The need for additional transport capacity is a hot topic at the moment, with the Eddington study due to report on this issue later this year and the DfT's White Paper on rail strategy next year. Central Railway believes that additional dedicated freight capacity could help boost investment and jobs in the north, north west, midlands and Scotland in particular. What do you think?
Transport is the main sector that is currently failing to contribute to the Government's targets to reduce emissions of gases which may cause climate change. Central Railway believes that a large shift of lorries from road to rail would have a significant impact. What do you think?
Such a scheme is essential, but with the limited routes available I hope any such line can be used by Central Railway, the Eurorail scheme and passenger services where viable.
I support his project 100%, which might surprise some people as the route would be less than half a mile from my front door. But why diesel traction given the oil market and future declining supply?
I think those who turned down or opposed this project need to examine their consciences. Do we want to cover more of the country in tarmac, or shall be brave and visionary, and try a different approach? The environmental benefits of this project should be enough to sell it, never mind the sheer delight of removing even more lorry journeys from our already congested roads. Good luck!
Thanks for your comments which are supportive and very welcome.
Central Railway would be open to all UK and Continental operators to use, as indeed it has to be under the EU rail regulatory regime. Because so much of the route is existing railway there are some passenger and freight services on some route sections already, whose position would have to be provided for and protected. Naturally the company would welcome revenues from other freight operators using the line for parts of their hauls.
It may well be that some new regional passenger services would come into being in Britain or on the Continent.
We have switched to proposing diesel operation whereas we previously envisaged using electric locomotives and overhead electrification. We would probably propose to upgrade overhead structures so that there was room for later installation of electrification equipment if that were deemed preferable.
Railways have a clear environmental advantage in using much less diesel to move freight than lorries do on the road. Diesel traction is also more flexible so more operators could use the system without having to buy specialised and far more expensive electric locomotives (that said it would almost certainly be necessary to add electric locomotives to freight trains going through the Channel Tunnel.) Electrification involves additional equipment and signalling costs, including a higher energy cost in construction.
We believe that the absence of, arguably unattractive, electric wires will reassure people living near the railway from the safety point of view, and make the railway less visible and intrusive than it might otherwise be.
This is clearly a project whose time has come. It is hard to think of a proposal of any kind on any subject which promises to deliver on so many of the UK government's (whether Conservative or Labour) priorities: transport, the environment, climate change, economic efficiency, increasing trade, the north/south divide (the list could go on). Lets get this thing built. Good work!
I met Alan Stevens a while back, and I remain as convinced now as I was then about the necessity for this project.
I believe that the solution lies in a new "Enterprise Model" (ie legal and financial structure) using the unintended consequences of the UK Limited Liability Partnership as a vehicle.
This gives rise to what I call "asset-based" finance, perfect for pension investment and a close cousin to the "Income Trusts" which now dominate Canadian Capital markets.
I believe that it is possible both to re-finance Eurotunnel and to raise the necessary finance for your project as part of the same initiative.
You have on your Board the skills and connections necessary to put forward a simple but radical solution to both Eurotunnel refinancing and Central Railway financing - and all without reference to HM Treasury.
See
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2006/11/11/64127/243#2
Chris Cook
cojock@hotmail.com
Funding a successful Central Railway project would in the company's view create an attractive asset class for pension fund investment, and a joint approach which looks at Central Railway in tandem with Eurotunnel would make a lot of sense, once Eurotunnel's long term ownership becomes clear.
Whilst I have been following the progress, and set backs, of the Central Railway more or less from it's inception, including a very informative afternoon some years ago in Rugby Library at the time of your pulic consultatiion, and spending a fortune on photo copies of the detailed drawings for my personal use, this is the first time I have made contact with you.
There is no doubt in my mind that the time for the Central Railway has come, therefore I have opened this comment without the word, proposed. Forced into early retirement as a Senior Manager with BR, I have spent about 10 years, making a thorough assessment of most main and secondary lines, not just the north - south routes.
The purpose of this exercise, has been two fold. First a rough assessment of the structure gauge, and costs to create clearance for TOFC freight. At an Intermodal exhibition, I was fortunate to procure a full copy of the Piggyback Consortium's final report, which formed the initial basis for my studies.
Since then I have accumulated, a substantial data base,and during the DoT consultation on 'Developing an Integrated Transport. An Invitaion to Contribute in 1997, I submitted a full report of my researches to date, and the need for early action on switching freight to rail.
In less than ten years from virtually ignoring my report, to the start of serious concern, within Govt. and Industry
it now appears, as one of your correspondants says, that the time is now right for this transfer to increase.
In this fortnights 'Rail', Editor Nigel Harris is rightly singing the praises of the proposed extension of the CTRL,a High Speed Line to the North commenting that the passenger paths created, will allow more freight paths on the WCML and ECML.
This brings me to the second reason for my marathon study, the extent of available capacity on all main and most secondary Nort South routes, allied to the cost of upgrading existing Infrastructure for TOFC Intermodal use.
Mr Stevens assessment in Railnews of a 50% switch to rail, is the same as mine.Indeed it may be pessimistic. At the end of the day, we are likely to get a better idea of the overall situation as Sir Nicholas Sterns report is considered, and the speed of Road Charching introduced, on top of the increasing costs to the road haulage industry.
Finally, for the moment,whilst the Piggyback consortium's idea of basing the 4m vehicles, was in my view inadequate, as all other schemes have failed on two counts. They are either based on lift on/off, or the Artic. trailers have to be specially constructed. They are either narrow, too low, indeed 4m trailer height is not enough, with extra large 400mm air bags against the normal 200mm, the height gained being of course half the air bag size.
First, may I apologise for the gramatical and quality of content in my first submission.
To clarify:
My early retirement was due to health
Nigel Harris Editorial was correct in that a new HSL passenger line, would create extra freight paths.In my opinion however, even with most of the class 1 passenger trains transferred to the new line, this would do little more than satisfy the growth of freight traffic for at most 3 or 4 years.
The overwhelming transfer of freight to rail, which I believe is inevitable would then need the Central Railway, and with the lead time, the actions to again seek and gain authority to build, let contracts,undertake the work, an opening date could perhaps as long off as 5 to 7 years.
I say this as my next to last post,was as Chief Town Planning Officer of the British Rail Property Board North West Region. It involved a lot of work, and patience in either persuading the Planning Authorities that the work fell within the railways rights under the General Development Order, allowing operational works for the railways function to be undertaken without the need for consent,or in some cases accepting the need or expedient, to seek planning permission.
In a lighter vain, one case involved Freightliner wishing to build a workshop in the middle of Trafford Park FLT. Trafford Council, insisted on all sorts of condition, including that it be painted either or both green and brown.To break the impasse I took the planning officer into the terminal, and I have never seen a mans jaw drop when he saw the mountains of multi coloured stacked containers, which would entirely surround the workshop!
Having studied each of your individual route plans, apart from your long term thorn in the side, through the Chilterns, the most sensible, and yet most difficult part of the route, will in my view be alongside the M25. Recently I have heard that that the plan to widen to eight lanes ( presume 4 X 4) carriageways, which I believed was dead and buried is back, maybe on the back burner. At times the lunacy of our transport policy amazes me.
