The Government is today announcing a large-scale investment in the intercity trains network, following hot on the heels of the Conservatives' announcement yesterday of the conclusions of its own review of rail policy.
We featured a video of shadow transport secretary Theresa Villiers talking about the plans on the site last night, but here is a brief summary of the eight key planks of what she is saying the Conservatives would do with regard to the railways:
- A high speed rail line linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds - to dramatically improve journey times;
- Creating a "passenger champion" - a powerful consumer-facing regulator;
- A reformed Network Rail - with a new supervisory board, giving passengers a stronger voice;
- Better cooperation between track and train - strengthening and extending the duties placed on Network Rail to work closely with train service providers;
- Longer and better franchises - with 15-20 year franchises being made the norm to give greater certainty and to encourage investment in new capacity;
- Innovation in Rail Improvements - with funding for smaller scale capacity enhancements being made contestable and opened up to other providers;
- Ending Whitehall meddling - radically scaling back the detailed involvement of the Government in areas such as timetabling and buying new rolling stock; and
- A moratorium on building on disused rail paths - conserving any disused railway lines still in public ownership to keep alive the prospect of reopening these lines in the future.
Theresa Villiers hailed the plans as a providing both a long-term vision for the railways and practical solutions to passengers' everyday concerns:
“By building a new high speed line connecting London, Birmingham Manchester and Leeds, the Conservatives will take a major step forward in transforming the UK’s transport infrastructure. But we also recognise the need to tackle the issues that plague out existing railways and which Labour continue to ignore. We will put passengers first by introducing a Passenger Champion with a mandate to hold Network Rail and train franchise operators to account when they fail.
“After twelve years of disappointment under a Labour Government people know the only way to see Britain’s railways improve is through a change of Government. Our rail review shows the Conservatives have forward looking ideas to make the changes people want to see.”
Click here to download the pdf of the full rail review, Getting the Best for Passengers.
Jonathan Isaby
I particularly like the moratorium on building over disused lines. TV hasn't always impressed me but this is very good.
Posted by: Super Blue | February 12, 2009 at 08:59
I thought the opposite, all the ideas are excellent except the building over disused rail lines. Why? Well think about the reality - many disused rail lines are already partially built on and unlikely to be opened up again anyway. The policy would blight many properties on or near such disused lines (often rural Conservative voters by the way) and of course stop sensible brown field developments thus shifting pressure back onto the green belt. Perhaps the policy might work where it was stipulated it would only apply to disused lines still fully intact and not partially acquired already. I except that on the face of it the policy sounds great but dig deeper and think of the implications in many real life situations.
Posted by: MG | February 12, 2009 at 09:21
Having had a quick flick through the report, fairly sensible proposals but nothing which sets the house on fire, so to speak
The main problem with our transport brief is Villiers' inability to articulate a coherent policy framework across different transport modes and networks. How will we ensure that any future transport spend achieves the biggest bang-for-buck against a range of objectives, such as maximising productivity growth and minimising carbon emissions?
A resounding silence on this subject...
Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 at 09:22
Good news about the high speed rail links but don't forget those of us in the southwest! We also need to look at public transport in cities - especially the use of trams as they have in Manchester, Nottingham etc. We've had blockage here in Bristol for years because of arguments at local council level - that must be stopped. AND no congestion charges please - that is very unpopular. Improve public transport and people will use it as one can see in major European cities. Finally, free bus passes. I have one being over 60 but I still work. I think these should be restricted to over 65s.
Posted by: Ian | February 12, 2009 at 09:26
Why is the government rather than private enterprise investing in this?
Posted by: RichardJ | February 12, 2009 at 09:27
Having had a quick flick through the report, fairly sensible proposals but nothing which sets the house on fire, so to speak
The main problem with our transport brief is Villiers' inability to articulate a coherent policy framework across different transport modes and networks. How will we ensure that any future transport spend achieves the biggest bang-for-buck against a range of objectives, such as maximising productivity growth and minimising carbon emissions?
A resounding silence on this subject...
Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 at 09:27
I would place the construction of a north-south freight only line as my top priority so that the amount of long distance traffic, particularly from/to Europe, can be considerably increased without compromising passenger train punctuality. I also think all main lines should be electrified. The transport industry is too dependent on hydrocarbon fuel.
Posted by: DAVID TUFNELL | February 12, 2009 at 09:35
Riding the Metrolink between Bury and Manchester is like taking a ride in a dodgem car, yet the only alternative is the bus, which takes forever, there is no train station in the centre of Bury. The rough Metrolink journey can't be very comfortable for the elderly or mothers with babies and toddlers. Why is a town like Bury, with a very large retail sector, not better connected to encourage travel and to support the local economy?
Posted by: Tony Makara | February 12, 2009 at 09:36
"Why is the government rather than private enterprise investing in this?"
Because unfortunately private enterprise hasn't really had a terribly good record of investment in the railways post-privatisation?
Indeed the only major brand new private rail infrastructure project in living memory has been the Channel Tunnel and CT Rail Link. Both of which were prevented by statute from receiving public funding under the Channel Tunnel Act but only ended up being built on private finance through astonishingly over-optimistic forecasts about traffic and passenger numbers. As a precedent, even if the market for credit for such projects was buoyant, it means that the banks and investors would be extremely sceptical about investing in high speed rail and taking all of the risk (ultimately HMG had to tread a very fine line between the statutory prohibition on aid for CTRL and providing suitable derisking and guarantee measures to enable it to be built after big reforecasts of usage figures once the tunnel was built).
Posted by: Angelo Basu | February 12, 2009 at 09:44
This is all excellent stuff! I particularly like the idea of setting up a "Passenger's Champion" to give rail travellers more of a voice. At the moment too many passengers feel like cattle, herded into overcrowded carriages where sometimes they cannot even stand up straight and hold on to anything; they are not kept informed sufficiently when things go wrong and as for buying tickets - do not get me started on what is a confusing minefield of times and prices!! At last I feel that there is someone who is listening.
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 12, 2009 at 09:47
"Because unfortunately private enterprise hasn't really had a terribly good record of investment in the railways post-privatisation?"
Which therefore suggests that there isn't sufficient genuine demand for them. Money that would be spent where people would like to spend it is instead diverted to where they would not like to spend it. Sounds like central planning to me.
Posted by: RichardJ | February 12, 2009 at 10:21
Why only build a high speed rail link to leeds and not further? There are human populations North of Yorkshire you know! Typical London-centric thinking.
Posted by: Matt | February 12, 2009 at 10:43
The real problem with our network is some idiots appointed a fool called Beeching to be Chairman of the British Ralways Board in the 1960s. Beeching was in the back pocket of his friends in the oil and car industry and so set about destroying the railways through creative accounting (making lines look unprofitable when they weren't) and sabotaging good lines (reducing investment in services) so that the demand declined, thus forcing people onto the roads.
We now have the ridiculous situation now with a fragmented rail network, still fine around London of course, but terrible everywhere else. It's hardly surprising that the Northern mill town in which I live has rampant unemployment; you can't get to the nearby big cities of Leeds or Manchester by public transport because nobody is currently prepared to re-build the railway line, and poorer familes of course can't afford to own a car (amusing when you hear southerners going on about lazy unemployed people up north!).
What we need is the entire rail system being re-built, electrified and with regular inter-city AND rural services FUNDED BY THE TAXPAYER! I know that all Libertarians out there will be cringing but this is a supply side policy, it would reduce transport costs for businesses and individuals, and reduce unemployment, and therefore taxes in the long run. Plus there's the environmental benefits of millions of cars taken off the road.
I think TV's policies are a small step in the right direction, but there's a long long way to go until our transport policy looks "healthy"!
Posted by: Peter Hill | February 12, 2009 at 10:56
Right Tories and railways, not to good a past record, in fact it chills the blood at the thought of it.
Posted by: david1 | February 12, 2009 at 11:04
"Because unfortunately private enterprise hasn't really had a terribly good record of investment in the railways post-privatisation?"
An odd statement given that it was private enterprise which built the railways in the first place and misses the role of the EU.
