Jump to content
Image restoration from pre-May 2021 continues and may take an indefinite period of time.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The bi-modes could be cascaded to somewhere like Cross Country which has a lot of mileage under wires but many of its routes extend beyond.......  

 

 

There should be no need to do that Edwin.

The Class 800 series was designed so that the Bi-Modes (and the original, but dropped all-diesel versions), could have their diesel power plants removed, in anticipation of future rolling electrification programmes.

In the original design, it was simply a case of replacing the power/generator driving vehicles with the all-electric version of the driving vehicle.

With the modified, production design, the diesel generator power packs and ancillaries, are located in removable cradles.

 

 

.

  • Informative/Useful 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

With thanks to ess1UK - most of the elected and/or appointed people of the North don't seem to agree with any of you.

 

https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/transport-for-the-north-demands-to-see-dfts-technical-work-underpinning-rail-cuts-30-11-2021/

 

 

 

 

Not quite. Transport for the North is unhappy. West Yorkshire has every reason to be unhappy at presen t - but we're hearing little or nothing in the way of complaint from Sheffield, the east Midlands , and Liverpool, and very little from Mr Burnham in Manchester, even though he's a "professional Northerner" 

 

And it's obvious why those places aren't complaining. They are getting all they were pro mised

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

There should be no need to do that Edwin.

The Class 800 series was designed so that the Bi-Modes (and the original, but dropped all-diesel versions), could have their diesel power plants removed, in anticipation of future rolling electrification programmes.

In the original design, it was simply a case of replacing the power/generator driving vehicles with the all-electric version of the driving vehicle.

With the modified, production design, the diesel generator power packs and ancillaries, are located in removable cradles.

 

 

.

That's clearly an option.  An alternative would be to cascade them as I suggested, and introduce for the MML a straight electric unit, which wouldn't need provision for bi-mode and various other features that an 810 has but wouldn't be necessary on that route, so could be lighter and cheaper.  It depends on the rolling stock market in 10+ years time, which nobody can know.  

Edited by Edwin_m
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cascading would seem to make sense, at least to the casual observer (i.e. me). If you cascade the newer bi-modes to XC you build a new set of straight electrics for the MML. If you don't, you have to build more bi-modes or diesels, either new for XC services or to use elsewhere to allow cascades. It's often mentioned on here that the Pendolinos will be reaching their expiry date when HS2 is complete, but the Voyagers used on XC services and the EMR 222s which Wikipedia suggests could be cascaded when the 810s come in are of a similar vintage. The HSTs are of course even older. Surely at some point there will need to be a major fleet replacement on XC services, and as there is no sign that their routes will be fully electrified in the immediate future, this will almost certainly require bi-modes. Why would you pay to build a set of bi-modes and pay to convert a set of bi-modes to electrics when you could just pay for a new set of electrics and use the bi-modes where they're needed? The only reason I can think of is that the 33 810s would cover only a small part of the XC fleet, so you would still have to build or cascade, at which point you end up with heterogenous units on XC services, which is probably a pain for maintenance, pathing, etc.

  • Like 3
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what the cut looked like at the Chipping warden tunnel site looked like at the end of August, another 15m to go down and a few crane pads to go in before deliveries start in ernest. 

 

and i'm just writing up the route survey for Greatworth. 

 

I've got a busy few years once these all get up and running.. that being the important bit!

 

 

 

 

WhatsApp Image 2021-12-01 at 14.25.46.jpeg

  • Like 5
  • Informative/Useful 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Ron Ron Ron said:

 

It's the trendy new name for cut and cover.

It sounds more...........Greener !

 

 

.

I could be cynical and say that it's a bribe to the residents to let the horrible new railwzy through. Just like Gisburn Tunnel and the Haddon Hall covered way which were creaed to stop opposition from landowners when there was no engineering need for them. There's nothing new in this but do 't tell HS2 that. However  I look forwz4d to seeing @kryten65's pictures when they are delivered.

