Title: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: inspector_blakey on April 05, 2010, 02:40:08 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8603009.stm) (click for full article):
Quote The Liberal Democrats have set out plans to reopen thousands of miles of railway tracks and stations. The scheme would be funded by cutting capital spending on roads by ^3bn. Edit by Chris: Topic heading changed, in view of General Election now being confirmed. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: TheLastMinute on April 05, 2010, 03:07:24 And the interesting thing is that there is even a small chance it may happen should there be a hung parliament!
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Timmer on April 05, 2010, 06:41:54 Great plans but it's not going to happen is it. If there is a hung parliament I very much doubt that the Lib Dems will be using their transport policy as a bargaining chip in helping to form a government with either the Tories or Labour. It will be PR so they stand a better chance of getting elected in future general elections.
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Electric train on April 05, 2010, 08:12:10 A bit of cloud coco land electioneering, its not always opening of long closed lines that's needed but completely new routes (I am not just talking HS routes) reopening of stations may work in some places but why not stations in completely new locations.
One thing though this has put railways into the election, hopefully it will question the commitment of the two major parties Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Brucey on April 05, 2010, 08:41:15 I would be questioning where they are planning on getting the rolling stock from, without cutting back services on other lines. ^3bn would probably only just fund laying track, building stations, red tape, etc.
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Bob_Blakey on April 05, 2010, 09:17:03 As is usual with policy announcements of this nature, the devil would be in the detail; on this morning's BBC Radio 4 Today programme a transport 'expert' from Liverpool Polytechnic stated that new railway comes in at ^7m a mile plus an extra ^3m/mile if you want it electrified (I have no idea if these figures are correct) and on that basis the ^3bn would get you around 450 additional route miles rather than the 'thousands' mentioned in press releases/news items.
It would be very easy to waste the ^3bn on schemes that were not even vaguely cost-effective. The announcement seems also to have copied the previously published Tory policy of making it far easier for local authorities to obtain funding for improving rail infrastructure. Once the General Election is formally announced I wonder what the actual party transport policies will look like! Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: caliwag on April 05, 2010, 10:47:47 Yes Bob, I heard that, but the rolling stock issue is far more pressing as we know. The "proposal"...at least 20 years old, for a new station at Haxby on the York to Scarborough line (effectively a York City Council dream to shrink commuting) has been re, re, re-estimated at over ^10m and 4 year build, and that for two, I guess, 6 car platforms, a footbridge, shelters and car parking...doubt if it'll even be staffed.
When I shared an office in Manchester with some of the consultants in 1999 they were finalising the CCTV cable runs!...so that's incouraging I don't think. Eleven years on, the local York Press, when there's been no crack-heads stealing cable, dredge from the back-listing with great fanfare "Haxby station on track" and similar tripe...Lib dem council if you're curious! :-X Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: moonrakerz on April 05, 2010, 14:26:45 Vote for me chaps !
I'll introduce free beer at the "point of demand" for everyone, as well - hic ! I thought Kennedy had been ousted ? Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: signalandtelegraph on April 05, 2010, 14:37:32 from http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/transport.html (http://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies/transport.html)
Quote [The Green New Deal commits investment to a major expansion of public transport. We will: ^ Double the size of the bus fleet through an investment of ^3 billion to buy 30,000 new buses and create 70,000 jobs. ^ Provide a further ^2 billion to subsidise bus fares and get new services operational. ^ Bring the railway system back into public ownership and spend ^2 billion on new track and rolling stock, and on urban tram schemes - together creating 20,000 jobs. ^ Reduce UK rail fares by one third to bring them in line with the European average through a ^3 billion subsidy./quote] Wonder where the 10 billion is coming from.. oh heres where Quote Here are just some ways the Green New Deal tackles the most pressing problems we face today: ^ A new architecture for the financial system so that it serves the ^real' economy, this includes breaking up the big banks so they are no longer ^too big to fail' and a massive clampdown on tax avoidance to generate ^10 billion in revenue. ;D and for proper policies http://www.loonyparty.com/index.php?page=manifestoproposals-1 (http://www.loonyparty.com/index.php?page=manifestoproposals-1) Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: 6 OF 2 redundant adjunct of unimatrix 01 on April 05, 2010, 14:52:53 new roads will still be built.... pot-holes just wont get filled!
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Btline on April 05, 2010, 18:13:04 Road developments do need to go ahead as well.