Apart from searching out more on this nonsense, I am in the process of assessing the present and possible train paths for each relevant route, and the capacity constraints, mainly existing or planned upgrading of signalling.
Indeed my researches are generally ongoing.
My last hasty post, did not make clear the importance of road vehicle height. To my knowledge a maximum height of 4m is not universal in Europe,and is in any event under review.The UK has, of course no height limit. The most common seems to be 4.2m, which incidentally is the likely height in Ireland. Being aware that land bridging, mainly via Liverpool,is a main source of your potential traffic, without the Central Railway, none of the existing plans could accomodate TOFC traffic with this height dimension.
Part of my ongoing work, is costing the raising or rebuilding of overline bridges, and setting back platform faces.
The study of intermodal freight, and how it can be improved, Europe wide, at least, has been and is an absorbing, and hopefully, one day worthwhile activity.
My house is one that would have to be made a compulsary purchase order if the scheme ever goes ahead.
i have had several years on not knowing the outcome of your scheme- please could you advise when such compulsary purchase orders may come into effect .
Central Railways will never get off the Ground. IMHO They no nothing about Railways, nor the costs. It is just a waste of time, the Goverment; the Opposition, and the Councils are against it! This is the second time that this scheme has reared its ugly head, its been turned down twice, because the scheme is a non-starter!
Peoples homes from North to South have been blighted by these people whom go home to there luxury homes with no worries!
Eurotunnel is a flop, and they are being invested by uneccesary tax payers money. Lets not have another, we pay enough tax!f
The Eddington report was by a person with a specific interest in people travelling by air. I hope that commonsense will prevail in time and rail travel becomes the first choice for inter-city travel. I do believe that Eddington missed an opportunity to propose a fast link rail system for freight and inter-city travellers. The redevelopment of the old Grand Central Railway plus suitable links could provide a 200mph passenger service from the great cities of the North to the Midlands , the South East and the Continent. With this development the West Coast Mainline would be less busy, opening up opportunities for better services to smaller communities such as Milton Keynes, Northampton (and Daventry), Nuneaton, Stafford and the Potteries.
Oh dear, such negativity.The Stern report is in my opinion,more relavent than Eddington. In the latest issue of Rail, a comment has been made 'the Treasury....er Eddington report......, which says it all. The same or similar has appeared in other railway publications, notably 'Modern Railways'. Apart possibly from the Railway Gazette, I view this publication, and Roger Ford's 'Informed Sources'in particular as the best thought through commentry on our railway system and the sometime nafarious goings on.
As I have written before, if we are to have a reasonable lifestyle 20 or so years hence, then the Central Railway is not desirable, IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL.
By nature I am a placid man, but the sheer hypocracy of the Department of Transport, division of the Treasury, makes my blood boil.If the financial greed is seen by decision makers, for the transparency it is, then there is a chance that rail transport, and freight in particular will be restored to a percntage level appropriate to the early 20th Century.
I am not fully convinced that a new High Speed line is necessary,but if it can be worked in with Central Railway, the issue may be worth exploring. Apart from capacity increase with more freight paths in the short term, there is the very important question of land take.Our crowded isle can stand very little more countryside being taken for transport schemes, particularly road, with the co-lateral effect of noise, fumes,etc.
Unless I am looking in the wrong place, the series of maps with the proposed route superimposed in green on the O.S. 1:50000 'Landranger'maps was extremely useful. They provided a substantial help in assessing the impact, possible deviations, and which lines could form a connecting freight equivalent of the German Ausbaustrechen'and other areas for study.
As I have said taking a more balanced attitude is my usual style, but the shear insanity, greed, and established engraved antedeluvian thinking, particularly from the DfT is almost criminal to the quality of lives for the next generation.
Andrew Bull.
The Central Railway scheme deserves full support from all politicians (of whatever party), transport planners & other professionals. The "rail industry" should lend its support to achieve a much broader outcome. For example, the former Great Central main line crosses the Oxford-Cambridge (EWRL) route at Claydon/Calvert (Bucks.) and new junctions should be created here to enable rail to offer the equivalent of the orbital M25 to its freight customers. Both Southampton and Felixstowe ports would then be able to feed traffic into the north-south core route.
Central Railway should be constructed to at least "Berne Gauge" (or prouder, for double-stack container traffic) and should be electrified.
Has any thought been given to connecting the proposed route in the London area with HS1? I would suggest a short length of new line in tunnel from St. Pancras/Kentish Town to West Hampstead, where connection could be made with the Met. & GC route to Aylesbury and the North. This would require support from the GLA/TfL and co-operation from LUL, Network Rail, Chiltern Railways (M40 Trains) and other stakeholders.
I would like to add my support to those with the vision at Central Railway.It is so frustrating to see this project knocked back by Government.The safety case could be added to the 'for' arguement-the constant stream of artics on the motorways moving north/south contribute to the carnage on the roads that we accept as part of motoring freedom.
The constant drone of motorway noise affects a significant ribbon of adjacent housing and this could be reduced with consequent improvement in life quality in the areas affected.
A dedicated line would probably improve reliability of service to the customer.The chunnel would see a significant freight traffic increase,helping it's debt problem.
What is the Central railway response to the south eastern & southern route utilization strategies released by the department for transport. There seems to be no mention of the project in either strategy even as a potential third party while other ventures notibly the airtrack forum seem to feature rather more so. Does this mean current goverment "thinking" does not include the Central railway proposal as an important feature in the future development of the region?
I read recently that if the traffic growth continues at the same rate (which it clearly cannot) by the year 2050 the M1 would have to be widened to 51 lanes in each direction! Anyone with a modicum of sense should realise that this scheme must go ahead. But is the political will there...?
I started looking at Central Railway's website in 1998 and it seems an excellent proposition, however it has all seemed a stop-start approach (Like the British Channel Tunnel Rail Link) unlike the construction of new French railways.
Why is there sudden renewed interest? Is there really some hope this time?
As someone living near the Woodhead section, I would suggest that the line will become more difficult to build as more houses are built nearer the line and the Transpennine trail becomes more established, also how do you propose to stop National Grid from using the "new" Woodhead tunnel for their replacement 400kV cables!!?
The original proposal mentioned the provision of some passenger services e.g. Manchester - Penistone - Sheffield, have these been dropped to make way for the freight? It would certainly reduce opposition if these were provided.
I'm not sure about the proposal to use diesel traction vs electric once again it seems a little short sighted
I was re-reading an old report on the earlier days of the Central Railway. The estimate of cost was provided by the firm who estimated for the CTRL, about to be opened on time and ON BUDGET
An altogether rational idea. Good luck, and more power to your collective elbow!
Dear Sirs
I support this scheme. It seems a totally sensible way of removing 1000s of lorry movements off the motorways in the South East.
However, the road haulage industry and huge building contractors who have the ear of Government and have done since the Beeching era don't want it. They prefer more lanes on the M25 etc as this equates to more concrete poured and freedom for their members to drive where they want when they want.
Are you surprised then that this scheme has been shunted into a siding?
I am just old enough to remember the line being used... and i try and get to see any trains using the line. It is essential that this line gets the go-ahead even though i will lose my cycle path! Trying to get to Manchester by road is an absolute nightmare due to the numbers of lorries, and most of the time its people trying to get to the Sheffield/Huddersfield side of Glossop. To do this presently i would have to go into Manchetser and back out again. It would be far better to be able to get on at say, Deepcar or Wadsley Bridge... then i am 20 mins away.