Tracks and trains have to be under separate management - see EU Directives 91/440/EEC, 2001/12/EC, 2001/13/EC and 2001/14/EC.
All that scuppered Grayling's policy in 2006 to reunite wheel and rail which would have been a sensible first step to privatisation.
Yes we would be Better Off Out.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | February 12, 2009 at 11:26
When I hear that we have a new rail policy I would expect something that says:
1) What has gone wrong with the UK railways.
2) How will we rectify this problem.
Not a set of press gimmicks from Miss Villiers. This smacks of new Labour - no analysis, just a reel of gimmicks. I am sure it will get headlines but fail in practice (again like new Labour).
TV is extremely irritating.
What does having a " a "passenger champion" even mean? Will they have statutory powers? Presumably not - who will appoint them? It is straight out of Tony 'appoint a Czar' Blair's book of good politics and bad Government.
Where do we stand on the key issues:
1) Should we prioritise commuter line subsidy or rural lines? (And no, we do not have money to do both as the real economy melts)
2) What has gone wrong with the incentive structure of rail subsidy - we have poured billions into it and there has been no real improvement.
I would argue the way the rail works economically creates an incentive to
a) raise prices as high as possible
b) make services as cheap to run as possible
c) pocket as much subsidy as possible for doing as little as possible (to maximise profits)
Typical monopoly really. And there is no link between passenger numbers or satisfaction and subsidy - so both these bad incentives are strengthened by subsidy - capture a franchise and milk it!
TV's only real non-gimmicks are:
"15-20 year franchises...to give greater certainty and to encourage investment in new capacity"
How! There is no causal link between longer franchises and investment. If anything, the opposite.
Why will a company not think they are locked in and simply reduce investment over time because they can always lose a franchise - and wind down - reinvent themselves and pop up somewhere else rebranded and take over the next line.
"Ending Whitehall meddling ... and
A moratorium on building on disused rail paths "
For a start, these two statements are laughably contradictory. Dealing with the main one - there are NO incentives for rail companies to increase rail stock. They don't give a damn if people are crammed to the rafters. Only either restructuing their incentives or Gov regulation can do this.
And how will the brand new 'passenger' champion work if they cannot interven in the railways through the Government!
TV seems like in person she might be a very nice individual but she is rapidly becoming my most loathed politician.
PS - The problem intercity not just high speed rail but is also cost... If you try booking a business class train ticket with a few days to spare (and often business meetings are not planned months in advance) it can easily cost a couple of hundred pounds. Flying is a lot cheaper and even with high speed links will take the same time. So unless this changes I cannot see how this will work.
Posted by: 1AM | February 12, 2009 at 12:12
A high speed rail line linking London, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds - to dramatically improve journey times;
WHY?
Aircraft will do the same job more cheaply, more quickly and without subsidy.
Posted by: Conservative Homer | February 12, 2009 at 12:20
"and misses the role of the EU."
So how, Lindsay, do you account for the fact that other member states, notably France, manage to run superb, efficient railway systems with state-of-the-art trains?
Hardly "Better off Out"!
Posted by: Sally Roberts | February 12, 2009 at 12:43
Teresa Villiers has finally found her niche. Intellectually Teresa is top notch and I am sure she had studied teh subject and the ideas in great detail before coming up with the plan.
It is also my conviction that TV had applied sound conservative reasoning behind these proposals.
Posted by: Yogi | February 12, 2009 at 13:26
Hardly "Better off Out"!
We'd still be better off out as we could then do what we wanted - and if that so happened to comply with EU regulation then we'd be in the same position just with less spent on EU compliance regulation costs.
I would guess the EU rules were based on what France/Germany were doing anyway, and so it would be us that has to change to fit - and starting from miles behind.
Posted by: Norm Brainer | February 12, 2009 at 13:49
Yogi @ 13.26 - "Teresa Villiers has finally found her niche. Intellectually Teresa is top notch and I am sure she had studied teh subject and the ideas in great detail before coming up with the plan. It is also my conviction that TV had applied sound conservative reasoning behind these proposals."
