs better than Railtrack then I think continuous upgrades and improvements to the existing ECML and WCML are clearly the best option. Britain's taxes are already rising as the government ploughs more funds into public services. I don't want to end up in the position of France - with a good high speed rail network but an uncompetitive economy as a result. There is no reason why our existing lines cannot be upgraded to handle 250km/h tilting trains and that is fast enough for a country of this size and a much more effective use of taxpayers money. If our existing lines must be duplicated, then surely only a quantum leap in performance, such as that offered by Maglev, could justify the colossal expenditure on land and construction. Building HSR lines that duplicate the trunk routes we have already, and that offer only modest time improvements over what our existing lines could potentially offer, is clearly a huge waste of money.

It should be, High-speed link from London to Scotland to be unveiled.

In its current incarnation, not only is "for" being used incorrectly, but is makes it seem like you are physically going from London to Scotland showing people some plans for a high speed link.

It should read "Plans for high-speed link between London and Scotland to be unveiled".

Unless a high-speed link has been secretly completed, which I find hard to believe.

not to mention the M4 corridor, Bristol and South Wales

I agree, Flights from Cardiff or Bristol are expensive and almost pointless given the distance and I doubt profitable, however Cardiff to London is still a 2.5hr drive and this could be shortened to what 40mins?
I would have thought flights from Edinburgh and Glasgow are busy and profitable so why build a rail link?

I would have thought flights from Edinburgh and Glasgow are busy and profitable so why build a rail link?
If rail makes sense why fly????
-For people travelling city centre to city centre rail would be simple and probably quicker.
-This line would not only improve London - Scotland, but also all the possible combinations of destinations in between.
-We also have a bit of a congestion at airports problem. ~15% of UK take offs are internal.
-And for me, and to be honest I'm amazed this isn't on everyones mind, rail, over this distance produces 1/14th of the CO2 emmissions that air does. If connected to the Channel tunnel rail link this line could also remove the need for flights from the midlands to the near continent.

I 100% agree. The problem with WCML was not the concept - the concept was clearly the best value - however Railtrack had no control over the costs charged by construction companies so the project ended up costing far more than originally forecast. If the new structure with the SRA is able to control costs better than Railtrack then I think continuous upgrades and improvements to the existing ECML and WCML are clearly the best option. Britain's taxes are already rising as the government ploughs more funds into public services. I don't want to end up in the position of France - with a good high speed rail network but an uncompetitive economy as a result. There is no reason why our existing lines cannot be upgraded to handle 250km/h tilting trains and that is fast enough for a country of this size and a much more effective use of taxpayers money. If our existing lines must be duplicated, then surely only a quantum leap in performance, such as that offered by Maglev, could justify the colossal expenditure on land and construction. Building HSR lines that duplicate the trunk routes we have already, and that offer only modest time improvements over what our existing lines could potentially offer, is clearly a huge waste of money.

I think you've got the wrong ends of a couple of wrong sticks there old chap.

The cost "overruns" on WCML were mainly due to over-ambitious scoping, largely related to the wish for 140 mph permissible speeds. This requires in-cab signalling which in turn requires train-track communications systems; this, in turn, for a mixed-use railway (express trains, slower commuter trains, cross-country trains and freight trains), means that all the trains which do and might use the railway have to have these systems installed. The people who originally costed "140 mph signalling" didn't really have a clue about signalling and what it could/would cost. In fact the signalling manufacturers refused to sign fixed-price contracts to develop these new signalling systems (fearing they would lose huge amounts of money). Railtrack in turn refused to sign a blank cheque for the development, so 140 mph was abandoned.

Other cost increases were due to the perceived need for weekend/night working only. The SRA introduced "blockades" where section of the WCML were shut for months at a time, saving vast amounts.

The SRA no longer exists and its functions have been allocated to the DfT and ORR. Railtrack is now Network Rail and has been for a couple of years.

nick, thats why you need three lines... WCML, MML and ECML. lincoln is NOT out of the way of the major corridors. infact the original victorian line running up the east coast was planned to go straight through lincoln but didnt simply because of the opposition of the local mp back then who did not support the railways. the ECML freight line actually goes straight through lincoln whilst the passenger line avoids it. simply by swapping them around you move the entire place into the ECML at the expense of newark.