There seems to be a sound business case for Central Railway, AND from Translink UK, but it should also be taken into account that htere is airport access next to Tinsley Yard, and from being a regular cyclist on the route since it was made more aesthetically pleasing (ruined) west of Penistone, i can't see any major barriers other than encroachment by a reservoir.
Keep up the pressure.
For those interested in this project I submit a link to a speech made by MP Chris Graying on rail transport for the future:
http://www.conservatives.com/tile.do?def=news.story.page&obj_id=135531
One of the 3 projects he is looking at is the construction of a dedicated freight route through central england, ie Central Railways proposal. However, of important note is the mention that previous proposals by groups have been amaturish. While this may not be in reference to the Central Railway bid itself, I hope that any future pressure to push this project through will be professional enough to satisfy the politicians!
i fully support central railways plans especially as it reuses parts of the best railway ever engineered in britain the much missed great cental main line .It was a criminal disgrace that this vital asset was lost in the first place and i welcome the future with a high speed freight service this will be very much in demand and a success im sure.
when is the web site going to be updated with some news?
nothing changed for 9 months...
as an hgv haulier myself i write to support this venture and hope u succeed in your plans to re-open parts of the much missed and in my idea never been closed great central railway as part of your central railway plan for frieght traffic through euroupe.....as if we continue to create more traffic on our already over stretched road network then gridlock is only a few years away.....and then im sure the people who oppose this idea would be only to pleased to see the benifits it would bring....!!
good luck and keep up the fight...
Mr F Blake. The site isnt going to be updated with news, nothings changed in 9 months; nor will it change in 9 years!
As I said 132 weeks ago this scheme is dead. The people whom run this dream are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land.
The cost of the scheme, the disruptions to the Rail Network. The disruptiond to roads, Motorways, bridges the list is endless!
I dont honestly know why they dont leave their offices and find employment!
I am totally in support. The closure of the GCR was a disgrace, and we now have to endure convoys of lorries up the M1/M40 and the consequent pollution, asthma, and so on. I have in fact just returned from the Pharmacy, having got another inhaler!! These lorries are killing us and our babies, and killing the planet.
We all know Beeching was short-sighted and possibly influenced by the road builders, but that is history - regrettable as it may be. We should now MOVE ON and undo the stupidity of the latter C20.
About time that Govt got its finger out and supported this and certain other projects (e.g. East-West Rail) and stopped both the ongoing farting around, and its dancing to the road brigade's tune!
Would it not be better to build tracks along side existing motorways.Your have more chance of getting the people on your side.
Hi C. Edwards. I think the chances of getting people, MPs, and the Councils on Central Railways side is virtually impossible. Ask the people whose homes were blighted by Central Railways plans. They were offered a price for their property valid for 10 years! And we all know how prices have escalated in 2 years!
Their plans, and costings changed on a monthly basis.
Yes we have to many lorries on the road, but lets use existing track, and firms already running the rail network!
Its encouraging that most people on thsi site are in favour of this bold and exciting scheme - you always get a few 'it can't be done' types, unfortunately. For them, the timid, safe and familiar are the only options.
That said, I am frustrated that this site is never updated. It does strainsones loyalty somewhat.
Andrew you dont get it do you with Central Railways.
It like going to a Disused Line, waiting for a train indeffinitely that never comes along! Because Goverment and Majority of the People dont want this firm!
No Andrew,this site never seems to be updated with any real
sign of progress.
Will the last man to leave C R please put out the lights!
David, that will be Mr Arrogance himself; Mr Rafferty!
The Person who offers finance to property owners after blighting their homes for years, whilst he goes home to a luxurious mansion and has no cares in the world!
Forgot to add in last post, and they have NO MONEY!
Not only is this scheme not wanted by the politicians (both Labour and the Conservatives have rejected the scheme) but the capital markets would be unlikely to back it. The scheme also is not feasible. The loading/unloading of lorries to meet the capacity aspirations to generate the revenues to make the scheme viable would make the depot a blur as everything would have to move so fast. The trains do not fit in the Channel Tunnnel, and the distruption to the passenger services during constuction and operation would simply not be allowed.
For their own sakes, I suggest the directors OF CR seek proper employment and forget this totally non starter of a project - maybe they already have as there is more life in a tramps vest than on this site.
Lets face some facts this site is not even being Monitored by Mr Rafferty! People on here have asked Questions, they have also; stated that its a Non Starter(Which It Is), and Nobody from the top have defended their So Called Scheme?
So maybe they have Shut Up Shop, and not before time.
I Sincerely hope that Residents whom have had their home blighted by these People, can now get on with their lives! Instead of the worry these people have subjected them too!
Lets look at todays Financial News.
Eurotunnel today issued New Shares today, after it agreed a New Deal with the Banks to cover their Debt. These New Shares slid 40%!
So after Eurotunnel, and its failure to make Profits. What Companies and Shareholders are going to put Money into Central Railways?
I suggest to you all None! Businesses and Shareholders want to see a Return on their Money. And Goverments in the 21st Century are not prepared to bail out Ailing Firms!
As a couple of people have asked why Central Railway have not been responding to points made on this board and whether this means we're no longer alive, let me say that we are very much alive but we have tried to leave this board as an open discussion rather than respond to every point.
We are very conscious that the website has not been updated recently. We have been developing a revised project which is of course a protracted process. Whilst it's not possible to give a running commentary we recognise that we should give people and especially our supporters updates when we have something we can say.
Overall, the environment for Central Railway is more favourable than it has ever been and we are very encouraged by the reactions we have received from all the parties we have talked to - politicians, Government departments, industry partners and the regional bodies that will benefit from the scheme.
Well! Ive read the link to the Rail News Story, and read Chris Savages Post. I must say, that neither stories has inspired me that this Project is ever going to get off the ground! My last post was not answered, which contained substance!
We have of course over the years had; and have come to accept revised packages of the project. There is no substance in this new one. So I see yet another turned down by Goverment, which could become a Taxpayers Nightmare if it ever was approved?
Excerpts from Alan's post, and my response, I've no involvement with the company, but can't resist my 10p's worth! :)
"So after Eurotunnel, and its failure to make Profits. What Companies and Shareholders are going to put Money into Central Railways?"
* Infrastructure investments which offer a guaranteed source of income are popular at the moment. Witness the takeover of BAA. If investors and banks think it viable, then they will invest.
"And Goverments in the 21st Century are not prepared to bail out Ailing Firms!"
* Um not quite true! Witness the French Government's bail-out of Alstom. And the ongoing situation with Alitalia. And at home, the bail-out of British Energy!
If the project is privately-funded, why worry?
Andrew G, you say privately funded, funded by who?
From my own experience, Central Railways have No Money of their own! And as time goes on this Tichfield Thunderbolt scheme escalates in Costs?
Andrew G, you say privately funded, funded by whom?
It's a project, not the sideline of an existing company. I assume CR aim to first get planning permission etc, then make the case to potential investors and bankers. If they get the money then they go ahead.