I take it that your tag 'Yogi' is short for Yogi Bear. In which case it is understandable how you came up with this utter garbage re TV and her competence as Shadow Transport Sec
Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 at 14:18
anon - I fear you are making a mistake in attacking Yogi - try googling Yogi, Conservative and Fulham for example...which also leads me to question your comments about Theresa Villiers' abilities, and with good reason.
Sally, Mussolini did a great job of making the trains run on time. France has a centrally planned economy and just throws money at the problem.
Is it good news that Deutsche Bahn is keen to extend its network to Britain? Will they operate on a level playing field?
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | February 12, 2009 at 15:23
More EU obeisance from Blue Labour.
Posted by: David | February 12, 2009 at 15:35
"I know that all Libertarians out there will be cringing but this is a supply side policy, it would reduce transport costs for businesses and individuals"
It would distort the market by giving an advantage to large businesses that rely on transporting goods over a larger distance. Furthermore it would be paid for with money TAKEN from businesses and individuals.
"and reduce unemployment, and therefore taxes in the long run."
You mean switch employment into a loss-making area and therefore reduce economic efficiency.
Posted by: RichardJ | February 12, 2009 at 15:37
MG @9.21 - The document actually says "We will introduce a moratorium on building on any disused rail paths still in public ownership". I think this answers the concerns you quite rightly raised.
Posted by: Richard Nabavi | February 12, 2009 at 15:43
Lindsay Jenkins @ 15.23 - apologies for my aggressive tone and the same to Yogi if you were offended
However this does not diminish my reservations about TV - she has had more than enough time to get to grips with the transport brief and yet seems to throw out proposals as if they were random confetti. Rather like her abrupt U-turn on airport expansion, made on the floor of the House no less
Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 at 16:02
How do they expect to regain any seats (or even council wards) in the North and Scotland if they keep ignoring them? Does it not occur to them that an upgrade of the East Coast Main Line to Edinburgh could help create jobs and stimulate the economy further north?
Posted by: anon | February 12, 2009 at 16:34
On the whole good proposals. We have a good future Transport Secretary of State.
And a lot needs doing with the railways in a very workman like way. This includes re-doubling of single track lines back to double track if we wish to double the capacity in strategic areas. An example of this is the Saiisbury-Exeter Line. It was singled in the 1960s for very silly reasons. There are therefore many bottle necks and it stifles both passenger and freight potential and drive them onto already busy roads. Re-double the line and there would be two main 'greatways' to West Country.
We need to really work long-term at our railway system when we got into government. That way we as Conservatives can sustain a reputation as the Party that gets things done and be awarded long-term in general elections. Teresa your work is cut out.
Posted by: John Barstow | February 12, 2009 at 17:23
"Which therefore suggests that there isn't sufficient genuine demand for them. Money that would be spent where people would like to spend it is instead diverted to where they would not like to spend it"
If long term private economic planning was in fact engaged in by people then you might have a knock out. But this is the sort of project that will have a 30+ year payback and won't even go live to provide consumer benefits for over a decade.
If there was free access to capital and an environment where there were strong incentives to make highly speculative long term infrastructure investments you'd be right. This is not the case now. Perhaps it could be encouraged (eg by central action to skew the market to derisk such investment - much as with the original development of the railways and the private Acts which provided protection to railway builders, or the prohibition on BT carrying TV so as to encourage the building of cable networks). But just winding back the state and letting the investment be demand driven would not involve merely relaxing regulation a bit, it would mean binning pretty much all planning and environmental law and really any other regulations which would make the investment more risky.
Posted by: Angelo Basu | February 12, 2009 at 17:25
We had what I thought was an interesting proposal for an integrated transport system for Somerset. There is effectively a circular rail route already, connecting Westbury, Frome, Yeovil, Taunton, Weston-super-Mare, Bristol, Bath and round again.There was an operator interested in running a half-hour service in both directions. This would connect with buses/taxis at all stations so as to take people to shopping centres.
We thought that village mini-buses to stations could connect with train services and take those people shopping who had no car or did not wish to use one.