when virgin bid for the franchise ni competition with gner they spoke of a new HSR line if you remember. it would have run straight through lincoln stopping once an hour there. at the expense of lincoln would have been newark and virgin said it would require an extra 2.4km of track, which isnt bad when you consider you gain quarter of million customers living in the place physically attached to the station alone as well as keeping newark and its population in the larger catchment area.

nick, hulls population falls by 5% a decade and we have growth here of 8.5% per decade.... lincoln cant lump in other places into its conurbation because there is nowhere near it hence the population figures are "pure". quite rare in the uk given the population density here.

its nice to see you support the likes of nottingham/nottinghamshire getting hsr. unfortunately the difference between nottingham/nottinghamshire and lincoln/lincolnshire in population is only 47,000 where we end up more populous by the end of the decade. again an area where the population is falling, this time by 10,000 a year and is currently 1,278,000. you do the maths...
lincolnshire growth = 8500 a year.
south yorkshire = minus 10,000 a year.
and you want them served by HSR when they are set to be the smaller catchment area. nice forward planning given we'll be more populous a county in 15 years!

the demographic realities here are four major growth places in england north of london, they are milton keynes, peterborough, cambridge and lincoln. per decade growth in cambridge area is 16.1%, milton keynes area only 5.1%, peterborough area 10%, lincoln area 32%. lol.

north kesteven district council that borders the west of the city of lincoln is one of the three fastest growing areas in the whole country, population was 94,500 in 2001, 2003 saw it at 99,000 and in 2004 was 102,500, or 9.2% in a mere three years. the "village" of north hykeham alone that is physically connected to lincoln in every way will grow by approximately 700 households this year alone from 5100 to 5800. how many places in the UK get double digit growth in a year? number of households in north hykeham in 1961 by the way was 450 so thats 1288% growth in 44 years or 29% per year on average. lol.
north hykeham is just one of many attached places such as waddington, bracebridge heath and birchwood all experiencing the exact same trend.

most insane thing and this must piss off prescott a lot is that he growth around lincoln is totally organic and not managed by central govt at all. it isnt in his grand plans and is happening anyway, clearly it isnt in yours either.

ok..

the vast majority of the people in lincolnshire live within twelve miles of two places. next youll be claiming scotland is infact very sparsely populated when its one of the most urbanised areas of the country. north yorkshire including york have a lower population density than lincolnshire but york is served. youll be arguing against plymouth next or aberdeen, lincolnshire overtakes the devon/plymouth level of density sometime in the next five years.

i note too youre also arguing against how the govt plans for airports (based on future not current growth). the govt doesnt however plan for the railways like this. the govt plans for railways based on the current population centres whilst doing the opposite for airports and roads. now either you believe that the railways should be shaped by how we live today even though we are building them for the next 100 years or...

Sorry gothic, but…

Area of Lincolnshire = 6,959 km²
Inhabitants = 987,700/6,959 = 142 per km²

Area of Nottinghamshire = 2,160 km²
Inhabitants = 1,034,700/2,160 = 479 per km²

It isn't even fair to use Nottinghamshire density figures because Nottingham alone is about 4000 per km² with more railway traffic than all of Nottinghamshire.

Lincolnshire is more than three times bigger than Nottinghamshire with less population AND less population density. Lincoln is three times smaller than Nottingham (both in population and greater population) Besides, Nottingham Midland is the principal railway station in Nottinghamshire so using Nottinghamshire figures to help boost the Lincoln sums up is very mistaken because Nottinghamshire doesn’t have that much overground railway compared to Nottingham itself.

BTW, Nottingham is getting Cross Country for 2007 (Nottingham – Cardiff, Nottingham - Hereford) and Nottingham already has MML so it would only be a bonus if Nottingham got the ECML.

and thats why you run a mainline up the middle of the country too. no one disputes the importance or size of nottingham in deserving decent rail connections. lincoln is the principal station for lincolnshire. everything in lincolnshire is a spoke from this central point hence comparing the population of nottinghamshire to lincolnshire which is an unfair comparison as many people in notts are actually closer to derby whereas all parts of lincolnshire are closest to lincoln. the exception is of course north lincs which has the humber blocking it from hull.
here's an interesting stat for you -
govt administrative and private sector office populations, gives an idea of "true" city size if you follow.

city of lincoln area (86000 population) -5840
city of peterborough (population 165,000) - 5960

btw, the population this year is 1,004,000 for lincolnshire :)

Thanks gothic, at the moment Midland Mainline and Central Trains operate in Nottingham but this will change for 2007. Trains in Nottingham will include Midland Mainline, Cross Country, TransPennine Express, and renamed Central Trains.