Andrew G, I know only full well that its a project, and a Project that hasnt been thought out very well. If it had they may have got somewhere; if they had been more curtious than aggressive with Landowners, homeowners, MPs and Councils they may have been in with the slimmest of chances.But then they got their Costings wrong, and other Vital Issues completely missed out. Then they went to Plan B. You cant keep changing course to satisfy Councils,MPs Investors/Firms/Bankers just to make a dream a reality!
Conservatives, and Labour have thrown this out twice already, and they will throw it out again. Who is going to sink Billions of Pounds into this Project? With Interest rates having risen 5 times so far, the answer is Nobody with any sense?
I've strived to answer your question on who would finance it, not the viability - that's down to the bankers and investors to judge. Regarding the interest rate rises, I don't see this as an issue as any money will be lent for the long-term and drawn from international sources.
For any doubters that this scheme would ever proceed read this letter to John Speller MP from the SRA:
http://www.dft.gov.uk/foi/responses/2005/may/centralrailways/letterfromthesraregardingthe2421
It says : cannot be financed, cost estimates are £16 bn not £5 billion; demand estimates hopelessly out even if competition does not re-act; no strategic fit;
Little doubt, from this letter
Yes Tim, thankyou for the link. I was aware of that. That £16 Billion, has with Inflation put it in 2007 to £19 Billion +, and beyond the reach of Investors!
Central Railways could have bid for EWS, which eventually was sold to Germany DB, If they were really interested in freight; and may have got Outside Investment. That may have got their foot on the ladder,, and may have increased their suitability!
But Im afraid its back to their Hornby Model Railway with a couple of 66s running, and they can play with that to there hearts content?
does the letter explain why the scheme is now being revised? Interestingly: the SRA are no more but Central live on!
An annonomous poster! Whilst the SRA may be dead, the DFT, MPs, and Councils opposed to the Scheme arent! Central Railway only live on, because they wont take "NO" for an answer!
Central Railways have proved that they have No Credibility whatsoever!
For those insistent on finding supporting documentation against this project a more "current" document than the link above might be the recently published DFT white paper & HLOS (both available on the dft website).
You will find that it mentions that a freight only line (along with a high-speed line) is not economically justifiable in the timeframe of the document (5yrs). Of course that does not rule it out completely as it points out as markets are capable of change.
I personally am for this project if it is financially sound. I await with interest the new draft proposal, new drafts of course being important in such a fast paced & changing rail market.
For those who see the benefits of this project, let us wait & hope for road pricing, a political decision that will certainly be in the financial favour for central railway.
Tim, alas Im afraid to say this project will not be financially sound! If the scheme cost £16/20Billion, the Interest on that Money would be colossal. Eurotunnel as ive mentioned before never came anywhere near that figure, just look at the state they are in ?
"does the letter explain why the scheme is now being revised? Interestingly: the SRA are no more but Central live on!"
Are you serious - live on! If the project was a horse it would be put down, if it was a human the life support system would have been turned off, as a business it is technically bankrupt with no support or hope. If this "lives on" what does death look like?
Setting aside the issues arising from 'environmental' objectors and those whose properties would be impacted by the proposal (note: NOT disregarding them), the biggest problem that Central faces is that the ethos in this Country is now firmly biased towards all such projects being funded from commercial sources. If HMG was willing 9(and able, given EU legislation) to make a substantial contribution and to offer finance at below market rates, this (and other similar projects) might begin to look viable and so feasible.
Unfortunately, the need to raise the necessary capital at market rates and the need to receive a reasonable payback within a limited timeframe makes the proposal - commendable as it is - look more doubtful than ever. One should remember that even the GCR ran out of money and investors towards the completion of its 'London Extension'.
Until this country realises that alternative more environmentally-friendly modes of transport that seemingly, we all now desire cannot be provided by the markets alone, we shall continue to see motorway widening, road construction and congested airports - and an ever increasing carbon footprint as a result.
With the completion of the CTRL into St Pancras International and its opening in November, the Central Railway proposal for reopening the former GCR line and connecting to the Channel Tunnel - good as it is - is now a non-starter as it's not needed.
Both the WCML and the Midland Mainline will have direct connections onto the new CTRL north and east of London so enabling through freight trains to run from/to the DIRFT/West Midlands/Northwest and the East Midlands/Yorkshire from/through to and beyond the Tunnel. The upgrade of the WCML will provide additional track capacity and the Midland Mainline is already double-tracked to Glendon Junction, some 75 miles from London, and north of Leicester; and in any case, since much of this freight traffic will travel at night, there's unlikely to be a major impact on current train running.
Thus Watkin's 19th Century revolutionary concept will finally be realised.
"...the Midland Mainline is already double-tracked".
I think you mean "quadruple-tracked"...
But a good point, nonetheless.
"...the Midland Mainline is already double-tracked".
I think you mean "quadruple-tracked"...
But a good point, nonetheless.
"...the Midland Mainline is already double-tracked".
I think you mean "quadruple-tracked"...
But a good point, nonetheless.
The problem with the Midland Mainline is that the sections close to london are currently operating close to capacity. With growth forecasts showing development of dangerous overcrowding on trains it is likely that there will be an increase in passenger services to account for this with a coresponding drop in freight train slots(1). A similar (though less severe) picture is to be expected of the WCML.
While incorperating the cross london CTRL route into a feight movement stratagy may seem an attractive & possibly a cheaper option in relation to infrastructure, it does not take into account load factors & the number of train paths operating on the line.
A line that gives priority to freight trains negates these problems & has the ability to act as a 24hr railway. It is no surprise that rail does not account for a large percentage of the freight market when the times goods can be transported is restricted to a few day time slots & nights.
(1)http://www.dft.gov.uk/about/strategy/whitepapers/whitepapercm7176/whitepapersustainablerailway1 (Page 61)
Thats very good points "A Lifelong Railway". I quite agree with you, that Central Railways is not now required, and never has been. The freight can travel during the Night, and the food can reach the Supermarkets that day. Without causing unneccesary upheavals in building a new Railway at an expenditure beyond our purse strings. And no further damage to our environment!
We can then guage whether those few trains that run are making a Profit, or a loss!
Furthermore I see no reason whatsoever why EWS/DRS cant be awarded the Contract, in running these trains! And it would be a lot cheaper in setting up, and run by Proffessional Railwaymen with experience!
The major difficulty with using the CTRL - indeed any of the existing network - is the gauge factor. The economic case for Central railway is built entirely on the idea of lorries on trains, which is a far more efficient way of transporting lorry loads of material, and would cut hauliers costs appreciably.
Also, you can only run a certain proportion of freight at night - not all freight runs at night even now, or can do, and the advent of high-speed passenger services makes the interleaving of freight and passenger traffic more and more problematic.
Regarding the running of trains by EWS or whatever, central railways have always suggested that as part of their business model.
As long sufficent track capacity was built, the section of the line that runs along the M25 would be exceptionally useful in relieving congestion by running passnger services to and from Heathrow park and ride stations.
On Central Railways first plan, it stated part of the Railway would run on existing track. I f thats so, how come we now have a Guage problem Andrew?
