INBOX
From: Martin Sloman Subject: Liverpool and HS2
Liverpool must be on the high speed rail network to maintain its economic renaissance. Exclusion from the network would mean uncompetitive journey times, lack of train and route capacity and reduced opportunities for developing new passenger and freight capacity:
something
essential for the new Liverpool Superport.
To exclude such a large and strategic city from the network is a major failing of the present HS2 proposals and makes a mockery of the objective of ‘rebalancing the economy’.
From: Christopher Griffiths Subject: Liverpool and HS2
Mr Sloman is absolutely right. The enormous benefits of HS2 to the home of inter-city rail would translate into equally massive benefits for the north west, north Wales and rest of the UK. Liverpool’s inclusion significantly improves the overall CBR [cost-benefit ratio] of HS2 and, frankly, its exclusion to date can only be attributed to political expedience on the part of the DfT and rank incompetence on the
part of HS2 Ltd.
Liverpool always featured in Network Rail’s draft proposal for a national high speed network, so it’s great to see the push towards a more holistic and effective result finally gaining some traction.
HS2 direct to Liverpool is a no- brainer; it is also the logical springing point for HS3 across the breadth of northern England. Hopefully the key decision- makers will wise up to reality, interrogate the correct data in a fair and transparent way and come to the obvious conclusion: that Liverpool must form a part of the captive HS2 network.
From: Les F Subject: HS2 as a segregated railway
Your commentators are right about Liverpool but the same can be said about the other by-passed cities, such as Stoke, Wolverhampton, Coventry and Leicester. This is the inevitable result of designing HS2 as a segregated railway (and if you doubt that, refer to HS2’s own words: ‘HS2 will be a largely segregated railway’).
Now try a different route integrated into the network, so there are at least 10 times as many city-city connections, with none of them getting a worse service than now, and you have a railway actually worth building; unlike the abysmally inadequate HS2. Just how HS2 has been allowed to progress so far in the face of condemnation from a wide variety of senior industry figures and respected bodies, remains a mystery. How much longer must the madness go on?
From: Notts Railman Subject: Hitachi’s new train design – AT 200
Well, it looks better than their 20 | rail technology magazine Aug/Sep 14
previous venture into the ‘commuter train
market’
(the
‘Javelin’ Class 395). I hope they remember to fit yaw dampers at construction (rather than retro-fit as for the Class 395).
The requirement for ‘a minimum 15 second door open’ – presumably this means how long it takes to open the doors (rather than how long they stay open for). FIFTEEN SECONDS IS FAR TOO LONG – just compare the Class 395 with the LU S Stock to see how it should be done. [Editor’s note: The minimum door open is from the ‘Edinburgh Glasgow Improvement Programme’ final business case, Oct 2013. Hitachi Rail Europe is expected to suggest the AT 200 if it bids to supply EMUs for the electrified EGIP route.]
A train that is designed for the ‘regional’ market has very different luggage requirements from a ‘commuter’ train. So which are they going for?
From: Paul, Bedfordshire Subject: South west route options post-Dawlish
There are only 20 miles of missing track on the LSWR between Exeter and Plymouth. Most of the trackbed is intact (with a lot owned by the council) and there are only a handful of buildings on the track. Most of the structures are granite, intact and well maintained, with only two small road bridges and Meldon [with] strengthening needed.
£875m beggars belief. Did they price for full-blown double track 125mph running with four aspect signalling – or did they price the sensible option of single track with loops at Okehampton, Lydford and Bere Alston to allow an hourly extensions of the Class 159s from Waterloo, and provide a diversionary route if the line is
closed at Dawlish? I fear the same anti-Southern agendas and axes to grind that were at work among Western Region staff when the line closed may still be at work.
From: Nigel Blackmore, Isle of Wight
Subject: South west route options post-Dawlish
I agree with many of the comments made by Paul, Bedfordshire. The activities of the old BR Western Region when they took over the Southern Region lines west of Salisbury were a disgrace that made Beeching look
a saint
in comparison. What they did was little short of treason and a massive disservice to the country. Unfortunately it is unlikely they will ever be brought to justice and suitably punished.
Anyway, what is done is done and cannot be undone. Some of the ‘Withered Arm’ lines would have probably had to go anyway, but not Exeter to Plymouth via Okehampton and Tavistock.
I think Paul has underestimated the cost of reinstating the missing 20 miles and upgrading what is still extant. A good fast service via Tavistock and Okehampton would bring massive benefits to those two towns and the surrounding areas. It would also improve freight capability to Plymouth and from that further west. The ability to commute to Exeter, and Plymouth, and travel to Bristol and London etc from a much larger number of major towns would be of major benefit to Devon.
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 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164