TRANSPORT | High Speed Rail

[M€trolink]

From the Brummie sub forum...

http://www.birminghampost.net/news/n...name_page.html

Government changes its mind over high speed rail links
Oct 29 2008 By Jonathan Walker, Political Editor

Labour has come out in support of high-speed rail lines, such as Birmingham to London, in a major policy U-turn.

The Government announced a new inquiry into the case for high speed rail, as Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon insisted: “New lines have great potential and it is important that we start now to plan for future growth.”

Ministers have never officially ruled out building high speed rail links, but the Government’s attitude has previously been hostile to the idea.

It follows the Conservative pledge made at the party conference in Birmingham that a Tory Government would build a new line with trains running up to 190mph, which could cut journey times from London to Birmingham to 45 minutes.

The Labour leadership is also struggling to cope with a rebellion over plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport. Opponents of the expansion plan, including a number of Labour MPs in London seats, have been arguing that a high speed rail service, costing an estimated £20 billion, could provide an alternative solution to growing demand for air travel.

By taking commuters from Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and possibly Scotland to the Eurostar terminal in St Pancras, London, it could allow people to travel quickly to destinations on the Continent without needing to fly, MPs claim.

A House of Commons motion signed by 78 MPs, including around 50 Labour MPs, “regrets the fact that provisions to improve high speed rail lines from Heathrow to major cities have not been fully explored.”

There have been reports that some Cabinet Ministers, including Environment Secretary Hilary Benn, have been encouraging the Labour rebels.

Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon has now issued a Commons statement announcing a new inquiry, to be led by Transport Minister Lord Adonis.

It will examine ways of making better use of existing transport networks, such as expanding motorways or improving rail lines.

But it will also focus on “longer term solutions”, Mr Hoon said.

He told MPs: “This will include consideration of wholly new rail lines, including high speed rail. We are committed to developing a modern sustainable rail system that supports economic growth.”

The Government had previously said it was waiting for Network Rail to finish its own inquiry into the potential for new rail lines - which is not due to report until the summer of 2009.

A major review of Britain’s transport network in 2006, produced for the Government by former British Airways chief executive Rod Eddington, appeared to rule out high speed rail lines, concluding that they would be expensive while the benefits would be “relatively modest”.

In October last year, Transport Minister Jim Fitzpatrick told the House of Commons that the estimated cost of a new line had shot up to £30 billion, adding: “Presently there is no justification case for such expenditure.”

The Government then published a major transport policy paper, which listed high speed rail as an option for improving transport links between London, Birmingham and Manchester but only as one of a number of possibilities, including expanding the M6 motorway. The new statement suggests the Government believes high speed rail may be needed even if existing transport links are improved.

[gd]

£30 Billion!!!!!...what a waste of money!!!

Should be used to prop up ailing banks instead!

[EverythingButABeach]

I'm sorry but why the hell would I want to get on a train to "Where's my bags Heathrow" when I live next to one of the world's 25 busiest airports at Manchester?

If the purpose is to get more people in Scotland or the Midlands to Manchester airport (so they can avoid London and fly direct to a long haul destination) then their is a point to this.

If I can get from the North to France by train (without changing trains) in a reasonable time then there is a point to it

If it allows people in Scotland, the Midlands and down South to get to Manchester quicker then there is a point to it.

However this smacks of yet another sham exercise in undermining the Midlands, North of England and Scotland by forcing people to an airport 200 to 400 miles away from their homes and offices. We'll know what the motivation for this is if there is a direct link between Manchester airport and the high speed line. Strange how it isn't mentioned?

The stupidity and arrogance of the people who come up with this stuff down south is unreal!

[M€trolink]

Come on.

This would be tremendous for Manchester, a fast link to one of the major economic capaitals of the world, and then onwards to Europe.

Flying to London, from Manchester is economic and environmental madness, at present if you want to travel long haul you have to option of flying to many european and further afield hubs and onwards from Manchester, this would make even more, more pleasant options.

Given the WCML is forecast to reach capacity very soon, which would start to adversely affect the growth oppurtunity of Manchester, I take it you are suggesting we do nothing to relieve that pressue?

[URBANISER]

Geoff Hoon has a great passion for the railway's, at last we have a transport secretary that will push this forward, I also think he will be more open to the expansion of motorway capacity. The M1 - M6 corridor between our three largest connurbations is clearly out of date capacity wise.

[A6 Bypass]

Interesting that people are talking about details such as the ticketing issues of a high speed line - must be taking it seriously. I hope...http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/no...rth-south-rail

For the cost of tilting Eurostar units and refurbishing Mayfield into an international check in site we could have a 4-hour service to Paris. (2 hours to tunnel, 2 hours then to Paris). Quicker than Manchester to Scotland by train! Add 45-ish mins and we could use existing Eurostar units.

[arepeejee]

Any ideas what sort of route this would take?