I think you find Alan they say existing alignments, not tracks i.e. the track would be upgraded to allow for the larger guage required to make the plan effective. Thats also why using the midland mainline isnt a viable option & why a large proportion of the plan involves reopening disused railways & construction of the new sections (particualry the outer london orbit section which as Andrew mentioned could be used for a Park & Ride Scheme to compliment the proposed Airtrack idea).
You See Tim. Not only are there problems on the former GCR, and the M4 Orbital, but their are problems East Croydon - Godstone. And especially problems from Leigh - Tonbridge; which would affect South Eastern Trains for Months on end! Then you would have problems Paddock Wood Area, and you are still a long way off from Ashford. Thence onwards to the Folkestone! I personally think Ashford/Folkestone is already an eyesore! Its ALL Railway!
As you quite rightly say Tim, it could not run on existing track. Bridges would be the main problem. The A4s are prohibited because of the Bridges, as the track had been raised!
And then we have problems with Gas Pipes. Main Water Pipes/Sewerage, and BT Cables around those areas stipulated. Central Railway have failed to submit correct estimates for those costs, and the upheaval.
So I say again, and again, its a Non-Starter!
Their package for homeowners, is one that is undesirable. All for making the scheme happen on the Cheap! IMHO!
This Alan fellow ought to get his head out of his rectum & look at the whole picture. I do a lot of driving & When you go along the motorways towards the coastal ports the roads are so congested it is beyond a joke. This Alan fellow ought to stand on the M1 & count how many HGV thunder up & there & just imagine what it would be like if half of them were going by rail. When I bought my house which is 100 yards from the Central Rail track the thought crossed my mind "What if they re open the track, Would it bother me" This was way before Central trains first floated the idea. The answer by the way was no it won't bother me so I bought the house. I supose they can always turn the old track bed into a road espeacilly for trucks. I wonder wether Alan would be complaining about that.
Well said Chris! Traffic congestion will only keep on getting worse unless something strategic is done like this. I for one prefer to spend my time elsewhere than crawling along the M25.
I would be interested to know Alan if you disagree with the strategy of a scheme like this or just the detail and perhaps Central Railway the company itself?
Quote.I would be interested to know Alan if you disagree with the strategy of a scheme like this or just the detail and perhaps Central Railway the company itself?
AndrewG
Firstly AndrewG, Yes something needs to be done with the amount of lorries on our Roads, and Motorways. Especially the M25. I would agree with the principle of a scheme, but on existing network. After all a lot of freight was carried in the 60s, with little or no affect to passenger services.
Of course the Goods portion could be carried, and picked up by the Vehicle itself at the terminus! Yes Andrew, Im similar to the Councils and Majority of MPs, it is the Company!
Quote
This Alan fellow ought to get his head out of his rectum & look at the whole picture. I do a lot of driving & When you go along the motorways towards the coastal ports the roads are so congested it is beyond a joke. This Alan fellow ought to stand on the M1 & count how many HGV thunder up & there & just imagine what it would be like if half of them were going by rail. When I bought my house which is 100 yards from the Central Rail track the thought crossed my mind "What if they re open the track, Would it bother me" This was way before Central trains first floated the idea. The answer by the way was no it won't bother me so I bought the house. I supose they can always turn the old track bed into a road espeacilly for trucks. I wonder wether Alan would be complaining about that.
End of Quote
I only reply to polite posters, not " Rectums"
well said Alan, CR needs a lot to be desired
I have just found this site, and myself living near the railway in tonbridge. I had years of my property being blighted, and found Central Railways to be arrogant
I agree with Alan, their scheme was ill thought out, and to put it in Alans terms definitely a Non-Starter!
RECOMMENDATION REQUIRED
Report of the Strategic Director (Community)
1. PURPOSE OF REPORT
1.1 To update Members on recent developments regarding Central Railways and to agree the Council’s response.
1.2 This report relates to the corporate policy of ‘making Spelthorne a better place’.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1 Central Railways is a private sector project to build a freight railway from the north of England to France via the Channel Tunnel. It was launched in 1999 and in South East England it runs along the inner edge of the M25. The route is shown on Appendix A.
2.2 In Spelthorne, the route alongside the M25 in part follows the same corridor as Airtrack. However, the schemes are unrelated and Central Railways special track requirements would almost certainly mean that the tracks would have to run side by side if both were built.
2.3 The promoters have been attempting to persuade the Government to back a Hybrid Bill that would give Parliamentary approval to the project. In March this year, the Government announced that it would not support the proposal, principally because Central Railways had not demonstrated to the Government’s satisfaction that it would gain the necessary financial backing to build and run the line. The Government announcement also identified concerns over the impact on the existing rail network and mitigation of environmental impacts, amongst other considerations.
2.4 Without Government support, a Hybrid Bill stands little chance of success and it had initially been thought that the announcement would mean the end of the project.
2.5 However, the promoters have been trying to persuade Ministers to reconsider and are attempting to establish an all-party group of MP’s to support the scheme. Three MPs, including John Gummer, were signatories to a recent letter to The Times backing the project.
2.6 In July 2001, the Executive considered a report which highlighted the harmful impact of the project on Spelthorne. We resolved to join the Local Authority Central Railways Consortium, a group of 20 local authorities that have come together to highlight concerns about the project and alternatives, including the option of a route to the east of London. The consortium has been successful in getting its message across and keeping members informed about developments with the scheme. The 2001 decision did not include a resolution on the merits of the scheme, although by joining the Consortium, we have clearly aligned ourselves with those opposed to the project. It is recommended that we now confirm our opposition.
3. PROPOSALS
3.1 The consortium is suggesting member authorities write to Ministers and their MPs to restate their opposition to a Hybrid Bill and oppose the logic of an all-party parliamentary group for a project that the Government has said it does not support.
4. OPTIONS
4.1 We could follow the consortium recommendation or, alternatively, take no action.
End of Quote from Sppelthome gov.uk
This Alan fellow ought to get his head out of his rectum & look at the whole picture. I do a lot of driving & When you go along the motorways towards the coastal ports the roads are so congested it is beyond a joke. This Alan fellow ought to stand on the M1 & count how many HGV thunder up & there & just imagine what it would be like if half of them were going by rail. When I bought my house which is 100 yards from the Central Rail track the thought crossed my mind "What if they re open the track, Would it bother me" This was way before Central trains first floated the idea. The answer by the way was no it won't bother me so I bought the house. I supose they can always turn the old track bed into a road espeacilly for trucks. I wonder wether Alan would be complaining about that.
Quote
Well Chris, this forum is livening up a bit now. Management of CR receiving a bit of a setback with latest posters!
It would be a bit different if your home was blighted for a few years, and as FredW Has stated with his Quote; you have Zero hope in getting it off the ground?
What a bunch of NIMBYs some of you are...
Let's stop killing our people on the roads with over
sized, dangerous, HGVs that cause the majority of road accidents (contrary to what the DfT spin in their road safety statistics!). I would rather live with a bit of noise rather than the constant death-toll the HGVs produce. Yes, I live 300m from the old GCR track so I consider it my back yard, before anyone asks.
PS
NIMBY - Not In My Back Yard
Quote
So Compulsory Purchase, doesnt affect you!
