Readers air their views about the railway industry and Rail Professional Trainofthought
Please email your letters to:
editor@railpro.co.uk Alternatively post to The Editor,Rail Professional, Hallmark House, Downham Road, Ramsden Heath, Essex CM11 1PU. Letters may be edited for length.
Driving traffic from non- drivers
Leonard Lean (December 2012, Letters) says that there is no need for a third runway at Heathrow. It has been suggested that HS2 will eliminate the need for a third runway. The number of mainland domestic flights from Heathrow is fairly small and has been decreasing (check out the CAA statistics if you want more detail).
HS2 won’t release
many slots. It has also been suggested that HS2 be used to feed regional traffic into Heathrow thereby justifying a third runway – rather than the traffic going via hubs such as Amsterdam, Dubai or Newark.
The trouble is that travelling times will still
be quicker via these hubs - running trains via Heathrow will add travelling time for those going to and from London and either require three stops or a transfer to certain terminals
All the discussion about rail substituting short haul aviation misses a very important point: across Europe, the fact is that fewer youngsters are learning to drive - something that isn’t mentioned in rail magazines or by railway managers. Yet I believe this is the reason why railway traffic is rising and modal share is increasing. While local developments, particularly in London but also other urban areas, are making life much better for non-drivers. I don’t believe that planning of major schemes takes this into account. The opening
of HS1 saw stops at Ashford substituted with ones at Ebbsfleet Parkway – not user friendly if you don’t drive. I saw a report on HS2 which assumed that two thirds of its traffic would be diverted from air and that this would amount to twice the current total of domestic air traffic (including over- water routes such as London to Belfast), and one third would be diverted from car traffic. It is interesting that the increase in traffic for most of the rail network over the last 15 years has been significantly underestimated, but that one route, HS1, has achieved less than half its forecasted traffic. We need a lot of new infrastructure but of the right type.
Rail can capture traffic from both air and car but there is much, much more
traffic to be captured from the latter. Our planning and marketing should reflect this. Right now it isn’t. Peter Gordon Middlesex
Load of bollards
I write in a personal capacity, but until recently I worked for a company that installed many of the HMV bollards that your correspondent Richard Malins (November 2012, Letters) complains of, including the ones at Waterloo.
I can assure him that we worked not only to a set of criteria designed to mitigate specific risks, but also endeavoured to make a pragmatic decision so that we installed something that was appropriate at each location.
Contrary to the
impression he has received, there was significant planning oversight (and on relevant stations, Listed Building Consent as well). We also considered the effect on pedestrian flows, service vehicle access and so on.
Sometimes, the need for Planning or Listed Building Consent has meant that we have ended up with a solution with greater impact on passenger flows than we wanted, but that is the price of having oversight bodies who cannot take a holistic approach.
Please also note that the couple in the centre of the photo seem to be using the bollard top as a picnic table. Perhaps if fewer people did that there would be less of a problem.
Steve King MICE ICIOB Bid Manager Kier Rail
PAGE 14 FEBRUARY 2013
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