This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
LETTERS


Email your views to opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com


From: Richard Porter, Marlow- Maidenhead Passengers’ Association Subject: East-West Rail


The problem we have with a num- ber of potential re-openings is that instead of giving closed rail routes the same protection as the green belt, they are classed as brown- field sites which are easy targets for development.


From: Chris Tolmie Subject: HS2 consultation


1. The HS2 consultation is not a two-way process. It is really not intended to consult and take feedback, more to persuade and inform.


2. The traffic forecasts for HS2 are very optimistic as there is a rap-


idly growing deployment of both new home-working technologies and new remote business meet- ing technologies. Managers are getting used to the performance increases from building home- working teams while saving on of- fice space.


From: Stan Mason Subject: Cameron ‘committed’ to HS2 despite opposition


In dismissing the massive DfT/ HS2 programme of consultation on HS2 strategy as ‘detail’ perhaps Mr Cameron has not yet read his De- partment for Transport’s HS2 con- sultation document and the public consultation questionnaire con- tained within it. Let me remind him what the questionnaire asks:


Question 1 asks for opinions about enhancing intercity rail; not HS2!


Question 2 asks the key question if HS2 would provide best value for money; not about ‘detail’ of the route. A House of Commons Select Committee is question- ing the value for money at this time. The independent consult- ants appointed by the Select Committee to look at the busi- ness case have already raised se- rious questions about its validity.


Question 3 asks respond- ents if they agree to the key issues of timescale and rout- ing of HS2 – hardly ‘details’.


Question 4 asks respondents


if they agree to the specifica- tion for HS2 – and route selec- tion process. Again, not details but basic structural questions.


In Question 5, respondents are asked to agree with the pro- posed route and impact mitiga- tion proposals. If this is ‘detail’, then show me the key issues!


Question 6 asks for comment on the Appraisal of Sustain- ability. This is a substantial docu- ment (not made available with the HS2 consultation summary document but handed out to at- tendees at the HS2 roadshows) but contains detailed sections on potential impacts; route alterna- tives;


emission of greenhouse


gases; natural and cultural envi- ronment effects; health and well- being; and the effect on, and loss of, greenbelt land. HS2 will emit many times the carbon gases of standard trains but perhaps his is also ‘detail’ in Mr Cameron’s book.


Question 7 asks respondents to agree to HS2 proposals for com- pensation for properties demol- ished or blighted by HS2. This may be detail to Mr Cameron, but cer- tainly not to those whose homes and businesses are destroyed.


18 | rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 11


On other comments, Mr Cam- eron claims HS2 will transform the North-South divide, and in another comment cites the M1 as a catalyst that ‘really reduced re- gional equalities, and really got economies going’. If this was the case, why do we need HS2 to do it now, or perhaps the M1 didn’t ac- tually do what he claims: perhaps he would describe that as ‘detail’. Previous experience of major transport initiatives has shown that the overall ‘drift’ was away from provincial centres to capital cities.


This is an extract of Mr Mason’s letter: the rest is available at www.railtechnologymagazine.com


From: Alistair Moss Subject: Thameslink rolling stock


What UK equipment will be in- serted in to the design specifica- tions? Nil I suspect. Why should we provide jobs in Germany for the equipment and spares for 20 years, when gangways for example can be made here in UK? Many jobs will be lost in the train spares businesses here in the UK as long as we continue to give Siemens or- ders.


From: Keith Warrington Subject: Thameslink rolling stock


I’m at a loss to see how the Sie- mens bid could be the best deal for the British taxpayer, when all those working at Bombardier are British taxpayers, as is the Brit- ish part of the company. Award the contract to a company that employs and manufactures in the UK and the British taxpayer gets a large chunk back in income tax and National Insurance contribu- tions. If Siemens’ German workers are made redundant, are we Brit- ish taxpayers paying their jobseek- ers’ allowance? Because it seems to me we are soon going to be pay- ing it to the British rolling stock engineers and workers.


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  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116