 

Jamie

  • Like 3
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

Not quite. Transport for the North is unhappy. West Yorkshire has every reason to be unhappy at presen t - but we're hearing little or nothing in the way of complaint from Sheffield, the east Midlands , and Liverpool, and very little from Mr Burnham in Manchester, even though he's a "professional Northerner" 

 

And it's obvious why those places aren't complaining. They are getting all they were pro mised

 

Sorry, but that is utter tosh.

 

TfN took several days to release its reaction, and that is because it needed agreement from all of its Board members, which include all of the, supposedly "satisfied" areas (with the sole exceptions of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, who are not members):

 

"Transport for the North Board

Our Board is made up of a mix of representatives from the public and private sectors, Rail North authorities from outside of the Transport for the North area and our delivery partners, with Cllr Louise Gittins (Cheshire West and Chester Council leader) as Interim Chair.

Each of the 20 Constituent Authorities appoints one of its elected Members to be a Member of the Transport for the North Board.

The Member appointed must be in the case of a Constituent Authority that has an elected Mayor, the Mayor or the elected Member with responsibility for transport and in any other case the Leader, the Chair or the elected Member with responsibility for transport."

 

So, the letter stated this:

 

The North has spoken with one voice to make it clear that the government’s Integrated Rail Plan in its current form is not acceptable. That is why our statutory advice to government is clear that they must think again. Instead of this top-down centralised approach they need to reach out and work with local communities, and businesses.

 

Furthermore, a key part of their criticism concerns this:

 

“We still believe that there is a way forward that will enable them to collaboratively move at pace to prioritise and sequence investment in a way that delivers the early foundations of a modernised rail system for the region. Instead of what looks like years of rail delays to build a network that by the time its finished will not be fit for purpose.

 

 

I trust this allays the fears of anyone on here that believed the North was divided in its reaction. TfN and its forebears spent around nine years developing the proposals into the preferred options they submitted last year, and they have been largely ignored. There was even a statutory requirement for HMG to respond formally to those proposals, which they have chosen not to do.

 

Whatever the merits or otherwise of turning HS2 East into a congested fug of inappropriate wayside halts, which will be badly affected by late running of other users on the MML, instead of the dedicated highway it was meant to be to the vastly superior, main catchment at Leeds/Bradford and Sheffield, it has also betrayed the very organisation expressly set up to organise Northern requirements into one homogenous requirement. This applies equally to the half-baked remaining NPR plan. 

 

The £100m allocated to "reviewing" a new way into Leeds for HS2 and corresponding benefits to NPR, also hides the Leeds Mass Transit Plan, on which it would seem to depend, a scheme which has barely got beyond the kitchen table sketch book (see the web pages for this and you will see what I mean). Some welcome this review, and there is some merit in the ambitions, I grant you, but it means another 10-20 years beyond 2035/40, before anything whatsoever actually happens.

 

So, I ask again, just what is there to celebrate in this, before many of us are dead? 

 

  • Agree 4
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Sorry, but that is utter tosh.

 

TfN took several days to release its reaction, and that is because it needed agreement from all of its Board members, which include all of the, supposedly "satisfied" areas (with the sole exceptions of Derbyshire and Nottinghamshire, who are not members):

 

"Transport for the North Board

Our Board is made up of a mix of representatives from the public and private sectors, Rail North authorities from outside of the Transport for the North area and our delivery partners, with Cllr Louise Gittins (Cheshire West and Chester Council leader) as Interim Chair.

Each of the 20 Constituent Authorities appoints one of its elected Members to be a Member of the Transport for the North Board.

The Member appointed must be in the case of a Constituent Authority that has an elected Mayor, the Mayor or the elected Member with responsibility for transport and in any other case the Leader, the Chair or the elected Member with responsibility for transport."

 

So, the letter stated this:

 

The North has spoken with one voice to make it clear that the government’s Integrated Rail Plan in its current form is not acceptable. That is why our statutory advice to government is clear that they must think again. Instead of this top-down centralised approach they need to reach out and work with local communities, and businesses.

 

Furthermore, a key part of their criticism concerns this:

 

“We still believe that there is a way forward that will enable them to collaboratively move at pace to prioritise and sequence investment in a way that delivers the early foundations of a modernised rail system for the region. Instead of what looks like years of rail delays to build a network that by the time its finished will not be fit for purpose.