Midland Mainline
London – Nottingham

Central Trains
Leicester – Nottingham - Lincoln
Liverpool – Nottingham - Norwich
Nottingham – Skegness
Nottingham - Worksop

Cross Country
Cardiff – Nottingham
Hereford – Nottingham

TPE
Liverpool – Nottingham

and I wish, :)
GNER
London - Nottingham - Edinburgh
London - Nottingham - Leeds

Yes nottingham may well be getting a different train operating company to operate it's nottingham - cardiff/hereford routes but the city itself is not going to benefit from any new routes to/from notts so nothing is going to change in that respect, it'll just be different branding on the trains.

Also GNER would never operate into nottingham because the city already has a mainline link down to london, which is operated by midland mainline, it isn't GNER's territory.

Then what about Leeds? It has GNER and Midland Mainline. Ok, I know its not a principal MML but still it has both. And just because Nottingham has a Mainline link to London doesn't stop it from getting GNER. It would give a Mainline link to Scotland and other English cities.

Trust me mate GNER wouldn't operate to any destination in the east midlands, Midland mainline operate a few services a day to/from leeds and that's about it, they only run those services because they are told they have to run them as part of their franchise commitment, it's like GNER operating to/from hull there is only 1 train per day each way but they wouldn't operate it if they had their way.

nick, thats why you need three lines... WCML, MML and ECML. lincoln is NOT out of the way of the major corridors. infact the original victorian line running up the east coast was planned to go straight through lincoln but didnt simply because of the opposition of the local mp back then who did not support the railways. the ECML freight line actually goes straight through lincoln whilst the passenger line avoids it. simply by swapping them around you move the entire place into the ECML at the expense of newark.

when virgin bid for the franchise ni competition with gner they spoke of a new HSR line if you remember. it would have run straight through lincoln stopping once an hour there. at the expense of lincoln would have been newark and virgin said it would require an extra 2.4km of track, which isnt bad when you consider you gain quarter of million customers living in the place physically attached to the station alone as well as keeping newark and its population in the larger catchment area.

nick, hulls population falls by 5% a decade and we have growth here of 8.5% per decade.... lincoln cant lump in other places into its conurbation because there is nowhere near it hence the population figures are "pure". quite rare in the uk given the population density here.

its nice to see you support the likes of nottingham/nottinghamshire getting hsr. unfortunately the difference between nottingham/nottinghamshire and lincoln/lincolnshire in population is only 47,000 where we end up more populous by the end of the decade. again an area where the population is falling, this time by 10,000 a year and is currently 1,278,000. you do the maths...
lincolnshire growth = 8500 a year.
south yorkshire = minus 10,000 a year.
and you want them served by HSR when they are set to be the smaller catchment area. nice forward planning given we'll be more populous a county in 15 years!

the demographic realities here are four major growth places in england north of london, they are milton keynes, peterborough, cambridge and lincoln. per decade growth in cambridge area is 16.1%, milton keynes area only 5.1%, peterborough area 10%, lincoln area 32%. lol.

north kesteven district council that borders the west of the city of lincoln is one of the three fastest growing areas in the whole country, population was 94,500 in 2001, 2003 saw it at 99,000 and in 2004 was 102,500, or 9.2% in a mere three years. the "village" of north hykeham alone that is physically connected to lincoln in every way will grow by approximately 700 households this year alone from 5100 to 5800. how many places in the UK get double digit growth in a year? number of households in north hykeham in 1961 by the way was 450 so thats 1288% growth in 44 years or 29% per year on average. lol.
north hykeham is just one of many attached places such as waddington, bracebridge heath and birchwood all experiencing the exact same trend.

most insane thing and this must piss off prescott a lot is that he growth around lincoln is totally organic and not managed by central govt at all. it isnt in his grand plans and is happening anyway, clearly it isnt in yours either.So instead of building one north-south line we should be automatically building an entire HSR network at the same time? Don't you understand the scale of these projects: there is no way we could do that without having costs that are beyond all belief for very little extra gain.

I'm unsure where you are getting your figures, from but Hull is infact growing, and growing faster than Lincoln. Not only that, but Kingston upon Hull has nearly 50% higher population density despite covering a larger area: 3,478/km² compared to 2,424/km².

Its not like Hull is absorbing other areas to its conurbation - there aint much until you get to York!