Building a Frome Parkway mainline station would help by allowing the old Frome/Bath passenger service to re-open (thank you Dr Beeching!)and take commuter traffic off the roads. With a bit of imagination this could have offered to take much of the pressure off the roads....but the Liberal Democrat County Council didn`t think of it first so it was declared non-starter.
Posted by: john parkes | February 12, 2009 at 18:52
Theresa Villers had better wake up and not talk tosh:
“After twelve years of disappointment under a Labour Government people know the only way to see Britain’s railways improve is through a change of Government. ”
It is England's railways she is referring to and England's only.
Transport is a devolved matter under the Scotland Act 1998.
ie the British government at Westminster has very little to no power over transport policy in Scotland.
anon February 12, 2009 at 16:34 please also take notice.
Just to complicate matters there is a "Concordat" between the (English)Dapartment of Transport and the Scottish government dated 14/2/2004 and updated 2008, which carries no force in law whatsoever and which blathers on about cooperation between the two in various not very well defined circumstances.
It is a memorandum of understanding ie a voluntary agreement.
Central fact : this whole policy announcement applies to England only - apoint which the senior members of the Tory party either do not appreciate or are anxious not to draw anyone's attention.
Rather looks as though senior Tories are trying to kid themselves The Scotland Act 1998 never happened!
Posted by: Jake | February 12, 2009 at 19:26
I am no fan of Theresa Villiers nut even I, as staunch supporter of Civil Aviation and of both a Third Runway at London Heathrow and a second one at London Gatwick am also a supporter of decent railways in addition thereto.
I especially like the idea of preserving old rail routes by halting building thereon and would love to see some of the old routes restored.
One idea I would also suggest is that the cost of an Annual Second Class Season Ticket purchased by someone to enable them to go to work be made allowable against basic rate Income Tax. That would encourage quite a few people who currently drive their cars to work to sue the train instead.
Posted by: steve foley | February 12, 2009 at 20:21
Apologies for the typos! "Nut" should be BUT and "sue" should be USE.
It's been a long day today at work!
Posted by: steve foley | February 12, 2009 at 20:24
Theresa Villiers nut !
I don't know steve sounds right to me. Lets put it down as a freudian slit !
Posted by: The Bishop Swine | February 12, 2009 at 21:17
I'll admit, I'd love to expand my business and run the odd railway line but it's simply impossible at the moment. Obviously the economic situation doesn't help at the moment but put simply THIS STUPID WASTE OF SPACE AND UTTERLEY CONTEMTPABLE LABOUR GOVERNMENT won't let me. Most of the old railway land is still owned by the old British Railways property board and they won't sell it to you, not to mention Network Rail charge silly amounts to connect to their network, I couldn't own the tracks and the trains thanks to the EU, I wouldn't be able to charge high enough fairs to cover the investment costs...the list goes on.
If we do want another glorious railway age the government needs to step out of peoples way and support them! TV, I want to run a railway company!
Posted by: Peter Hill | February 12, 2009 at 22:42
These are good plans on the whole. A couple of points.
While ending Whitehall meddling in timetabling is of course right, I wonder if there might be a need for some form of national strategy which, while avoiding DfT micro-managing, Train Operators and Network Rail would need to adhere to in timetabling. Is there a need for some strategy that looks beyond the immediate revenue concerns of operators? The need to reduce journey times between major population centres and over longer distances could be one example, as train companies may find it easier to increase revenue by inserting station stops which slow the overall journey down. Surely a desirable national strategy should, for example, be aimed at reducing journey times to Glasgow and Edinburgh of at least some trains on those routes, to reduce the need for domestic flights. Although a high-speed line is necessary to fully achieve this, rail should be be able to attract at least some passegngers from air by Edinburgh journeys of 4hrs or just over - should be possible on the current network, as 3hr59mins was achieved on that route before.
As for the high-speed line, going to Scotland via Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds is a rather circutious route, which would mean longer journey times (and thus less effective in reducing the need for domestic flights) compared to a more direct route.