 

 

I trust this allays the fears of anyone on here that believed the North was divided in its reaction. TfN and its forebears spent around nine years developing the proposals into the preferred options they submitted last year, and they have been largely ignored. There was even a statutory requirement for HMG to respond formally to those proposals, which they have chosen not to do.

 

Whatever the merits or otherwise of turning HS2 East into a congested fug of inappropriate wayside halts, which will be badly affected by late running of other users on the MML, instead of the dedicated highway it was meant to be to the vastly superior, main catchment at Leeds/Bradford and Sheffield, it has also betrayed the very organisation expressly set up to organise Northern requirements into one homogenous requirement. This applies equally to the half-baked remaining NPR plan. 

 

The £100m allocated to "reviewing" a new way into Leeds for HS2 and corresponding benefits to NPR, also hides the Leeds Mass Transit Plan, on which it would seem to depend, a scheme which has barely got beyond the kitchen table sketch book (see the web pages for this and you will see what I mean). Some welcome this review, and there is some merit in the ambitions, I grant you, but it means another 10-20 years beyond 2035/40, before anything whatsoever actually happens.

 

So, I ask again, just what is there to celebrate in this, before many of us are dead? 

 

 

 

\The dates for construction of all elements have not been delayed by the announcement.

 

You are stretching a point to suggest Sheffield was well served by the previous proposal - it was an afterthought , served by a long straggly loop off the route, while the bulk of the HS2 trains would have whizzed past, bypassing it. 

 

It's the first time I've heard Nottingham Midland described as "an inappropriate wayside halt" (Sounds a bit more like the initial couple of tin sheds that comprised Bristol Parkway when it opened)

 

And the continued confusion of TfN , a minor quango issuing a political press release , with the population  of the North of England as a whole , is corporatism reduced to absurdity

 

The IPR has selected the cheapest of 3 options for NPR prepared by TfN, whereas TfN wanted the most expensive. The idea that the elected British Government is there simply to rubber stamp whatever a quango wants , and write whatever size cheque the quango wants, without question,is curious. The IPR is a formal reply to the proposals 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Ravenser said:

 

 

\The dates for construction of all elements have not been delayed by the announcement.

 

You are stretching a point to suggest Sheffield was well served by the previous proposal - it was an afterthought , served by a long straggly loop off the route, while the bulk of the HS2 trains would have whizzed past, bypassing it. 

 

It's the first time I've heard Nottingham Midland described as "an inappropriate wayside halt" (Sounds a bit more like the initial couple of tin sheds that comprised Bristol Parkway when it opened)

 

And the continued confusion of TfN , a minor quango issuing a political press release , with the population  of the North of England as a whole , is corporatism reduced to absurdity

 

The IPR has selected the cheapest of 3 options for NPR prepared by TfN, whereas TfN wanted the most expensive. The idea that the elected British Government is there simply to rubber stamp whatever a quango wants , and write whatever size cheque the quango wants, without question,is curious. The IPR is a formal reply to the proposals 

 

Not sure what you are on, but I would like some.......

 

Of course the dates are delayed, both for getting to Leeds and for NPR. How can you argue otherwise???

 

Nottingham, despite its size, delivers significantly fewer passengers to the MML than the 30% smaller Derby. It is a wayside halt in terms of HS2 - less than half the size of any other destination, pre this announcement.

 

TfN was set up by this government to do precisely what it has done - to reflect the combined views of the elected representatives of its members. It is not the Quango you allege. Most of its members are elected themselves, so cobblers to your assertion.

 

The version of the IPR selected by HMG is actually c.50% of Option G, so not a selection at all. The constitution involving TfL, as set up by this government, required formal responses and discussions before policy was set in stone. As usual, none of that has been followed.

 

You assert "press release" is a bad thing. That is very certainly true of this government. Why are you defending them?

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Not sure what you are on, but I would like some.......

 

Of course the dates are delayed, both for getting to Leeds and for NPR. How can you argue otherwise???

 

Nottingham, despite its size, delivers significantly fewer passengers to the MML than the 30% smaller Derby. It is a wayside halt in terms of HS2 - less than half the size of any other destination, pre this announcement.