So you have a nice home, with no worries! Other People did have worries in the past, threat of losing their home by a bunch of "Cranks" wanting to play trains. And really nil interest in lorries
as i myself am an LGV 1 driver..(HGV dosent exist any more..... gaz..lol...)...i take much offence to gazs remarks about LGVs being to blame for much of the accidents on our roads..... LGV drivers do an average of 100,000 miles per year as the average motorist does 12 to 20,000 per year.....and as far as i am aware that it is the car driver with his eagerness to get around a truck by any way they can which causes these accidents.....and in most cases do not hang around to see the after effects which this sometimes creates....just remember...it is you the average car driver who wanted lorries to be slowed down to 56mph.....just remember that the next time you get stuck behind one.....now live with it.....
as far as my opinion on this scheme to revive the the great central railway into this central route....its a deffinate yes.....anything is good to help get some frieght of our over crowded roads.....maybe then these inpatient motorists may not be in such a hurry to cause lgvs to have accidents to which we get the blame for.....
Marcus
40mph on single carriageways and 56mph on motorways is excessively constricting the traffic flow on our roads. If I had my way I would ban all LGVs/HGVs (trucks seems a bit easier!) on our already overcongested highways.
I drive 35,000miles per year and would love to use a train if there was a station near Brackley that went to Lincoln. I see some idiotic, selfish, driving from truck drivers (Knights of the road? Don't make me laugh!). I see them swerving into other lanes through eating/drinking or lack of sleep and using mobile telephones (non-handsfree) - even at 40mph the consequencies are lethal, no survivors in the car that they have just flattened. I saw the results of one truck that smashed into the back of another on the A17; unfortunately, there was car in between that was carrying a whole family excpet for a 14year old. He now has no family left - if it had been car on car accident then there probably would have been survivors. (see link http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lincolnshire/4623218.stm).
I'm not trying to be offensive to you, Marcus, but I whole-heartedly support a scheme that gets 10,000 death-machines off of the road. Maybe I should have qualified my statement that trucks cause too many fatal accidents - the cars just don't stand a chance!
Thanks for the tip on LGVs ;-)
Further link on the subject "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4598272.stm" states
"All three victims, who lived at York Road, Cranwell, were declared dead at the scene. The two lorry drivers were not injured."
I rest my case...
Further link on the subject "http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/4598272.stm" states
"All three victims, who lived at York Road, Cranwell, were declared dead at the scene. The two lorry drivers were not injured."
I rest my case...
Well in reply, and at the TUC conference, it has come out that HGV Drivers are working 60 hours per week. That is excessive, and accidents will happen. So something must be done to reduce the amount of driving by hgv drivers
This looks like a good idea. Having lived in London with a major railway (8 tracks) on one side and a busy road on the other, I can say the trains (including the freight) are far quieter than the lorries, and cleaner too! I had to clean the road-facing window much more often.
Alan -- if the proposal is dead, why are you spending months of your life posting on this board?
Matt, probably the same as all of us; he doesnt want to see the scheme succeed with this company.
Its a Forum isnt it, where everybody speaks their mind?
There is now a chance that a Liberal Government might
consider this rail option, as they are begining to face
the real problems of transport in the UK.
The Liberals have no hope in hell of ever forming a goverment.
David, Where did you find the info on the Liberals interest in the scheme?
Tim.
For a start read Liberal Party Comment by
Susan Kramer on egov monitor.
With a bit of imagination Central Railway could be linked in with several other projects that would be hugely beneficial for transport infrastructure. Central Railway does envisage using existing lines of routes over parts of the old southen section of the old GCR and also the Midland Main Line from south of Leicester to Chesterfield. Both these sections would have height restrictions increased to take double decker trains. Therefore in the future the MMR would be already halfway there to being completely regauged for a double-decker train service, doubling capacity. A similar deal could be envisaged for services out of London Marylebone.
The M25 orbital channel tunnel section could conceivably - if enough capacity was added - link Heathrow, Clapham Junction, Gatwick and Ashford international, as well as providing Park and Ride for Heathrow. A much bigger project, yes, but this could offset some of the financing costs if other operators were interested in joint projects.
Regrettably you have no chance of getting this through under a Nu Lab govt however. The only thing this bunch of shysters ever think of is 'will it cost or gain us votes at the next election'. AS a massive construction project of this kind will inevitably lead to disruption over the timescale of a Parliament there isnt a hope in hell of it being given the go ahead until they are replaced with a more reputable government which thinks about the good of the country first.
Not only would Central Railway alleviate congestion on roads and provide some reduction of pollution levels, it would also (crucially for the likes of me !) serve to connect otherwise isolated towns and villages to major towns and cities... And in a far more efficient way than the existing unreliable and over-priced bus services. I fully support this idea – especially if it means re-linking towns like Brackley and Buckingham up to the rest of the world !
Thom, Central Railways WILL NOT SERVE isolated towns. Its objective is to transport lorries.
As far as I can tell the plan is for the route to be used for transporting freight. I can't see though that this precludes passenger services, if the demand exists. I'm sure TOC's would be interested so long as there was a viable business case. There would of course need to be substantial capital expenditure, stations passing loops (perhaps) and signalling enhancements.
I think TOC's receiving a state subsidy for these services could be a problem, not because the railway was a private entity but rather the reluctance to extend public expenditure in this area. I'm sure there would also be a degree of internal politics around such things as who controls what and who feels there "empire" threatened. Seems petty but we live in the real world!
Just for the record I'm very much in favour of this scheme.
Nigel
How come Central Railway's proposals were turned down because the Government seemed risk adverse and didn't want to spend any money from the public purse on such rail infrastructure and yet now Gorden Brown has announced some (unknown) amount of cash to support Crossrail? Surely if Crossrail went wibbly, the Government would be in the same position as if CR hit rough times (worse even as they contributed up front)?
Something doesn't seem quite right to me...
Regarding Crossrail, it hasnt exactly been a lightning decision here either - first mooted during the early 1990s from what I recall.
Secondly, there are some powerful lobbies behind Crossrail - The City for one, and also the political need to make sure the Olympic Games is a success. Most of the work is underground and in a confined area, so presumably construction wont annoy too many people.
Central Railways sadly is different - the railway will go though a large number of constituencies, mean compulsory purchase orders and construction blight. It wont be finished for some time and if it went wrong government would have to foot the bill or be blamed. Even if it is a success, although the impact will be benign in terms of taking freight off the roads people wont notice it in the same way they will better transport through central London every day.
In short there is little political gain behind backing Central Railway, so this cynical government for which everything is about staying in power wont back it.
for the record I am all for the scheme, I just see its chance under this rubbish government of technocratic cowards to be zero.
Quote
for the record I am all for the scheme, I just see its chance under this rubbish government of technocratic cowards to be zero.
It will be the same, if there was a Conservative Administration
Perhaps this change in prices will increase the transfer of bulk freight from roads to rail. Certainly will show whether increased price competitiveness with other modalities would make the scheme more viable:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7057775.stm
I beleive it would be a great asset for the UK if this line was reopened. Surely now (with the media hype of the new chunnel line) is a good opportunity to raise this issue again with the greater public, media and government. I personaly feel very embarrased that the French (despite all thier strikes) have a supperior rail system to our own. With a distinct plan on continual improvemnt and investment. And it works for them I dont know the statistics but the general populas of France "embrace" the advantages of a modern rail service. On the flip side of this we spend our time complaining that ours is rubbish, but due to lack of backbone and vision with our governments and the "NIMBY" groups nothing gets done. So whilst hte rest of Europe sets new records for construction and speed of railway lines we continue to go backwards on an over used and antiquated railway network.