The most logical (I'd say) would be to upgrade the midland mainline between St Pancras and Sheffield, and then re-open the woodhead tunnel (built for speed anyway). The Sheffield to Manchester section would be just 20/25 minutes - which would of course provide a significant economy boost to both the Manchester and South Yorkshire regions.

[Priscilla QOTD]

Well I think it's pretty much decided that if this goes ahead, the first section will be London to Birmingham. It would clearly make much more sense (and better economy) to build the line to Manchester as a spur from this one, probably somewhere around Rugby like the existing WCML. Then I believe the plan is to extend from Manchester over to Leeds. Not heard Sheffield mentioned in the scheme yet...... Sorry!

[M€trolink]

It'll follow the WCML up to Brum I'd have thought, and then follow the WCML north from Brum up to Manc (taking the Stoke spur) and then be new build over to Leeds presumably.

Cannot see Sheffield being in any plans, it's too far south.

[SOMtastic]

Originally Posted by M€trolink

... and then be new build over to Leeds presumably.

I was under the impression it was entirely new build ... otherwise there’d be little point due to congestion ?

[M€trolink]

Sorry, it will all be new build, however, I was under the impression that the new build from London to Manc via Brum would follow the existing alinement.

[hulmeman2]

I understood it was to follow the M1/M6 alignment?

[Priscilla QOTD]

Originally Posted by hulmeman2

I understood it was to follow the M1/M6 alignment?

The existing WCML pretty much follows the M1/M6 corridors.

[nerd]

Originally Posted by Priscilla QOTD

The existing WCML pretty much follows the M1/M6 corridors.

forget the M1.

from St Pancras to Heathrow - then following the M40 to Birmingham International Airport, then following the M6 to Ringway, and over the Pennines, most likely on the M62, to Leeds/Bradford airport (I think). Connection into each airport terminus would be by some sort of short-distance high-speed shuttle (Maglev?)

The key is to maximise capacity, rather than speed, so the trains will be longer than current Pendelino units, and will have wider and higher loading guages. Hence existing city centre stations cannot be used, as their platforms would not be long enough. There would need to be another set of short-distance shuttles to link the new out-of-town terminuses to the existing stations.

[Beram]

Nerd, you seem to be particularly in the know when it comes to rail: I was having a chat with someone about the proposal to reinstate the East Lancs railway as a commuter route. She used to live in Ramsbottom and she was worried about the impact on tourism that this would have: they have WWII days up there on which the railway plays a big part. Do you think these fears are unfounded, or is it an issue that will have to be addressed? I know that Ramsbottom is increasingly a dormitory town rather than a sustainable community with its own industries (eg, the paper mill is shutting down), but still this struck me as a potential issue.

[Owd Lanky]

Beram,
Not sure the ELR could ever be High Speed Rail but as I dont know how to move a post to another transport thread, here goes.

Yes, It is an issue that an ELR commuter service could affect the continuance of the Preserved Railway, However the degree of change is dependant upon the final proposals.

Currently £25m is to be budgeted in a revised local transport plan post TIF acceptance. The budget is based upon ELR upgrading but COULD be spent on other conjestion relief (busses) in the Irwell Valley. ELR scheme development is still ongoing BUT the original brief was to provide both a weekday peak time commuter service AND retain the preserved railway.

1. Will it be cost beneficial to spend £25m plus £1-1.5m per year thereafter for a 20-30 hour a week service? If the answer is NO, will the money be spent elsewhere or will the Preserved railway criteria be removed to allow a 7 day a week, all day full service?

2. Service Overlap. If a weekday peak time commuter service goes ahead and the Preserved railway continues to run weekends, bank holidays and during the warmer school holidays there would be a conflict on the holiday afternoons to resolve.

3. Safety & Character. To allow a "commercial" commuter service the line will need to be upgraded to current legal requirements. (Eg track, signals, level crossings, platform heights, platform surfaces, non step access (Ramps/lifts), etc). All these could change the character and hence appeal of the railway to the users and film crews that currently enjoy it. The tram option could lead to either diesel units running on metrolink or main line steam trains running under metrolink wires.

4. Ownership and operations
Currently the track is owned by the local authorities and operated via a charity using volenteers. Once upgraded who will own the track (No change/ Network Rail/ another party) and will the be committed to a preserved railway (as the councils have been)? I assume a "commercial" railway will need to employee and pay staff to operate the system. How does this link into the continued use of volenteers for the preserved line?

None of the above prevents the line being upgraded for dual use but it does highlight it would need to be done carefully and even then may put the long term future of the preserved railway at risk.

In my opinion, Bury, Ramsbottom and Rawtenstall do not NEED a preserved railway, BUT it is a major North West Attraction which brings IN large numbers of visitors which support an alternative economy and character which is different to that of another set of dormitory towns.