 

TfN was set up by this government to do precisely what it has done - to reflect the combined views of the elected representatives of its members. It is not the Quango you allege. Most of its members are elected themselves, so cobblers to your assertion.

 

The version of the IPR selected by HMG is actually c.50% of Option G, so not a selection at all. The constitution involving TfL, as set up by this government, required formal responses and discussions before policy was set in stone. As usual, none of that has been followed.

 

 

 

 

If this was the spirit within the team drawing up the original HS2 proposal , it becomes obvious why the East Midlands was so badly served by the initial proposal.

 

I am deeply uncomfortable with the idea of conurbations and regions being openly labelled as "inferior" and "superior"

 

1. It is unlikely the date for getting to Leeds has been delayed , because it was so far in the future  to start with. It always was at least 20 years from now

 

We have a decade to design a light rail system for Leeds and another decade to build it in time for HS2 to run through to Leeds on the original timetable for opening. In a sane world that should be quite enough. Pretty well all the London Underground deep tubes were designed and built in a period of 15 years.

 

2. I'm unclear that there has been any delay to NPR opening, since there was no firm agreed proposal, and therefore no timetable for doing it.  Utilising part of HS2 West will arguably speed opening, since there are fewer NPR works to carry out, requiring fewer skilled resources (which are finite)  It will also reinforce the economics of both HS2 West and NPR. In general a smaller construction project ought to proceed faster than a large one, all other things being equal.

 

3. If Nottingham generated less passenger traffic than Derby despite a greater population that is perhaps a reflection of the train service provided. Perhaps there is potential for a better service to Nottingham to generate a good deal more traffic?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

 

You assert "press release" is a bad thing. That is very certainly true of this government. Why are you defending them?

 

 

 

I actually asserted that a "political press release" by a quasi-autonomous national government organisation (which seems a fair description of TfN) should not be equated with the opinion of the North of England as a whole society.

 

A press release from TfN is likely to reflect the political agendas of TfN as an organisation, and of the members of its board. That is a rather different thing from the opinion of the broad mass of the North of England.

 

In any case "The North" is not an undifferentiated lump. The North West has got pretty well everything it wanted. West Yorks has so far got only a little in confirmed development. I'd expect views on the IRP to be quite different on the two sides of the Pennines

 

Whether press releases, as a communications tool, are inherently a bad thing is a very different matter , and the statement that "any press release from the present govt is a bad thing"  certainly veres into general politics

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid that I remain of the view that the government's announcement is window dressing for the next election and little of it other than what is already committed to will ever happen. Just more "consultations" carried out at enormous cost by paid consultants to make it look as though something is happening,

And I dispute strongly the description of TFN above. They are the elected representatives of the population in the area. That is how government in this country is supposed to work. Of course there is a political slant, as there is in anything done by either central or local government - because that is again how the system works in this country. TfN is no more or less political than the central government or any county council.

I agree that there is no bottomless money pit, but there would be the money if it was spent properly instead of being wasted by constantly postponing projects, redesigning them, "consulting" etc.

An anecdote. I knew someone who worked for Building Design Partnership when I was working (well I knew quite a few). BDP was commissioned to design the Channel Tunnel. but then the project was shelved. It was still sitting on the shelves at BDP's offices. When it was reactivated the consultancy/design fees were about the same as the original total cost of the project, and that was not by any means all due to inflation.

Jonathan

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, SamThomas said:

I really wish this thread was in two sections - 1 for the technical & building aspect (which I & I'm certain many others) are interested in & 2 for the political/social discussions (which I am not interested in).

Please read post 1 of the thread, the formative post of the tread centred on the  political/social aspect of HS2, not the bricks and mortar of the civil engineering of HS2, perhaps it is a good idea  to create a new  thread dealing with the plainwork of constructing  HS2, however the politics of the troubled project which is  HS2 are far more interesting

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, SamThomas said:

I really wish this thread was in two sections - 1 for the technical & building aspect (which I & I'm certain many others) are interested in & 2 for the political/social discussions (which I am not interested in).