It is ressuring that there seems a promise not to neglect the current network to divert spending to a high-speed line, particularly for more electrification. However one would hope this area of essential national infrastructure spending (i.e. on both the current railways and on the high speed line) will not be victim to inevitiable cutbacks to pay off Labour's disastrous level of debt and reduce spending to something more that can be afforded by taxpayers.
Posted by: Philip | February 12, 2009 at 22:52
"Conservative Homer" is misinformed if he seriously thinks that taking a tube to Heathrow, waiting around for ages, flying to Glasgow, changing planes (more waiting), flying back to Birmingham, then taking a train into Birmingham city centre can ever be competitive with a frequent HSR service centre-to-centre. And BHX is a well-located airport; Leeds is a total pain. Indeed, BHX is so well-located that after we get Ms Villiers' HSR, everyone can quickly get to BHX from anywhere in the country and then fly to anywhere in the world (compare Schiphol and Roissy).
Posted by: James D | February 12, 2009 at 23:09
James D.
I regularly fly LHR to GLA. 45 minutes Reading to T5 on Railair Coach. About 1 hour in the airport before boarding, 1h 2m in flight (average) to Glasgow, taxi 15 minutes to my father's house. Try doing that by train and I would still have to get from Glasgow Central Station to my father's house, 25 minutes by taxi or about 1 hour by Public Transport.
If I take a train from Reading I have to change at the sh*thole of a Station Birmingham New Street. Otherwise train to Paddington, tube to Euston Square, train as stated above to Glasgow Central, or if I take the scenic route then get off at Kings Cross and travel to Edinburgh Waverley the train to Glasgow Queen Street then same taxi etc from the centre of Glasgow.
The plane is also cheaper if I chose my flights well and a lot more comfortable than cattle class on the train, and First Class whilst very enjoyable is a lot more expensive the flying.
Posted by: steve foley | February 12, 2009 at 23:33
Here are some examples:
A few miles of track could be restored around St. Ives and you could have a Felixstowe-Cambridge-Oxford-Swindon service, avoiding London. Local authorities were looking into this last year.
(If you saw Ian Hislop's documentaries recently) a little extra effort in Norfolk and the NNR could be integrated into a circular service with Melton Constable. Enthusiasts are working on this one.
One of the problems with the Beeching Report's implementation is that track was not merely mothballed but actively ripped up. Ipswich to Sudbury by bus is a nightmare with the hills and loops around villages - how much better if Hadleigh still had a station. Haverhill is quite large as well - if it did as well, there could be another rail line to Cambridge. So, if you have a few million pounds (or ponds, Jock Stale) ............
Posted by: Super Blue | February 13, 2009 at 09:10
Sally said:
"So how, Lindsay, do you account for the fact that other member states, notably France, manage to run superb, efficient railway systems with state-of-the-art trains?
Hardly "Better off Out"!
Hardly better off in so far.We have had rail under national control, and it was only a little better than right now. Isn't it the case that under investment is the real reason our Train service is so poor? We can change the nominal owners and repaint the livery every few years, but unless we can find a pot of money somewhere we will still be getting into London 2 hours late and not getting home till 9 O'clock far to often.
We could do with a Russian oligarch with a desire to own the mother of railways, to wave a magic wand over our underfunded but still essential service. On a final note, I travel into London regularly, and catch trains to other parts of the nation now and then. I have noticed that things have got much worse since the network was partially sold off. Is that a fair impression or have I just been unlucky to pick bad days to traval?
Posted by: Ross Warren | February 13, 2009 at 09:51
Still a few people here who are under the impression that the DOT's remit runs to Glasgow and Edinburgh .
No it doesn't. It runs to the Anglo- Scottish border only. After that, it is a matter of negotiation with the Scottish government.
who will probably want further loads of English to play ball. One can only imagine.
and the Theresa Villiers would probably be wey enough and ignorant enough to cave in and give it to them.
Posted by: Jake | February 13, 2009 at 10:33
James D,
"BHX is so well-located that after we get Ms Villiers' HSR, everyone can quickly get to BHX from anywhere in the country and then fly to anywhere in the world (compare Schiphol and Roissy)."