[StephenP]

All this talk to Birmingham and Manchester and Leeds...does anyone know if it will travel through Edinburgh and Glasgow?

[The Longford]

Originally Posted by StephenP

All this talk to Birmingham and Manchester and Leeds...does anyone know if it will travel through Edinburgh and Glasgow?

And why, pray tell, would it want to do that?

Who could be bothered to unhook the trains and transfer all the passengers on to horse and carts - or whatever it is the most modern form of transport you are currently all using up there?

[nerd]

Originally Posted by Owd Lanky

Beram,
Not sure the ELR could ever be High Speed Rail but as I dont know how to move a post to another transport thread, here goes.

Yes, It is an issue that an ELR commuter service could affect the continuance of the Preserved Railway, However the degree of change is dependant upon the final proposals.

Currently £25m is to be budgeted in a revised local transport plan post TIF acceptance. The budget is based upon ELR upgrading but COULD be spent on other conjestion relief (busses) in the Irwell Valley. ELR scheme development is still ongoing BUT the original brief was to provide both a weekday peak time commuter service AND retain the preserved railway.

1. Will it be cost beneficial to spend £25m plus £1-1.5m per year thereafter for a 20-30 hour a week service? If the answer is NO, will the money be spent elsewhere or will the Preserved railway criteria be removed to allow a 7 day a week, all day full service?

2. Service Overlap. If a weekday peak time commuter service goes ahead and the Preserved railway continues to run weekends, bank holidays and during the warmer school holidays there would be a conflict on the holiday afternoons to resolve.

3. Safety & Character. To allow a "commercial" commuter service the line will need to be upgraded to current legal requirements. (Eg track, signals, level crossings, platform heights, platform surfaces, non step access (Ramps/lifts), etc). All these could change the character and hence appeal of the railway to the users and film crews that currently enjoy it. The tram option could lead to either diesel units running on metrolink or main line steam trains running under metrolink wires.

4. Ownership and operations
Currently the track is owned by the local authorities and operated via a charity using volenteers. Once upgraded who will own the track (No change/ Network Rail/ another party) and will the be committed to a preserved railway (as the councils have been)? I assume a "commercial" railway will need to employee and pay staff to operate the system. How does this link into the continued use of volenteers for the preserved line?

None of the above prevents the line being upgraded for dual use but it does highlight it would need to be done carefully and even then may put the long term future of the preserved railway at risk.

In my opinion, Bury, Ramsbottom and Rawtenstall do not NEED a preserved railway, BUT it is a major North West Attraction which brings IN large numbers of visitors which support an alternative economy and character which is different to that of another set of dormitory towns.

thanks OL - that all makes a great deal of sense.


I still think this all looks like a political sop - runing Metrolink over the ELR would likely ruing its heritage quality (with power gantries and all), and I cannot see these options being included other than to rule them out.

DfT rules require that cost-benefit studies into rail or tram investment should always be measured against a bus-based alternative option. I would be very surprised if such a study did not find the bus options here so much better as to undermine the case for a rail upgrade - espcially since, aside from Ramsbottom, the line does not pass through the centre of the main settlements along the route - Heywood, Bury, Rawtenstall.

the need to examine investment options for reducing congestion between Ramsbottom
and Bury possibly utilising the heritage East Lancashire Railway and the potential for
the extension of this railway via Heywood and Castleton
This study is being undertaken to explore opportunities for improving public transport
links from areas to the north and east of Bury to the Regional Centre including
Heywood, Ramsbottom and a number of smaller communities. Whilst these areas are
in close proximity to the motorway and trunk road network, Metrolink terminates in Bury
and public transport connectivity to the Regional Centre is therefore constrained.
Furthermore, the motorway and trunk road network experiences congestion in peak
periods.
The study has initially focused on evaluating potential options for utilising the East
Lancashire Railway (ELR) to run passenger services to Manchester City Centre.
Currently, the ELR is only used for the operation of heritage services between
Rawtenstall and Heywood although a connection still exists to the main railway
network.
Following a sifting exercise, three schemes were shortlisted for which outline costing,
demand modelling and appraisal is being undertaken:
• Rawtenstall – Bury – Heywood – Manchester (heavy rail scheme)
• Rawtenstall – Bury – Manchester (Metrolink scheme)
• Ramsbottom – Bury – Manchester (Metrolink scheme)
Three sub-options (‘low’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’) are being evaluated for each scheme
option with differences in service levels and infrastructure specification. Initial findings
show that the capital costs of implementing the sub-options of the schemes range
between £20 million and £32 million with indicative operating costs of between £1.5
million and £2.8 million per annum. Further work is being undertaken with the local
authorities to review these initial findings and explore the scope for improving the
viability of schemes through specification revisions and opportunities to increase
demand.

[The Longford]

This forum is in danger of slipping into informed, grown up debate.
Cease and desist please.