Jump to content

HS2 Rail link petition


Emerald

Featured Posts

If we had the same loading gauge as, say, the SNCF, permitting double-decker coaches, overcrowding would not be such a problem.

Had the railways followed the lead of Mr. I.K. Brunel and built their routes to the broad gauge, overcrowding would not be such a problem.

Hindsight is a precious gift.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we had the same loading gauge as, say, the SNCF, permitting double-decker coaches, overcrowding would not be such a problem.

Had the railways followed the lead of Mr. I.K. Brunel and built their routes to the broad gauge, overcrowding would not be such a problem.

Hindsight is a precious gift.

 

Might be a bit of a problem with the bridges and tunnels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I make fairly frequent trips to Manchester from London and the fare is £70 per person on the days I need to travel - petrol sets me back about £50 (less if I take my time) - usual savings £90 when two of us travel, and funnily enough its usually a shorter day when I drive because I don't have to waste time getting into Euston and back.

With tyres on my car costing £120+ each and lasting, if I'm lucky 15,000 miles and servicing at getting on for £400 a pop for a major, the true cost of running my (mid-range) car doesn't make it a 'no-brainer' over taking the train.

 

If we had the same loading gauge as, say, the SNCF, permitting double-decker coaches, overcrowding would not be such a problem.

The Great Central Railway was built to the Bruge loading gauge in anticipation of a cross-channel link, but of course that's the one that got canned post Beeching...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's bridges and tunnels (and platforms) which determine the loading gauge in the first place, is it not?

 

You have that back to front. It's the loading gauge that determined how the bridges, tunnels and platforms were built in the first place

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have that back to front. It's the loading gauge that determined how the bridges, tunnels and platforms were built in the first place

 

Richard

Chicken, egg.

Egg, chicken.

I won't argue but I'll agree to differ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edited to say that if there were a proposal to build a motorway, or even a main road nearby, that would be a very different thing. I would certainly feel forced to move.

 

Mrs T writes:

My house is in Burton Green Warwickshire and backs onto the disused line which is to be reopened. The first proposal was to demolish all the properties on my side of the road. This has now been (allegedly) modified to say at first they will chop off up to 12 feet of my garden (leaving me with 6 feet to the foundations!), build the line, cover it with some form of roof/concrete shield, then give me back my 12 feet of garden.

 

Firstly, pigs fly as to the proposed cover, secondly my house is worthless, so no chance of moving.

 

I am not a nimby or luddite, having commuted by train for 20 odd years to Birmingham. All I want is the pre 2008 market value of my property and a small sum to have to relocate my Mother (who currently occupies the property). If it covers my solicitors costs then I would be happy. Needless to say the vultures are offering as little as 60% of the market value; I know this as one resident has panicked and sold out. So at present I am firmly in the No camp until someone ups the compensation.

 

Mrs T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope this doesn't break any rules but as i understand this rail link is likely to affect our waterways I have supported this petition

https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/353

 

Anyone else ave any views on it?

 

I have just signed the e-petition. Why spend loads of money on something like this at the expense of local infra-structure? Jane

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs T writes:

My house is in Burton Green Warwickshire and backs onto the disused line which is to be reopened. The first proposal was to demolish all the properties on my side of the road. This has now been (allegedly) modified to say at first they will chop off up to 12 feet of my garden (leaving me with 6 feet to the foundations!), build the line, cover it with some form of roof/concrete shield, then give me back my 12 feet of garden.

 

Firstly, pigs fly as to the proposed cover, secondly my house is worthless, so no chance of moving.

 

I am not a nimby or luddite, having commuted by train for 20 odd years to Birmingham. All I want is the pre 2008 market value of my property and a small sum to have to relocate my Mother (who currently occupies the property). If it covers my solicitors costs then I would be happy. Needless to say the vultures are offering as little as 60% of the market value; I know this as one resident has panicked and sold out. So at present I am firmly in the No camp until someone ups the compensation.

 

Mrs T

 

You need to communicate that to your MP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With tyres on my car costing £120+ each and lasting, if I'm lucky 15,000 miles and servicing at getting on for £400 a pop for a major, the true cost of running my (mid-range) car doesn't make it a 'no-brainer' over taking the train.

 

That's 3.2p per mile for the tyres which would add £10.88 to the return trip - which just about covers the fare to Euston which I had forgotten to add to the cost. My servicing is way cheaper than £400 - I think the last one was about £100.

 

Car still works for me - but I realise that its not everyone's choice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Change happens, deal with it...

It may fly over a couple of canals, but the way I see it, there's plenty of other beuty spots to enjoy, it's a shame, but that's just the way it is.

Adam

 

New canal bridge plan for narrowboats Wednesday 11th January 2012, Express and Star

 

Plans for a railway bridge over a Staffordshire canal have been revised to make more room for narrowboats to pass underneath. The bridge is part of the controversial high speed rail line that will cut through the countryside. Changes were made to the route of the £32 billion line, including more tunnels in the Chilterns, prior to approval being given yesterday by the Government.

 

The route is due to see the 225mph trains crossing the Trent and Mersey Canal twice in close proximity near to Woodend Lock above Fradley Junction. But the plans were revised to make more space for boats. Staffordshire County Council and Lichfield District Council had both objected to the high speed rail line amid concerns from residents about the effect on the countryside.

 

North of Lichfield the high-speed line will require a 1,607ft retaining wall to be built close to Vicar’s Coppice followed by a 672ft viaduct near Fulbrook Farm along with a 311ft retaining wall. The proposed route passes close to the villages of Whittington, Streethay and Hints, where residents and businesses say their lives will be devastated.