The sociopolitical stuff is only at the front of people's brains at the moment because of the recent announcement and the now uncertainty of how some elements will be delivered to the east of Manchester, it will return to building works again as the pace of earthworks builds.  It's good to mix the two, they do go hand in hand, but like you I do like seeing construction works, I really should have gone into civil engineering. I've lost interest in the Werrington thread since it went into tidy up, a couple of days back the first trains used it and I was like meh.

 

I wonder what version of RMWeb we will be on when phase one opens. 

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

I am afraid that I remain of the view that the government's announcement is window dressing for the next election and little of it other than what is already committed to will ever happen.

 

 

Thing is, had the Government announced everything TfN wanted, it STILL would amount to Window dressing of sorts because the enabling legislation wouldn't be going through the Westminster process until well after the next General Election anyway.

 

As with all Government 'policy', until space is created in the legislative timetable for things any announcement is just talk - and talk is cheap as they say...

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, phil-b259 said:

 

Thing is, had the Government announced everything TfN wanted, it STILL would amount to Window dressing of sorts because the enabling legislation wouldn't be going through the Westminster process until well after the next General Election anyway.

 

As with all Government 'policy', until space is created in the legislative timetable for things any announcement is just talk - and talk is cheap as they say...

 

 

 

 

And that is a critical issue.

 

As I said earlier, this project was "approved" and "announced" and "given the green light" by 4 successive governments between 2009 and 2019, as a whole, having been initially proposed in 2005. No construction work on the ground actually started until early 2019 ; and even on the original projections work on Phase 2b would not have started until 2033.

 

Announcing you are going to start building something in 25 years time is effectively meaningless. And as I commented earlier the Blair govt in particular seemed to be under the impression that announcing a policy , often several times, was an entirely satisfactory substitute for delivering it. There was supposed to be a mega-billion rail investment programme under that government. I'm not clear what exactly it delivered in terms of new works - apparently we managed to electrify 65 miles of railway in 13 years. Certainly I'm struggling to identify major gains - GWML electrification was post 2010, I think

 

It would seem that all the cash was eaten up by "process" in which a great many administrators were happily occupied with multiple plans , strategies, reviews and desk-based design work, while the politicians engaged in a "The Thick of It" style PR war of press releases, safe in the knowledge that nothing was actually going to happen in the real world, other than the setting up of a few more task forces and quangos to keep their mates in administration in the lifestyle to which they aspired.

 

And nuclear power stations, the carriers, and a good deal more carried on in the same style.

 

(This is not a partisan point - if the Attlee government had operated in the same style, the NHS would not have happened until 1970-71.. But that government had fought a war - "Action This Day!".)

 

It is intolerable to have a situation where it takes longer than the entire inter-war period just to reach cutting the first sod on a project.

 

In under 3 years, when there was a lot else going on, we have now had the start of actual construction on Phase 1, the Oakervee review, the hybrid Act for Phase 2a , the lntegrated Rail Plan, and the Union Connectivity Review. Plus a commitment to MML electrification starting imminently, followed quickly by Transpennine electrification. That's a rather better pace.

 

I note the comment in the Integrated Rail Plan about legislative timetables:

 

Quote

Also indicatively, the programme for introducing future hybrid Bills in Parliament could be:

• Western Leg to Manchester;

• High speed line to East Midlands (HS2 East);

• NPR connections to Warrington and the Transpennine route to Huddersfield.

 

I reckon we will see a hybrid bill for the Western Leg introduced - and hopefully passed - in the present parliament

 

(that again raises the issue of how the North West is getting everything, and those east of the Pennines must wait...)

 

In contrast, it took from 2009 to 2021 to get a hybrid bill through Parliament for Phase 2a. That's a shocking 12 years from "approval".

 

And I note that several New Labour governments apparently sat on the HS2 proposal for 4 years (2005-9) before "approving" it a few months before a general electon

 

Ads phil said, talk is cheap...

Edited by Ravenser
  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ravenser said:

As I said earlier, this project was "approved" and "announced" and "given the green light" by 4 successive governments between 2009 and 2019, as a whole, having been initially proposed in 2005. No construction work on the ground actually started until early 2019 ; and even on the original projections work on Phase 2b would not have started until 2033.

