Letters
felt that the present proposal of routing the line directly from London to Birmingham via the Chilterns was deeply flawed. The reduction in journey time over such a relatively short distance would be marginal, and, while the construction of any new line will always be controversial (the Nimby factor), the proposed route has already generated a particularly large degree of opposition. My own preferred route
would follow a more easterly course, not actually serving Birmingham directly. The principal artery would run from London (probably St Pancras, thereby offering direct connections with Eurostar services) to Northallerton, where it would feed into the existing East Coast Main Line (ECML) onward to Tees-side, Newcastle, Edinburgh, and Glasgow. It is tempting to suggest
a new direct high speed line from Newcastle to Glasgow through the sparsely-populated borders, but I don’t believe such a line could ever be financially justified.
My route would run (very approximately) via St Albans, Milton Keynes (with possibly a new station on the east side of the city), then northwards passing to the east of Rugby. After that it would broadly follow the line of the former Great Central Railway, via Leicester, Nottingham, and Sheffield, then via Wakefield, Leeds, and Harrogate. There would be two branches off, the first proceeding from a point just south of Rugby (near Long Buckby) in a westerly direction to cross the West Coast Main Line (WCML) to join the existing Virgin Midlands route somewhere between Rugby and Coventry.
The final stretch of this
route would involve a new dedicated high speed line from Birmingham International to
the centre of Birmingham. The main line would briefly
join the existing Midland Main Line at Wigston Junction, thereby serving the existing Leicester station, leaving it shortly afterwards (around Belgrave). At this point the second branch would leave, heading north-west to join the WCML just south of Crewe, via Burton- on-Trent, Stoke-on-Trent, and Newcastle-under-Lyme. I do not claim that my ideas
are the perfect solution, but I do believe they represent a much better scheme than the official plan proposed by government, which is looking increasingly doomed.
Ian J Turnbull Alderley Edge Cheshire
Learning from the airlines Riz Wahid’s article, (Jumping the queue, February 2011 issue) highlights the clear need for technological innovation in railway stations, if the station is to meet the needs of the modern passenger. The ticket-on-departure
collection service described in the article is one means of improving the customer experience – but the rail industry could do much more, and look at following the example of the airline industry by adopting solutions such as e-ticketing, mobile ticketing, ticket vending machines and an interlined, single ticket for a journey made using two or more operators as the norm.
Many travellers are turning to rail as an alternative to some short-haul flights, because of its ease through check-in and security, comfort and speed, or because of environmental concerns.
However, if the rail industry is to truly compete with short- haul air, it will be necessary
to match the expectations travellers have of airports, and bring ticketing and station technology into the modern age. The rail station does not yet
necessarily resemble the airport – but the time is ripe for the station to emulate its successful relative.
Diane Bouzebiba Head of Amadeus Rail Amadeus IT Group SA
Fare’s fair The McNulty report claims that train fare structures are too complex, illogical, over-subsidised and do not effectively manage peak demand.
However, while the
documents highlight the fact that major changes are needed within the rail industry, I do not believe that loosening franchise terms and lifting caps on fares is the best solution to allow train operators to respond better to demand. With rail fares already
increasing, on average, by more than five per cent a year, rail companies should, instead, begin using price- sensitive forecasting to better understand what customers want, when they want it and how much they are willing to pay.
Without those forecasts,
there is a real risk that prices are set too high, meaning seats that could have been sold are left empty, or even worse, too many discount tickets are offered, resulting in overcrowded carriages once walk-up customers board. Successful rail companies will be those that use
intelligent pricing and revenue management solutions to determine how many discount tickets can be offered.
Peter Shearer
VP passenger transportation JDA Software
That non- Eureka moment
I was interested to read the article on East Coast’s new timetable in the May issue. Peterborough is an
important hub on the ECML, being fed by other Tocs with passengers from East Anglia and part of the East Midlands. Anyone in those areas
wishing to travel north of Edinburgh could travel to Peterborough and change to a direct service to Inverness or Aberdeen. As from 22 May, trains
from King’s Cross to those Highland cities will depart as before, but will have York as their first stop. Anyone between London and York must now set out earlier and have an extra change of train. I contacted East Coast about this and their reply was five paragraphs long, ending with: ‘Although we have not
been able to meet all individual aspirations, we believe the new timetable offers greater frequency of services, a better pattern of service and faster typical journey times for millions of passengers.’ Not if you live in East Anglia or the East Midlands.
Martin Thorn Peterborough
JUNE 2011 PAGE 13
www.railimages.co.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36