You can't just compare Nottinghamshire to Lincolnshire! There is the major difference that in Nottinghamshire, the density of people is far higher. Using your logic, Lincolnshire would deserve a HSR connection more than say Liverpool - absolute madness!

Nottinghamshire + Nottingham
2001 - 1,015,498
2004 - 1,034,700
+ 19,202 over 2,160km²

East Riding of Yorkshire + Kingston upon Hull
2001 - 557,702
2004 - 573,300
+ 15,598 over 2,479km²

Lincolnshire + Lincoln & Others
2001 - 957,473
2004 - 987,700
+ 30,227 over 6,959 km²

Just from the figures its obvious that firstly Lincolnshire is 3x larger than the East Riding and 3.25x larger than Nottinghamshire! Yet its population is still smaller than that of Nottinghamshire and the East Riding is far denser.

Growth per km²
Nottinghamshire - 8.8
East Yorkshire - 6.2
Lincolnshire - 4.3

Basically, Nottinghamshire is growing at over double the rate of Lincolnshire, while East Yorkshire is growing at around 50% that of Lincolnshire. You have only further proven my point: Lincolnshire isn't growing fast, nor is Lincoln and especially comapred to far more populated, but smaller areas such as East Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire that are far more deserving of a HSR/maglev link than Lincoln are.

So yes, that is forward planning - not only connecting up the more populous areas, but the areas that are growing faster! :laugh:

North Kesteven
2001 - 94,024
2004 - 100,500
+6,476 over 922.44km²

That area is massive - again you have to take all these things into perspective. Once you factor in the size of the area, the growth doesn't look as impressive.

Considering you don't seem to understand demographics and population distributions I don't think you should try and lecture me on understanding this subject as I've clearly shown - Lincoln would not be a major centre and never will be for the forseeable future.

The only reason you'd want a third line is to get a station at Lincoln...hell if it were up to you, an east coast line with a convenient stop at Lincoln would be the priority above all other new HSR/maglev lines. Again this all goes back to my problem with this country that far too many minority voices want a bit of the cake, when we should be concentrating on the national picture - this is how its done in Japan, Spain, France, etc... and that is how it has to be done here.

double post.

I agree with you nick, but Nottingham itself is doing better than all of Nottinghamshire. The Nottingham area of Nottinghamshire (The southern end) holds a population of about 800'000 in just about 1’000 km ² land.

either way tho, you're still right, I just wanted to give my point.

What rubbish! Fiscal analysis relates to government expenditures of taxpayers money - such as spending on infrastructure projects (amongst other things....). :|Well my report from Maglev bloody well doesn't mention a less smooth ride does it!? Two weeks ago I was on Maglev just one day after riding the Tokaido Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka. I have ridden on TGV's (especially Eurostar), Shinkansen, and the Shanghai Maglev lots of times - and I can tell you now - Maglev is very smooth indeed!!This makes no sense at all. Maglev makes sense in exactly the same places that HSR makes sense - ie between relatively close cities in densely populated parts of the world (eg Europe, Japan, eastern China, coastal USA etc). There is absolutely no point building a Maglev between, say, Perth and Sydney, because it is so much cheaper and faster to fly (airliners cruise at ~900km/h). Neither Maglev nor HSR could ever justify their costs on this kind of route. And what exactly do you mean by "small traject" here?
Pityful excuses. There is no long-distance MagLev, so what you're on about with your 'comparisons'. Airport-Shanghai one ride, no stops.

And again fiscality is determined by law, and can be changed by the will of politics. If public transport would be free, new infrastructure will be very expensive. If public transport wouldn't be taxed, and the building of infrastructure would be receiving subvention, then it could be very profitable.

Pityful excuses. There is no long-distance MagLev, so what you're on about with your 'comparisons'. Airport-Shanghai one ride, no stops.I really don't understand your point. Please explain. Maglev is obviously much faster than HSR over every distance, long or short, given that it has a much higher top speed and faster acceleration/deceleration too. And the 160km line from Hangzhou to Shanghai is currently under construction.

Well you can't build a high speed rail network that serves the whole country in one go!

Besides, this line would serve London, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow and Edinburgh.... better than solely a high speed East Coast Main Line which would only serve Sheffield, Leeds, Glasgow and Edinburgh.

With a few billion for the signalling couldn't the ECML be upgraded to 160mp/h anyway?

Nottingham? Leicester? Derby? London Luton Airport? Sunderland? Newcastle?