 

Michael Fabricant, Conservative MP for Lichfield, said the changes to the bridge were welcome but added: “As a keen narrowboater I am obviously pleased to know there will still be traffic able to use the canal and there has been a clear commitment given to mitigate the impact on surrounding neighbourhoods. But a number of my constituents will be disappointed by this decision, to go ahead with the high speed rail line.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need to communicate that to your MP.

Mrs T writes:

Been there, done it, seen it, slept with it etc etc. for the past two years.

I have contacted MP's, councillors, anyone who has publicly supported the proposal anywhere along the proposed route and haven't even had the courtesy of 1 reply !

 

Mrs T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mrs T writes:

Been there, done it, seen it, slept with it etc etc. for the past two years.

I have contacted MP's, councillors, anyone who has publicly supported the proposal anywhere along the proposed route and haven't even had the courtesy of 1 reply !

 

Mrs T

 

have you tried someone who has publicly opposed it and requested a referral to the Parliamentary Ombudsman? DfT may be prone to complaints of injustice regarding this.

 

I don't know whether it needs be your constituency MP who makes the referral...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've got to go to Andover next week.

 

50 quids worth of petrol in the car or £12 for a train ticket....

 

I know how relevant that is to this common person.

 

You're lucky. My nearest station is York and the ECML is ridiculously expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New canal bridge plan for narrowboats Wednesday 11th January 2012, Express and Star

 

The route is due to see the 225mph trains crossing the Trent and Mersey Canal twice in close proximity near to Woodend Lock above Fradley Junction. But the plans were revised to make more space for boats.

 

Just what that idyllic spot needs - :rolleyes: If you look at the route map it will pass pretty much at the exact spot we are moored and at an angle to pass where the GRP cruiser is on the off side.

 

IMG_0524.JPG

 

Can anyone please give me a link to the route of the "spurs" going beyond Brum. to Leeds and Manchester.

 

I don't think the precise route has been determined yet Andy, but I'm open to correction.

 

ed to add from here

 

A formal consultation on second phase routes will begin in early 2014 with a final route chosen by the end of 2014. The first phase of HS2 will include a connection to Europe via the Channel Tunnel. When HS2 is completed, the network will include a direct link to Heathrow Airport.

Edited by MJG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chicken, egg.

Egg, chicken.

I won't argue but I'll agree to differ.

 

Sorry, but they didn't just throw those structures up you know. They were built to a specified loading gauge (the amount you could load onto a wagon). It is the design criteria used to construct the rolling stock and the railway infrastructure to make sure they don't collide with each other

 

Do you think they built everything then ran it to see if it would fit?

 

Richard

 

Mrs T writes:

My house is in Burton Green Warwickshire and backs onto the disused line which is to be reopened. The first proposal was to demolish all the properties on my side of the road. This has now been (allegedly) modified to say at first they will chop off up to 12 feet of my garden (leaving me with 6 feet to the foundations!), build the line, cover it with some form of roof/concrete shield, then give me back my 12 feet of garden.

 

Firstly, pigs fly as to the proposed cover, secondly my house is worthless, so no chance of moving.

 

I am not a nimby or luddite, having commuted by train for 20 odd years to Birmingham. All I want is the pre 2008 market value of my property and a small sum to have to relocate my Mother (who currently occupies the property). If it covers my solicitors costs then I would be happy. Needless to say the vultures are offering as little as 60% of the market value; I know this as one resident has panicked and sold out. So at present I am firmly in the No camp until someone ups the compensation.

 

Mrs T

 

Nobody has told Mrs T that the railway is going through a cut and cover tunnel in Burton Green now, have they

 

Richard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but they didn't just throw those structures up you know. They were built to a specified loading gauge (the amount you could load onto a wagon). It is the design criteria used to construct the rolling stock and the railway infrastructure to make sure they don't collide with each other

 

Do you think they built everything then ran it to see if it would fit?

 

 

Richard

 

As I said above, I won't argue but I'll agree to differ. I know what I mean, you know what you mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I said above, I won't argue but I'll agree to differ. I know what I mean, you know what you mean.

 

Fair enough.

 

Richard

 

P.S. Next time you are in Kenilworth, we will pop down the L&NWR study centre and I'll show you some of the documents

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat, Djuwenda!

OK, to try and explain what I mean: of course the bridges, tunnels and platforms were built to give pre-determined clearances - but, once built, they DETERMINED the loading gauge. In goods yards (remember those? you used to see a curved piece of rail hanging from a gantry, if a loaded wagon would not pass cleanly under it, it would not safely fit through said bridges and tunnels, because it was their GAUGE which the trains had to fit through.

In other words we are saying the same thing from different viewpoints - which brings us back to chicken and egg...or was it egg and chicken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neat, Djuwenda!

OK, to try and explain what I mean: of course the bridges, tunnels and platforms were built to give pre-determined clearances - but, once built, they DETERMINED the loading gauge. In goods yards (remember those? you used to see a curved piece of rail hanging from a gantry, if a loaded wagon would not pass cleanly under it, it would not safely fit through said bridges and tunnels, because it was their GAUGE which the trains had to fit through.

In other words we are saying the same thing from different viewpoints - which brings us back to chicken and egg...or was it egg and chicken?

 

This one is terribly basic, but then what else do you expect for a quick search on the internet:

 

ukavgauge.jpg

 

Richard

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.