My own home is at risk devaluation as I live in Lutterworth (Between Leicester and Rugby)but at least my childrens future should be more secure, as the railway will cerinatly create jobs and money into local and regional areas.
It was announced today that planning permission guidelines for the building of new railways and roads will be relaxed. About time. Hopefully this will give more impetus to the scheme.
yes we need to get the freight off the roads ASAP. but this plan doesn't cover felixstowe which is the largest container port in britain, or southampton another large port.
You are quite right jody. This scheme is absolutely ridiculous. It only caters for transporting lorries from the Midlands, and nothing for the South, and South - East. But it will take up alot of New Land for a new railway in the South East, if this scheme is ever given the go ahead. Which im positive it wont
Looking at the comments above, I cannot see how this line cannot help to reduce the number of lorries coming from all ports.
At present it seems clear that only a handfull of existing tracks can carry the larger containers, hence the need for shipping through ports and so many lorries making the deliveries.
If the scheme is given the go ahead, it would at least give the transport companies an alternative, and with the price of diesel and the need to reduce the greenhouse effect, the train has got to be favourite.
And before any one ask's, no, the new line would not run anywhere near my home, but as a fire fighter based just 1/2 mile from the A14, I do know how many lorries there are travelling on our roads, and what damage they can cause.
Any thing that will help to take some of these off the road can only be good.
It is now almost 400 days since Central Rail made a contribution on this site and Two Years since the NEWS was updated.
This says more about the project than any comments made by its supporters or otherwise.
Yes, I agree that 400 days is dissapointing - has anyone any up to date news on the project?
I think the railline should be built. on the great central line. all the hard work i.e the cuttings have been done. everytime i go through catesby to southam i think of all those men who gave there lives to build this line in the late 1800/s the tunnel there is auwsum. and it is mind boggling how they built the line with no machinary. we owe it to those men to bring it back to life.It was dissgusting that goverment dissmanteld bit by bit this fantastic engineering feat without so much a thought of its history.typical and they are suposed to be the ones with the brains. So come on lets do something great once again in this country.and somehow get the greatcentral in use one more . it should be in use now with a bit more hindsight instead of thinking cars were the way forward and lets rip everything up that was built with sweat toil and many deaths . come on you money men do the decent thing reopen the central.
the above post
Happy New Year To All Our Readers
I am fully in support of opening new rail routes, or, returning closed lines back to use, however, I think Central Railways proposals will be cut short in February 2008 when National Grid may get the go-ahead to put cables through the new bore.
Info can be found here:
http://savethewoodheadtunnel.blogspot.com
No chance
The road transport lobby is two strong and allways will be
to many people in high places with there fingers in the pie.
Dont forget a Transport Ministers brother built part of the
M1 motorway back in the 60's. along by the old great central
railway causing the death nail to the railways.
Goverment going green no way, railway investment is a dead
duck unless heads roll at the DVLA.
JR
Given the lack of input by Central, coupled with recent announcements by the likes of National Grid and their intention to stick power lines in the tunnel (How did they acquire it in the first place? Was this another 'gift' by the Tory administration?) and the fact that the present government has stated that 'there are no plans' for this (Woodhead) route, one must sadly, come to the conclusion that this plan is dead.
This is a great pity and shows, amongst other things, that the government is totally uncommitted to taking any serious action over so called 'Global Warming'. The best they can offer by way of a 'Transport Policy' in relation to the railways, is a very waffy 15 year plan.
The recent news that people are using cars more than ever is proof that action needs takin NOW, not in 15 years, or even 5 years time.
The franchise for running trains across the pennines (Sheffield - Manchester, excepting the Trans-Pennine Express has shown not much change in the comfort of train accommodation which shows there is little to force people out of their cars. Anybody travelling by road could be forgiven for thinking (given the volume of freight lorries on the road be it via Woodhead Pass, Snake or M1/M62) they are part of a freight train.
So come on Central, prove me wrong in thinking that this plan is a lost cause. If any member of the govrnment chances across this message - Take heed you have lost credibility.
Is Central Railway still actively promoting this scheme? Your website has not been updated for a long time, suggesting that you've stopped. Serious chunks of the intended route are under threat (Woodhead tunnel, section adjacent to M1 in the Midlands). At some point in the future, a heavy freight north-south railway is likely to become essential, the alternative being more motorway construction. If proposals for possible rail re-use of these alignments are not promoted now, they will likely be lost, making the motorway option the only possible course.
We are indeed still promoting the project, though it has been mostly internal work recently to revise the scheme etc rather than external promotion.
As regards the threatened use of the Woodhead tunnel for power cables this would be regrettable but, as ministers have said, not irreversible.
We hope to be in a position to update the website before too long.
Chris Savage
Central Railway
I look forward to your update. When can we expect to hear of this plan in the news again? Is it still your intention to run just a freight network or will you also be targeting passenger traffic. Surely the trouble recently has shown how weak the UK's Rail infrastructure is, this should surely only strengthen your bid to reopen the line. Maybe you should buy Bruntingthorpe airfield aswell as that can take the biggest planes in the sky, then run a spur line from near Lutterworth. That will get freight around not only europe but the world. And since we seem to entering a recession then billions of pounds of private money to the UK infrastucture would surely be welcomed by the goverment.
People need to be reminded that without change and progress we may as well all pack our bags and move to India, as they are not scared to change, hence they keep buying our industries (British Steel, Jaguar ring any bells?)
hello, would chris savage tell us if the route of the railway is as last shown on the website.
I believe there has been a recent survey done to present to the banking sector for funding to check on actually what obstacles are on the southern section of the old gcr between rugby and down to where the line is still in use
do you know anything about this chris
also in the local leicester mercury its been reported that as the existing lines are approaching saturation by 2015, that nothing will take place till then.
i think the first step is to get the line up to rugby and link to the wcml
We are willing to look afresh at all aspects of the project, including for example possible extensions to Scotland and elsewhere.
Having said that there are no changes to the route we are currently working on from Liverpool as far south as Gerrards Cross so that is our starting point. There are of course route options to be considered including around Rugby and to the south of Leicester.
To the south of Gerrards Cross we are examining a route around London to the north and east which has been identified by the EuroRail Freight Route team.
I am not sure which survey John is referring to; our own engineering advisers certainly looked at this before 2004 and the SRA agreed at that time that there were no fundamental obstacles on this section of route, and also that we would help ease capacity problems at Leicester station.
I assume the Mercury is talking about the DfT and Network Rail's plans in the HLOS up to 2015. Central Railway's investment would of course be on top of that.