 

In contrast, it took from 2009 to 2021 to get a hybrid bill through Parliament for Phase 2a. That's a shocking 12 years from "approval".

 

And I note that several New Labour governments apparently sat on the HS2 proposal for 4 years (2005-9) before "approving" it a few months before a general electon

Do you have a source for 2005?  Even the Network Rail high speed proposal, which was an ancestor of HS2, wasn't until 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/scotland/8222413.stm

 

It's not correct to imply that the Phase 2a Hybrid Bill took 12 years - it was lodged in 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/high-speed-rail-west-midlands-to-crewe-bill.  I agree with what you may have intended to say, that the whole process has taken 12 years and counting.  This includes design work, consultation and legislation, which I think most people would agree were necesssary.  It also includes at least one pause while a new set of politicians decided on whether to continue or not.  

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Do you have a source for 2005?  Even the Network Rail high speed proposal, which was an ancestor of HS2, wasn't until 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/scotland/8222413.stm

 

It's not correct to imply that the Phase 2a Hybrid Bill took 12 years - it was lodged in 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/high-speed-rail-west-midlands-to-crewe-bill.  I agree with what you may have intended to say, that the whole process has taken 12 years and counting.  This includes design work, consultation and legislation, which I think most people would agree were necesssary.  It also includes at least one pause while a new set of politicians decided on whether to continue or not.  

 

The question is how long did similar projects take in France, The Netherlands, Germany, etc.

 

While I accept planning rules and legislative processes vary between nations, high speed rail is a PROVEN concept (particularly if you stick to perceived HS rail 'norms') so if the HS2 project should have not been significantly longer to progress than schemes in the aforementioned countries.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Do you have a source for 2005?  Even the Network Rail high speed proposal, which was an ancestor of HS2, wasn't until 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/mobile/scotland/8222413.stm

 

It's not correct to imply that the Phase 2a Hybrid Bill took 12 years - it was lodged in 2017: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/high-speed-rail-west-midlands-to-crewe-bill.  I agree with what you may have intended to say, that the whole process has taken 12 years and counting.  This includes design work, consultation and legislation, which I think most people would agree were necesssary.  It also includes at least one pause while a new set of politicians decided on whether to continue or not.  

 

 

Apologies for 2005 - my recollection was a comment by Mike Storey about the  HS2  network "as concieved in 2005" which I am now not able to locate. I had got the impression from his postings that he might have been involved with the development of the original proposal in some way, so assumed that would be authoratative.

 

2005 was meant as "date for start of work drawing up original proposal" - I take it 2009 is when Network Rail put a proposal on the table for government approval?

 

My point about the Phase 2a hybrid bill is indeed - project "approved" in 2009, Phase 2a bill not lodged until 2017 = 8 years lost without even putting a bill before parliament. We are now 12 years from first "approval" and the legislative process for Phase 2b will not even begin for several years...

 

Under such circumstances Government approval becomes a somewhat meaningless concept , which is why I keep putting it in inverted commas

 

It seems that it may be 20 years between an initial design team sitting down and saying "Let's go to Leeds and Manchester! What  needs to be done?" and any enabling legislation for HS2 East being laid before parliament  (never mind any actual vonstruction or opening). That's a quite grotesque lead time

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Ravenser said:

Announcing you are going to start building something in 25 years time is effectively meaningless. And as I commented earlier the Blair govt in particular seemed to be under the impression that announcing a policy , often several times, was an entirely satisfactory substitute for delivering it. There was supposed to be a mega-billion rail investment programme under that government. I'm not clear what exactly it delivered in terms of new works - apparently we managed to electrify 65 miles of railway in 13 years. Certainly I'm struggling to identify major gains - GWML electrification was post 2010, I think

 

Happy to be corrected, but I think that only 12 of the 65 miles were existing railway (Crewe to Kidsgrove), the rest was HS1, which doesn't really count as it would have been quite strange to build it as a non-electrified railway.

  • Agree 2
  • Interesting/Thought-provoking 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...