Ok, it may not be the most fashionable thing to say these days, but like it or not, we have millions of cars that will not go away and most people drive - fact. So as well as rail developments, to try and ease traffic, we also need certain strategic road developments, be it bypasses, motorway widening, etc; and air. The Scottish gov have got it right. Build the new Glasgow to Edinburgh rail link, speed up the others AND build extensions to the M74 and M8. I also think that London needs another runway. I just oppose the Heathrow Expansion due to the level of destruction of urban areas and because of the extra noise pollution across much of the city. Oh, and the Lib Dems can say anything 'cos they'll never win, etc... Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: grahame on April 05, 2010, 19:07:49 A bit of cloud coco land electioneering, its not always opening of long closed lines that's needed but completely new routes (I am not just talking HS routes) reopening of stations may work in some places but why not stations in completely new locations. I wonder how much fine talk - on all sides - will fall by the wayside after the election. Starting with the most cost effective ... you could: * Add trains on existing lines serving existing station which would benefit from increased services and have capacity * Add stations on existing lines - not necessarily where stations happened to be 60 years ago * Reopen routes that predominantly use existing earthworks * Build a new route Taking a medium term view (i.e. five to ten years - NOT electioneering), and of a public passenger transport system that was "middle of the road", you would be looking carefully in schemes in all categories, I suspect. And paying for it? I look at the current system and I wonder "isn't there a less buraucratic way of doing it", and "isn't there a way of taking some of the financial peculiarities out of the system?" Over the past few years, I've met with a number of very good staff in the various organisations that we need to work with in our own local area, and at times they can be as frustrated as those of us on what might be referred to as "the other side" asking for improvements. In reallity, it turns out that we've mostly got similar goals - and "the other side" is very often the system itself. Road developments do need to go ahead as well. Ok, it may not be the most fashionable thing to say ... It may not be fashionable, but it's right. Most people don't just make a train journey - they connect onward by car, taxi, bus, cycle, tube, ferry ... at one end of their train journey at least; I have been known to shock people in these parts by suggesting that a road be built in two or three specific places. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: moonrakerz on April 05, 2010, 21:15:31 [I have been known to shock people in these parts by suggesting that a road be built in two or three specific places. .........like around Westbury ?? ;D Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 05, 2010, 23:10:14 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8603591.stm):
Quote PM to announce 6 May general election Gordon Brown will announce on Tuesday morning that the general election will, as expected, be held on 6 May, BBC political editor Nick Robinson says. The prime minister will go to Buckingham Palace to ask the Queen to dissolve Parliament. On returning from the Palace he will formally confirm the date and make a speech in Downing Street in which he will dub the election "the big choice". The economy, taxation and public services will be key battlegrounds. The campaign will also feature, for the first time, live television debates between the three main party leaders. It will be the first time that Mr Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg have faced a general election. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: inspector_blakey on April 06, 2010, 04:10:35 How ironic. After jumping through all the hoops to arrange overseas proxy voting, I'll actually be in the country on 6 May. Although probably not in the relevant parliamentary constituency, I admit.