You hit the nail on the head!
TV's mistake has been to initially hide the fact that some increase in capacity will be required (intercontinental flights), and then to rule out alternatives such as expanding Gatwick or replacing LHR with say Boris Island.
Fortunately, she hasn't ruled out BHX (maybe she hadn't thought of it). 40 mins from both London and Manchester, an hour from Leeds and probably no more than 2hours from Newcastle. BHX would be perfect as "London's Newark".
Posted by: Dual Citizen | February 13, 2009 at 18:13
Steve Foley,
OK so your father lives near Glasgow Airport, which makes YOUR trip more convenient by air. But that doesn't apply to everyone.
My mother lives in Surrey. It would be easier for me if I could fly into Gatwick. But all the US airlines have packed their bags and set up shop at LHR. So it's now a 2-2.5 hour journey for me from LHR to Surrey, unless Mom drives all the way to meet me.
Having a well thought through HSR, with a west of London interchange, will benefit many many people who would otherwise have to fly, or drive. The HSR to St. Pancras then the Thameslink to Surrey via East Croydon will cut my journey in half.
Posted by: Dual Citizen | February 13, 2009 at 18:23
Extend the proposed high-speed lines down to Plymouth via Exeter, over to Swansea via Cardiff and up to Aberdeen via Glasgow/Edinburgh and you've got a deal. This proposal is a good one, but needs to be more ambitious.
Posted by: Willum | February 15, 2009 at 15:53
Actually, strike that,if you really want to be ambitious, build a Thames Estuary airport and link it to the Essex and Kent coasts with tidal barrages on which you have rail and road links connecting to the nationwide high-speed network. Fast-track construction of the Severn Barrage and a load of nuclear power stations making full use of fuel reprocessing and job's a good'un, CO2 emissions will go through the floor, and will do better if a good hydrogen fuel infrastructure for fuel-cell cars can be built.
Expensive, yes, but recessions need big projects, right?
Posted by: Willum | February 15, 2009 at 16:17
MG's comment about disused railways being built on is nowhere near reality. As for blight an open railway adds about 11% to a property's value. Watch for the Spacia brand.
People who drive for a living need a break from driving at weekends.
The moratorium on redevelopment of railway land has had a positive response from the undecided electorate ahead of the May polls.
I can make a case for over 3,000 miles of route. Have a look at "welsh highland railway and discover just what is involved in opening a line.
Posted by: Cllr Lyndon Elias | February 17, 2009 at 06:12
Whatever has happened to Cllr. Lyndon Elias. The last time anybody saw him was at the Motor Books shop in Charing X two months ago. He was talking jibberish, but managed to mention that he had fallen over and banged his head! As for now he has disappeared and no one can find him.
Incidentally Dr. Beeching was part of the Stedford Committee - a committe set up as a smokescreen to shut down the railway netweork. It was totally corrupt and vis a vis an extension of the Conservative party, since it was Ian Marples, Macmillan's Minister of Transport who engineered the whole thing.
The conservatives need to be held accountable. They need to tax the heavier hauliers a rate accountable to their loads. The Americam State hauliers association calculated that one 50 tonne truck does almost as much damage to a road surface as half a million cars. Using that calculation it would only then be fair to tax them at a similar rate compared to what one pays on a road tax license on a single car.
The rubber tyre on a road surface is incredibly innefficient, a factor which almost increases with the inverse square law as the weight increases. Something which doesn't happen with rail. In other words the road surface and tyre interract together to absorb alot more energy. There should be many more studies done on this as lorry axle loadings increase.
We are paying a fortune for the roads. Many costs are hidden, and we are also paying dearly in a massive carbon footprint with each truck. It's sheere madness.
Furthermore, I believe that the Transport Ministry uses trucks and the damage that they do as a 'raison d'etre' for further road building.
How many trains would it take to remove all the continental lorrys from off the M25, M2 and M20? Not nearly as many as one would think. Councillor Elias and myself calculated something like only 90 trains of mile each. But that was two to three years ago!
Posted by: Charles Carey | December 18, 2009 at 13:37