INBOX
From: Graeme Phillips Subject: Crossrail 2 delays
I am commenting on the Crossrail article which mentions 2030 as being the earliest possible opening date [for Crossrail 2].
One thing I find a bit of a shame is that many project managers, planners etc. seem to be experts at poncing around and trying to make a project take as long as possible.
forms alongside the line. Don’t forget that the line runs through the precipitous Sierra Morena.
China managed to build the 1,300km-plus Beijing-Shanghai high-speed line in just over three years, most of the stations along the line being new – a fantastic achievement in my view.
I don’t think we should cut corners and build unsafe systems, but I think it is a shame that we seem
more expensive than it really needs to be.
From: Mike Westbrook Subject: CRESC
Totally agree with this article on the union’s report. We have been 50 years or more undoing the carnage caused by Beeching and his profit- greedy running dogs.
It is now costing us billions to upgrade track, signalling and electrification, which could and should have been done in the 60s, 70s and 80s.
At this particular time, we need more track and EMUs, not more commercialised station improvements, as important as are the latter.
From: John Ceresole Subject: TUC Report
I am not saying that Crossrail isn’t needed or that it won’t be extremely useful. However, it has been given a lot of hype and as a result people don’t seem to be aware how little is unusual about it.
It is only a few tens of kilometres under London, plus a few upgraded and new stations.
Spain decided in 1986 that it wanted a high-speed line to link Madrid and Seville in time for the 1992 Expo and pulled out the stops to make sure it happened, completing the 472km railway (plus a
substantial suburban
network in Seville) before Expo92 started. All the stations along the line (Puerta de Atocha, Ciudad Real, Puertollano, Córdoba- Central and Sevilla-Santa Justa) were constructed in their current
to be experts at making projects take as long as possible with feasibility studies, consultations, environmental assessments, assurance, court challenges etc.
We know that others in foreign nations do things far quicker, but rather than rise to the challenge, we dismiss it as being the foreign nations cutting corners (e.g. with planning, health & safety etc.) and continue at our leisurely pace of project delivery.
I’m not saying that proper
prudence in planning is not necessary for a successful project, but as a nation, we should improve our skills at recognising the difference between what is necessary for a satisfactory project outcome and what serves no useful purpose besides dragging a project out and making it much
Not sure which planet the TUC are on as I use South West Trains and they certainly have invested in a new fleet of modern trains since privatisation.
The TUC are against any form of privatisation so they promote inefficiency – it’s about time they lived in the 21st century.
From: David Huntley Subject: Uckfield to Lewes
The standard objection to this is that trains would still have to pass through the Croydon bottleneck.
Not so; the route to Charing Cross via Tonbridge is ‘protected’ and can be used.
It would displace a heritage line, which should see re-opening the ‘trunk’ as a victory! There are other heritage lines in the S.E. where they can move their rolling stock.
Below: Lewes station
While it would be ‘nice’ to have a direct connection to Brighton – via a new tunnel – it would still be a major increment that way to have direct trains to Lewes and Eastbourne, with interchange at Lewes for the rest of the South Coast.
From: Robert Subject: Uckfield reopening
I live in Redhill and frequently visit London on business. The trains are desperately overcrowded and I never get a seat, maybe only at East Croydon. Even though some of the trains have been lengthened to 12 coaches the overcrowding seems to be on the increase.
An alternative route would divert passengers from the coast and allow the Brighton main line to become less congested.
My hope would be that any future rail system through the Uckfield line would not compromise the length of trains currently operating through Redhill.
We have friends in Uckfield and they have mentioned that huge numbers of people are moving to their neighbourhood and the town is growing all the time.
If this is the case there is certainly scope for a good quality electric service in that region, especially as other towns nearby are also growing at a substantial rate. TELL US WHAT YOU THINK
opinion@railtechnologymagazine.com
rail technology magazine Jun/Jul 13 | 13
© mintguy
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