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: grahame on April 06, 2010, 06:24:11 [I have been known to shock people in these parts by suggesting that a road be built in two or three specific places. .........like around Westbury ?? ;D Complex one that - and not what I was meaning as I posted. Some cases that merit careful consideration and possible construction were included in core strategy responses, summarised here (http://www.wellho.net/mouth/2574_Summary-of-Wiltshire-Core-Strategy-responses.html). P.S. There's a number of old articles on my blog on the "red rag" of Westbury ;) . Start here (http://www.wellho.net/mouth/1710_At-the-Westbury-Bypass-Enquiry.html) if you need a link! Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 06, 2010, 19:47:20 From the Birmingham Post (http://www.birminghampost.net/news/politics-news/2010/04/06/david-cameron-kicks-off-tory-general-election-campaign-in-birmingham-65233-26187922/):
Quote David Cameron kicks off Tory General Election campaign in Birmingham Mr Cameron was in Birmingham for about an hour before being whisked away to catch a train to Leeds. And he promised that the proposed high speed rail link between Birmingham and London would remain a priority under Tory rule. ^We are very committed to high speed rail,^ he vowed. ^We put high speed rail back on the map a few years ago when the Government was condemning it. ^We want to make it work. It^s a very exciting prospect for Birmingham but also for Manchester and Leeds as well.^ Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 07, 2010, 00:54:14 From The Times (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7089674.ece):
Quote Brown left grounded as David Cameron gets off to a flying start David Cameron^s campaign will exploit ^air superiority^ over Gordon Brown, as the Tories use their cash advantage to leave Labour grounded. The Conservative leader travelled back to London by private plane after the first day of the election campaign last night and is expected to take to the air again today. Aides say he will aim to visit at least two regions a day at the height of a campaign that targets seats across Britain. But while Mr Cameron^s packed itinerary requires frequent air travel, Mr Brown will fly on only a handful of occasions, according to the Labour leader^s spokesman. He will use a train instead most of the time, as he did yesterday. With Labour compelled to make a virtue out of the necessity imposed by their relative poverty, the Conservatives said the party had not leased a single aircraft but had booked a number of different ones. The Tories are aware that the gulf between the parties in terms of spending power could be turned against them, as the leaders battle to identify themselves with ordinary voters. The Conservatives raised more than ^32 million last year and would have little difficulty in spending up to the maximum allowed of ^18.96 million, plus ^350,000 for Northern Ireland. By contrast, Labour sources said the party was now halfway through a total war chest of only ^8 million. The party raised about ^16 million last year, mostly from the trade unions, but there is no prospect of further significant funding, sources said. Ministers have been told that they must travel to campaign events on economy fares unless there is a pressing reason, such as the need for police protection, that prevents them from doing so. It has also been decided that the party^s manifesto will be printed on cheap, recycled paper. ^m sure the document will look professional but it certainly won^t be a glossy production,^ said an official close to the process. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Mookiemoo on April 07, 2010, 09:07:55 How ironic. After jumping through all the hoops to arrange overseas proxy voting, I'll actually be in the country on 6 May. Although probably not in the relevant parliamentary constituency, I admit. And I'll be flying out that afternoon- I have left instructions with friends to txt me the updates so as soon as I touch down in LA.......and the phone goes on..... Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: caliwag on April 07, 2010, 11:01:00 A nice reasoned argument from the man the media turn to for er, a reasoned argument. So, Cornish independence is the answer!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/06/liberal-democrats-railway-plans Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: caliwag on April 10, 2010, 11:39:12 Can anyone provide a link to the Lib Dems press release regarding the re-openings policy? Cheers ???
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: woody on April 10, 2010, 19:35:02 It seems that even David Cameron prefers to fly to Plymouth rather than use the train or drive.
"The Conservative Party leader flew into the city on Day Three of the General Election campaign." http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/City-key-Britain-s-defence-8211-Cameron/article-1992320-detail/article.html Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 10, 2010, 21:11:50 Can anyone provide a link to the Lib Dems press release regarding the re-openings policy? Cheers ??? Here you go: http://www.libdems.org.uk/news_detail.aspx?title=Liberal_Democrats_pledge_biggest_rail_expansion_since_the_Victorians&pPK=f985d8ec-e525-4383-9bf0-92dd1c9ee859 ;) Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 10, 2010, 21:45:13 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8612741.stm):
Quote Labour wants to force rail firms to offer cheapest fare Labour is going to include in its manifesto a commitment to force rail companies to offer passengers the cheapest fare, the BBC has learnt. Rail passenger numbers are at the highest level since World War II, but consumers often complain that tickets are mis-sold. The Tories say they would revamp the rail franchising system to give a better service. The Lib Dems have pledged that fares would rise by less than inflation. Labour says that if it wins the election it will give passengers an enforceable right to the cheapest fare, the BBC understands. Consumers would be able to get a refund if they were mis-sold a ticket, with disputes going to the regulator. When the consumer group Which? investigated rail fares, it found that the cheapest ticket was offered on fewer than half of occasions. Researchers were not told about cheaper train firms, off-peak fares or season ticket savings. However, the train companies said that mystery shopper investigations see the right ticket sold 99% of the time. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: caliwag on April 10, 2010, 22:55:31 Excellent thanks Chris ;D
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Btline on April 10, 2010, 23:16:06 To be fair, my local ticket office is excellent, and I would think most are.