Hope this helps; our current efforts are focused on bringing together a consortium to take forward this work on the route etc.
hello chris
thank you for your comment from my last post
what i was trying to get from you chris is the reports im reading seems to indicate that from the rugby central area there seems to be 2 routes to the north being discussed , theres the proposed routes of the central railway which will eventually arrive into leicester MIDLAND
and there is another report being spoke about which seems to be gathering momentum regarding the re-opening the whole of the gcr route as another fast route north rather than build a new high speed rail link (possibly HS3) to the north of england which will come back through leicester CENTRAL
i know it will be a bit of a headache to rebuild through leicester central, with lots of bridges and structures demolished, but with todays modern engineering techniques its not impossible
when you think back to 1899 when these navies built this rail link struggling with poor engineering methods then today its not impossible.
so if the reports are true then it could be that central might have a bit of a battle on as to who will own the rail structure say up to rugby CENTRAL on the old gcr
any comments chris
john
**AT LAST!!! - SOME POSITIVE NEWS**
Rail plan gets back on track
Jan 18 2008
By Richard Howarth
IT was one of Brackley's biggest battles of the 1990s - and now the prospect of the Great Central railway line being reopened is back on the agenda.
Efforts by private company Central Railway to reopen the route cast a shadow over the town for years with its ambitious plans to use it for moving freight from the Continent to the Midlands and beyond.
That eventually failed through lack of support in parliament but now it's in parliament the debate has been reignited.
And it came about as a response to the problems of getting passengers rather than freight to the Midlands, specifically after engineering works at Rugby overran after Christmas and paralysed the West Coast Main Line.
The Great Central always provided an alternative to that route - after Brackley the line headed north through Woodford Halse and then through Rugby town centre - but that option was lost when the line was closed in the 1960s.
But the memory lingers and, more importantly, some rail experts believe reopening an old line would be better than building a new one.
The debate kicked off again after Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly confirmed in a statement to the Commons she was considering options for London to Birmingham travel.
She said: "I retain an open mind whether or not we need, for example, to reopen a disused rail line between London and Birmingham, whether we should have a high speed rail link which links London to Birmingham, or even beyond to Manchester or so forth, or indeed whether other modes of transport should be encouraged such as roads."
So while she did not mention the Great Central specifically - and any scheme would be the kind of long-term venture governments regularly have changes of heart about - papers in Warwickshire and Birmingham have been alive with speculation that a Great Central reopening would be the obvious way to do it.
Brackley town councillor Peter Joyce was a member of campaigning group NACRAG, the National Central Railway Action Group, which united authorities along the route to fight the freight plan.
But he believed this latest prospect had some crucial differences: "If it's going to be a passenger service I don't have a problem with it. When it was going to be just for freight there was no advantage for the town.
"It was going to be freight trains half a mile long. They were big trains and noisy."
But he also sounded a cautionary note: "I think people will be surprised by it. It depends really where the line goes.
"The line here goes so close to some houses and I can see those people objecting.
"And how are they going to get over the A43?
"It really can't follow the original line and could have an effect on Turweston as the route round Brackley would be fairly tight for modern trains. And they couldn't use the old top station as there is an industrial estate there."
can you supply us with wher your information was obtained
its good news for the supporteres of the old gcr as i am who believed the line should not have been closed and lifted south of rugby
regards
john
The news article in question can be found at:
http://icnorthants.icnetwork.co.uk/brackley/news/tm_headline=rail-plan-gets-back-on-track&method=full&objectid=20365928&siteid=77910-name_page.html
Sadly its just the single story with no background information or the journalists research but im sure Chris Savage will shed some light on it when he next makes a post.
Tim and others
I'm not sure I can add a lot to the press reports. Ruth Kelly's comments are welcome although she was simply repeating what ministers have said before to us and others: that they are open to proposals for new lines especially when the investment will come from the private sector. The Hansard extract is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080108/debtext/80108-0006.htm#08010880000651
Dear Chris,
Thanks for your reply to my query as to whether your plans were still active.
Are you as an organisation taking part in the current debate over National Grid's plans for the 1954 Woodhead tunnels? The Minister did indeed say that installation of NG's cables would not entirely preclude the later reinstatement of the tunnels for rail use, but this sounded more like an attempt to appease her colleagues than a serious statement of intent. I suspect that any rail project would have to pick up the tab for relocation of these cables - are you factoring this cost in to your calculations?
I believe that it would be better if the cables were not installed in the first place, and that the only way this is going to happen is if the Government can be persuaded to put pressure on NG to find an alternative route for its cables. In order to get the Government to do this, someone is going to have to come up with a realistic proposal for a rail use for the Woodhead route, and do so very soon. Once those cables go in, it's going to be very expensive to get them out again.
All the best
Mike Lipscomb
many years ago channel shown a hour long documentary on tv just how the central railway project was going to re-install tracks
i had a copy of this programme however ive just found out its been recorded over
could anyone on this forum tell me how to get a copy or viewing of this programme that was made for tv
regards
john
sorry forgot to say channel 4 on the above posting
I believe that channle 4 currently has available ALL programmes from the last 25 years available for archive. Dont know how it works as I have never used but I presume it similar to the BBCi system.
Let me know if you find it, and where it is.
Regards
Austin
Central Railway should start small with short sections of and as potential investors see tangible results, they will be willing to invest in the full sized project.
What's wrong with Central Railway teaming up with Translink UK and a passenger train operator to reopen eg. the Woodhead Tunnel with freight and passenger traffic between Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire? Translink could provide the driving force for the Woodhead on a regional freight basis and Central Railway could provide the national strategic vision, the train operator will be of benefit to constituents and their MPs. With the success of the Woodhead reopening and the benefit seen to the freight industry, traffic levels on the roads, and to the rail travelling public, this can only improve the the outlook for Central Railway for investment.
Both companies can benefit from working together, to generate momentum.
I'm dont believe that small projects would be the best way forward for this company, I believe company's would see it as a negative and that this company does not really have the funds required to carry out the scheme that they have proposed. And in the scheme of things I struggle to understand the repeated concerns over the Woodhead Tunnel, if cable were to be routed through as suggested it will be inconvienent for this company (due to extra costs) but if the fact of cables in one tunnel was to stop this multi Billion pound proposal then you must question the credability of the project. I think the continued increase (a further 67%) of raw materials like metal is of a far bigger to concern to the team heading this project.
Regards
Austin
It's all too easy to dismiss the impact of Statutory Undertakers plant on the capital costs of a project. You can ask a question to the project manager of any transport project regarding the proportion of costs attributed towards stats diversions. This proportion has been steadily increasing in recent years. Before 10/15 years ago, one could comfortably assume stats diversions can cost less than 10% of the total project cost. Depending on the project concerned, nowadays the cost can be more like 40+%. Note the increase in labour costs as well as materials! The relative costs of stats diversions is so major nowadays that route planners look to avoid them where possible. In the case of Woodhead, the route planner/designer has no option but to use the tunnel and incur huge diversion costs. Not to mention of all the stats to be encountered on route to the channel tunnel! Stats are big money now, and ramp up the costs of the scheme. The board at CR will have to try even harder to raise the extra capital. For stats to be laid in the new (main) Woodhead Tunnel it's like an own goal before the match has started.
Solution - fight tooth and nail to ensure that no stats are laid in the new (main) Woodhead tunnel.
The reopening of the Woodhead to freight and passengers is quite a major undertaking and if CR were to concentrate on getting lorries on trains between GMcr and SYks it would be a massive achievement, winning kudos from hauliers, travelling public and local MPs, making investment more easier to obtain and for getting an easier ride through Parliament for the remaining sections.
Regrettably Chaz, I think this whole project is non starter anyway. With the present climate