Any cases where more expensive tickets were sold would be due to stupid ticket restrictions and anomalies. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: inspector_blakey on April 10, 2010, 23:32:27 Labour wants to force rail firms to offer cheapest fare Erm, are they not already obliged to sell passengers the "cheapest ticket for your journey"? I'm fairly sure it's in the Conditions of Carriage along with impartial ticket retailing. This sounds like a piece of electioneering nonsense to me... If this is indeed such a pressing and vote-winning issue, it's interesting that Labour haven't done anything about it for the last 13 years they've been in government! Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: JayMac on April 10, 2010, 23:33:31 All well and good 'forcing' TOCs to sell the cheapest fare - something they should do already - but often the cheapest fare is one that involves split ticketing or a slower route. I'd love to know just how Labour are going to legislate for this when the fares system is so complex. Oh, and how do you force a website or TVM to sell you the cheapest fare?
Want a Saturday day out in London from Bristol?: Bristol TM to Paddington, Super Off Peak Return (SSR) coming back the same day: ^48.80 Bristol TM to Didcot PW, Off Peak Day Return (CDR) then Didcot PW to Paddington (CDR): ^38.80 And what if you ask at the Bristol TM ticket office for the cheapest ticket to London coming back the same day? How many of the FGW ticket staff will offer you (even just as an option) the Super Off Peak Day Return to Waterloo via Salisbury at ^29.90? Or even the cheaper still, and perfectly valid, Shirehampton to Waterloo (via SAL) Off Peak Day Return at ^27.10...... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You want to do a weeks commuting between Plymouth and Paddington travelling first class? I'm betting the only fare you'll be offered is the 7 Day First Season (7DF) at ^766.50 overcharging you just over ^200 compared to a 7 Day First Class All Line Rover. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Super Guard on April 11, 2010, 00:01:50 It seems that even David Cameron prefers to fly to Plymouth rather than use the train or drive. "The Conservative Party leader flew into the city on Day Three of the General Election campaign." http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/City-key-Britain-s-defence-8211-Cameron/article-1992320-detail/article.html ASW I hope!! ;D Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: John R on April 11, 2010, 02:59:55 I don't think it's unreasonable for the party leaders to fly during an election campaign. My only surprise is that they don't use private jets for the flexibility that they give.
After all, this is one occasion when time is critical, and they are trying to fit in as many visits as possible, to different parts of the country on the same day. (eg Visiting several places in the west country on one day does not have the same impact as visiting several places on separate days during the campaign, as the local TV and radio airtime will be much greater for each additional day spent in a region). Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: inspector_blakey on April 11, 2010, 05:46:26 I'm sure I read somewhere that DC was using a private jet, although I can't remember where and can't find the source online at the moment so I could be mistaken. May well not have been Air South West.
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: paul7575 on April 11, 2010, 13:03:02 So, this could mean that after asking everyone (who doesn't at first make it clear) whether they want Anytime or Offpeak or Super Offpeak etc, passengers asking at the Bristol ticket office for 'London' must be reminded that it could be cheaper but slower to go via Salisbury to Waterloo, or everyone asking at Southampton for 'London' should be advised that it is far cheaper, but much slower, to go on SN's Victoria services.
The ticket office staff (and TVMs for that matter) aren't mindreaders - so every sale will have to be prefaced with something along the lines of 'do you want direct for speed or roundabout for cheapness' - there's no easy answer to the supposed problem. With every TVM being programmed to offer the cheaper fare more obviously, this will probably be the cause of thousands of pax being excessed for being off route, because they didn't read or understand the displayed restrictions... Paul Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: JayMac on April 11, 2010, 13:50:20 One would suggest that Labour, Andrew Adonis and the DfT (if they get back in) sort out the complex fares system before 'forcing' TOCs to sell the cheapest ticket.
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 11, 2010, 16:45:49 I'm sure I read somewhere that DC was using a private jet, although I can't remember where and can't find the source online at the moment so I could be mistaken. May well not have been Air South West. Erm ... (cough) ... see my post, above: http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6551.msg65170#msg65170 ::) ;) ;D Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: devon_metro on April 11, 2010, 19:18:25 I'm sure I read somewhere that DC was using a private jet, although I can't remember where and can't find the source online at the moment so I could be mistaken. May well not have been Air South West. Correct, however he is using a number of different private jets to support various different businesses, obviously... ;) Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: woody on April 11, 2010, 19:36:36 David Cameron hits turbulence ^ and gets another bump on the head
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100033148/david-cameron-hits-turbulence-and-gets-another-bump-on-the-head/ Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: caliwag on April 12, 2010, 09:08:46 Having searched high and low, I still cannot locate the actual detailed press release re the lib dem re-opening proposals. The BBC statement of 5 April is the most detailed, but what is it officially based on...an interview with Norman Baker perhaps! :-\
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 12, 2010, 20:14:17 I rather think you've hit the nail on the head there, caliwag. ::)
The Liberal Democrat press release, to which I provided a link earlier, is as much as has been published - seven paragraphs. The bulk of the BBC news report, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8603009.stm was indeed apparently based on an interview with Norman Baker. The Liberal Democrat statement on 'What We Stand For' on transport is at http://www.libdems.org.uk/transport.aspx - five paragraphs. The Liberal Democrat Policy Briefing on Transport is here: http://www.libdems.org.uk/siteFiles/resources/PDF/Election%20Policy/11%20-%20Transport.pdf - six paragraphs. Make of that what you will. :-X Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: devon_metro on April 12, 2010, 23:01:06 Perhaps we might see more on Wednesday when their manifesto is published.
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 13, 2010, 00:26:34 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8615297.stm):
Quote At-a-glance: Labour election manifesto ... Commitment to high-speed rail linking London, Birmingham, the East Midlands, Manchester, northern England and Scotland ... The full Labour election manifesto is available at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/12_04_10_labour_manifesto.pdf Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 13, 2010, 20:37:24 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8617433.stm):
Quote At-a-glance: Conservative manifesto ... Immediate start to high-speed rail line linking London, Heathrow Airport, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds Block plans for third Heathrow runway and second runways at Gatwick and Stansted ... The full Conservative election manifesto is available at http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_hires.pdf Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 13, 2010, 22:33:31 From the ATOC press release (http://www.atoc.org/media-centre/latest-press-releases/train-companies-respond-to-conservative-manifesto-pledges-on-rail-100449):
Quote Train Companies respond to Conservative manifesto pledges on rail In response to the Conservative manifesto pledges on rail, a spokesperson for the Association of Train Operating Companies said: ^The Conservatives^ pledge to grant longer and more flexible franchises will be welcomed by train companies and would be good for passengers and taxpayers. Train companies have been calling for focused reform to allow them to address issues such as overcrowding and station improvements more quickly and effectively and to attract more private sector investment to the railways. ^Train companies support the commitment to make Network Rail more accountable to its customers and believe that ensuring this happens should remain the core role of the rail regulator. ^The pledge that the Conservatives have made on high speed and their support for Crossrail, electrification of the Great Western line and reopening old lines represent a vote of confidence in the railways. It is important that these projects are part of a programme of wider investment as demand for rail travel is expected to double in the next 30 years.^ Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: devon_metro on April 13, 2010, 23:49:31 Pretty supportive then!
Then again, all seems like common sense to me, so you'd like to think they did. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: inspector_blakey on April 14, 2010, 03:00:54 Paging Btline ;)
Borrowed from Railway Eye (http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2010/04/ukip-manifesto-transport-section.html) today: the UKIP manifesto, transport section (with my emphasis in bold at the end!) Quote UKIP believes the British people have a right to a reliable public and private transport system at an acceptable cost. UKIP will invest in a transport network that meets the needs of the British people and Britain^s economy. UKIP will: * Invest an extra ^3 billion p.a. in the UK^s transport infrastructure, using money made available by leaving the EU and saving the ^6.4 billion net Britain pays every year in EU membership contributions * Invest in an enhanced and safer road network, building new bypasses and widening major roads * Offer a ^Windfall Return^ on fuel duty above a set world dollar oil price. When this level is reached, government receipts from oil duties will be returned to motorists as fuel tax cuts * Be fair to motorists by subjecting parking charges and revenue-raising devices, including speed cameras, to greater democratic control * Repeal EU-generated road directives that * impose unnecessary and expensive burdens, such as the new Road Transport Directive * Introduce a ^Britdisc^ which foreign lorries will have to pay for using major British roads. * Currently, many of these lorries pay nothing for the wear and tear they cause * Veto EU attempts to force the UK into accepting EU lorries that are a third longer and a third heavier than currently allowed - up to an unacceptable 60 tonnes * Invest in three new 200mph plus high-speed rail lines including a new line between London and Newcastle with a spur to Manchester, a London-Bristol-Exeter line and a linking route via Birmingham * Expand the rail network by re-opening rail lines where there is a proven need * Improve passenger rail franchises by demanding higher standards of customer satisfaction, and by extending standard franchise terms to up to 20 years to encourage greater investment and stability * Encourage a major transfer of freight away from road and onto rail and canal * Invest in better rail and road links to ports * Oppose a sixth Heathrow Airport terminal and third runway and the expansion of Gatwick and Stansted in favour of a major new Hong Kong-style Thames Estuary airport with motorway connections and a high-speed rail service to London, the UK and the Continent This of course provided as a special Eye service to the three of you who intend voting for them. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: JayMac on April 14, 2010, 03:29:29 Quote Encourage a major transfer of freight away from road and onto rail and canal Canal ??? :o ::) "When would you like your goods delivered?" "Tuesday." "Which month?" ;D Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 14, 2010, 17:02:01 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm):
Quote At-a-glance: Lib Dem general election 2010 manifesto ... Cancel plans for a third runway at Heathrow and other airport expansion in south-east England. Tighter regulation on vehicle exhausts. End "hidden" charges in airline pricing ^140m bus scrappage scheme to help firms replace polluting vehicles. Reopen regional rail lines, paid for by cutting roads budget [England only] Cut rail fares, force train operators to ensure regulated fares fall behind inflation by 1% per year. Make Network Rail refund a third of ticket price if replacement buses used ... The full Liberal Democrat election manifesto is available at http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 14, 2010, 17:35:35 Video item, from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8619447.stm):
Quote Newsnight takes the Tory manifesto on the train The Tories launched their election manifesto on Tuesday with the emphasis on "big society" rather than big government. Newsnight's Michael Crick took the manifesto to Keighley to see how voters reacted to some of the key pledges. Broadcast on Tuesday 13 April 2010. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Btline on April 14, 2010, 19:09:05 I disagree with no airport expansion. The South East desperately needs more capacity!
The rail policies are vague and not solid enough - i.e. typical Liberal Democrat. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: willc on April 14, 2010, 23:40:23 The rail policies are vague and not solid enough - i.e. typical Liberal Democrat. How soon they forget. Think it's only fair to point out that back at the top of the thread, you will find a post from the inspector linking to the following http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8603009.stm which is full of specifics from the Lib Dem railway policy launch all of nine days ago. The manifestos aren't stuffed with every single dot and cross of policy. For example, I'd be interested to see the detail of how the Tories propose to go about beginning work 'immediately' to create an HSL to Birmingham, given that the recommended route - or any conceivable alternative - runs for mile upon mile through Tory-held constituencies where opposition will be at its most bitter. Dave's little blue hymn book rather skirts around that one. Might the mods perhaps consider hiving off the stuff about US flights into 'other ways...' not sure it will be a hot election topic. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: inspector_blakey on April 14, 2010, 23:58:50 Might the mods perhaps consider hiving off the stuff about US flights into 'other ways...' not sure it will be a hot election topic. Done - have excised the OT posts (slightly embarrassing that a moderator and an admin were both culpable there :-[) and spliced them onto the original discussion of the BRS-EWR air connection here (http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=6560.0). Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 15, 2010, 14:53:12 From the Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/15/tories-break-manifesto-pledge-on-crossrail-says-labour):
Quote Crossrail 'could be scrapped', admits Tory spokeswoman Shadow minister Justine Greening says Conservatives support Crossrail in principle but cannot guarantee the future of the cross-London rail link. Labour today accused the Conservatives of breaking a manifesto pledge only two days after launching their election proposals after a shadow minister admitted that a key rail project could be scrapped under a Tory government on the grounds of cost. The Labour party seized on the comments made by Justine Greening, the shadow London minister, who told London's LBC radio that she "cannot guarantee" that the building of the ^16bn Crossrail scheme ^ an east-to-west rail link across the capital ^ would continue under the Conservatives. Her comments appear to contradict a commitment outlined in the Conservative manifesto, published earlier this week, which says: "We support Crossrail and the electrification of the Great Western line to south Wales." Greening told LBC earlier today that she was unable to give "a line-by-line budget on projects across government, including Crossrail. Everything's up for review but we think it's important," she said. Pressed on whether this meant that a Tory government would allow the Crossrail development to continue, Greening replied: "I can't give a guarantee that it will continue." Asked if this meant it could be scrapped altogether, Greening said: "It's possible, but at the end of the day we've always said that we think it's an important project and actually the reason this is important is we want to be responsible, so we can't pretend that we can write an entire budget outside of government. We've said we'll do one within 50 days of getting into government if we get elected and we will then provide some clarity and certainty." Greening's comments are likely to alarm Boris Johnson, the Tory mayor of London, who has repeatedly hailed Crossrail as a scheme which will create thousands of jobs and boost the capital's economy. Lord Adonis, the transport secretary, accused the Conservatives of "weasel words". "The Tories' supposed commitment to Crossrail lasted just two days. Now Justine Greening has exposed the weasel words in the Tory manifesto for what they are," he said. "This sends an alarming message to business in and around the capital, to Londoners, and also calls into question the extent of their commitment to all other infrastructure projects, including high-speed rail." Johnson stood shoulder to shoulder with Adonis and Gordon Brown last year to mark the formal start of the construction the major railway project. At the time, he said: "The years of hesitation, irresolution and vacillation are over, the shovels have tasted earth and the construction of a railway that is crucial to the economic prosperity of this great city has begun. "This amazing project will create and support thousands of jobs, relieve congestion and provide a high-speed link between east and west of London. When the first of Crossrail's chariots glide smoothly along its lines in 2017 it will change the face of transport in London and the south east forever." Kulveer Ranger, Johnson's transport adviser, said today: "The mayor's passion and support for Crossrail is unquenched and his view is it is not a want but a must for the capital. Every inch of London will benefit from the jobs, increase in capacity and easing of congestion that Crossrail will bring." The Conservative party, which has been keen to call attention to Johnson's administration during the election campaign, insisted its position on Crossrail was "very clear". A spokeswoman said Crossrail would be part of a Tory government's spending review alongside everything apart from health and international development, whose funding has been ring-fenced. "Our position is consistent and claims to the contrary are disingenuous," she said. The party issued a quote David Cameron made last November, in which he said: "I back Crossrail. I want Crossrail to go ahead. Obviously everything has to pass the value-for-money test and all the rest, but we want it to go ahead." Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Btline on April 15, 2010, 19:23:55 No surprises there. As for "we support GWML electrification", that is certainly NOT what the shadow transport secretary indicated after the plans were revealed. The Tories are a mess.
And they'll also bugger up* the High Speed Line, by re-routing it and starting it too early. *Of course, there is still the debate as to whether the line is needed. But if it is built, it must follow the direct route planned by Labour! Not some long windy Tory favoured route, avoiding marginal constituencies & Tory donors and visiting Heathrow. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: devon_metro on April 15, 2010, 20:28:38 The Tories are a mess. Name me a party that isn't ;D Anyway time to switch on ITV1, see where my vote will be going perhaps. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Phil on April 16, 2010, 08:43:49 Anyway time to switch on ITV1, see where my vote will be going perhaps. I'd really like to think nobody with a modicum of political intelligence would be placing their precious vote, which potentially makes a real difference to who represents YOU at a local level, entirely on which party leader happens to be the most "impressive" in an artificially staged event in front of a selected TV audience! Remember, you didn't vote for the party leader (and in some cases, neither did anyone else...). We're not - yet - voting for a President. Just in case these things are important to you however, David Cameron was the biggest smiler by far ^ smiling 3 times as much as Gordon Brown (34 smiles) and Nick Clegg (31 smiles). Cameron smiled 97 times in total. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: devon_metro on April 16, 2010, 11:02:21 Anyway time to switch on ITV1, see where my vote will be going perhaps. I'd really like to think nobody with a modicum of political intelligence would be placing their precious vote, which potentially makes a real difference to who represents YOU at a local level, entirely on which party leader happens to be the most "impressive" in an artificially staged event in front of a selected TV audience! Remember, you didn't vote for the party leader (and in some cases, neither did anyone else...). We're not - yet - voting for a President. No indeed, however as Torbay is a marginal seat between Conservative and Lib Dem, then it does have some influence in my party choice. For example if the local candidate is an excellent politician but the actual leader of the party is less so, then purely voting on my local candidate would not be sensible, as far as i'm concerned. Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 17, 2010, 19:02:38 From the BBC: Where They Stand: Guide to party election policies - Transport (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8515961.stm#subject=transport&col1=conservative&col2=labour&col3=libdem)
Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 23, 2010, 22:52:07 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8640896.stm):
Quote At-a-glance: BNP general election manifesto ... Reverse privatisation of railways, invest in 200mph magnetic levitation inter-city rail network ... The full BNP election manifesto is available at http://www.bnp.org.uk/pdf_files/BNP-Manifesto-2010-online.pdf Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: JayMac on April 24, 2010, 05:39:01 Quote At-a-glance: BNP general election manifesto ... Reverse privatisation of railways, invest in 200mph magnetic levitation inter-city rail network ... Built by foreign labour? Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 26, 2010, 19:53:03 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8644304.stm):
Quote David Cameron urged to include Sheffield in rail plan A student has called on David Cameron to include Sheffield under plans for a high-speed rail network. The government announced plans in March to build a ^17bn route between London and Birmingham with a future extension to north England and Scotland. After being questioned by Patrick Gannon, David Cameron said he would look at a station stop in Sheffield. Labour said it was committed to putting a stop in Sheffield. A Liberal Democrat spokesman was unavailable for comment. Addressing Mr Cameron, first-time voter Mr Gannon said: "The Liberal Democrat and Labour plans both propose a high-speed rail route with a station that will stop at Sheffield fitting it into the whole network. But as far as I'm aware, the Conservatives do not plan to put a station at Sheffield. Why is it viewed that England's fourth largest city should be by-passed by this magnificent scheme?" Mr Cameron said under Labour's plans, there was no guarantee that the new rail line would extend further than Birmingham. "They've talked about taking it to Scotland, Sheffield and everywhere else - the only people that have actually got a proper plan for a high-speed rail [network] that goes London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds are the Conservatives. We've actually set out how we'd do it, how we'd pay for it and when it would happen." The exchange came during a question and answer session with viewers of BBC Look North. The Conservative leader told Mr Gannon that he would look at a stop in Sheffield, adding: "Once you've got the plan, once you've got the route set out you can look at how many stations you have." A Labour statement said: "Labour have absolutely committed, both in the statement made to the House of Commons and in our election manifesto to build a high-speed line to both West and South Yorkshire." Title: Re: General Election 2010 and its implications for the railways (combined topic) Post by: Chris from Nailsea on April 27, 2010, 22:24:08 From the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/england/8647485.stm):
Quote David Cameron high-speed rail link U-turn criticised David Cameron has been accused of "making up policy on the run" after agreeing to consider including Sheffield in a high-speed rail network. Conservative proposals for a high-speed route currently exclude the city. But during an exchange with viewers of BBC Look North Mr Cameron said he would look at putting a stop in Sheffield. Labour said the U-turn raised more questions than answers. The Tories said their vision for a wider high-speed rail network could include many cities. The government announced plans in March to build a ^17bn route between London and Birmingham with a future extension to north England and Scotland. While launching the Liberal Democrats' manifesto for Yorkshire earlier this month, leader Nick Clegg outlined plans for high-speed rail links to the Channel Tunnel from Leeds, Sheffield and York. Mr Cameron made his comments after being addressed by first-time voter Patrick Gannon. He told Mr Gannon that he would look at a stop in Sheffield, adding: "Once you've got the plan, once you've got the route set out you can look at how many stations you have." Andrew Adonis, Labour's transport secretary, said: "Labour have absolutely committed to build a high-speed line to both West and South Yorkshire, both in the statement made in the House of Commons on high speed rail and in our election manifesto. David Cameron is making up Tory policy on a major infrastructure project on the run. This u-turn on high speed rail raises more questions than it answers. Are they planning to add Sheffield as a further spur from Leeds or are they now adopting our route from Birmingham which they have previously attacked?" A Conservative spokesman said the party had "led the debate on high-speed rail". He added: "None of the other parties were talking about it until we announced our plans and Labour's commitment currently only extends to Birmingham. David Cameron stated during the interview that our route, which is fully-costed and timetabled, will go from London to Leeds, stopping at Birmingham and Manchester. We have also set out our vision for a wider high speed rail network which could include many other cities and, of course, we would listen to many views in planning that vision." A Liberal Democrats spokesman said the party was "fully committed to high-speed rail for the full length of the country". He added: "We're broadly supportive of the proposed route which goes through Sheffield, but there should be a full public consultation on the exact route and proper mitigation should be considered." This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |