I disagree with the entire article and premises of its construe. A historical knowledge or lived experience is one thing, but a mainly second-hand sourced view with the benefit of published interests in roads, cars and lorries and the magazines unadulterated support for HS2 and HS3 'whatever the cost' hardly commends as an objective commentary? See: https://www.truckanddriver.co.uk/meet-the-team/profile-pip-dunn/
To the article, in brief, I believe the following is worthy of further consideration in defence of the idea of retaining and studying with a view to rebuilding a new Sheffield - Manchester conventional rail link which serves both end-to-end markets and new markets like access to a National Park by rail, not roads!
1. Page 38 of said article - Mrs Thatcher's dislike of the railways: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/3067563.stm and 1982 was Serpell - so context is a black cloud over unions, railways and contrast unleashing and continuing the infatuation with roads and road-based transport/oil fuelled. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Roberts and https://en.google-info.org/7504178/1/serpell-report.html for background and context.
2. How old was Pip Dunn in 1981? Or Gareth Dennis for that matter? How objective are they? https://garethdennis.medium.com/a-remarkable-achievement-the-environmental-case-for-building-hs2-fc22ff83b024 and https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1007/s12544-017-0233-0
3. P. 38 'nowhere of note' but end-to-end lines with little in between closure is misapprehended here. For example, the Borders Railway serves mainly a rural location, was seen by many rail people in professional circles as marginal and an enthusiasts dream, but carried 4 million journeys in just 3 years: https://www.railstaff.co.uk/2018/09/06/borders-railway-more-than-4-million-journeys-since-it-opened-3-years-ago/ Where else might the model be applied? What scope and pro-affirmative scoping do these rail magazines offer us, even for Woodhead?! Silence or drab nonsense without declaring other interests. Forget the environment or modal shift, choice and emissions reductions. The joining up to Carlisle as a through route would enable even more people and goods by rail and double if not triple usage... what more for Woodhead surely? See https://www.hull.ac.uk/work-with-us/research/institutes/logistics-institute/our-work/lhoft - utilises what is, but switching from northern supply on a north-south axis to east-west makes sense, so new and more business flows but shorter haul = good for emissions reduction, efficiency and cost reduction, what plan for rail in such a framework or must we continue a diet of denial and suppression of local/conventional rail for exorbitant passenger only High Speed case making by rubbishing other cheaper options even at the £1.5 billion quoted here - a fraction of HS2 Costs: https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/high-speed-2-costs and https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16473296 By any comparable standards, take a breathe by all means at £1.5 billion for a new Woodhead, but it is a pittance to HS2 even the northern arm and HS3... but what of default interim road usage, upgrades and new builds and environmental impact? Woodhead screams from its dormant silence as so many wrong doings, that it has a role to play in a new era of rectified and rebalanced transport apparatus'.
4. What Woodhead offers:
a. Choice/choices
b. more freight by rail, not coal, but new flows and opportunities
c. reducing emissions
d. decluttering principal roads and urban interfaces
e. not everyone drives, owns a car or wants to... let the disenfranchised have a better opportunity and be enabled to choose rail and vote with their feet. People can only use what is available, so 40 years without direct rail to the West, means either don't travel or go elsewhere signals and vice versa footfall and spend to the east and sustainability issues abound.
5. P. 38 "Traffic was in slow decline" The article does not modernise to today's need, and seems an arm chair critics retro justification for then and now status quo, with no remedy but to default of passenger only costly High Speed with large swathes disenfranchised between principal locations and no cure but car dependency/congestion and synthetic demand for road upgrades or a long way round to get anywhere.
6. Page 39 Rail Magazine has stalwartly supported HS2 and HS3 but focused on denting reopening aspiration by rubbishing calls for Woodhead to be reviewed...
7. P39 The National Park and non car accessibility: Woodhead and Dunfold are right on the door/gateway and build support infrastructure to make it a gateway to environment, freedom, right to roam and enjoy... with footfall and spend and a cleaner basis for such theatres of leisure and entertainment.
8. P. 39 Fails to appreciate end-to-end populations. South of Newcastle to North of Derby and east to Hull across to Manchester and the Cheshire-North West arc is plenty of scope as well as the Pan-Europe-Hull-Liverpool-Atlantic audiences scope factored in. Local to Global reaches and ranges and translates back to inclusion of interim areas and best managed transport design, usage and options for people and goods.
9. Page. 39: "With capacity on both Standedge and Hope Valley Lines, there were more than enough ways to take a train across the Pennines.":
a. Why then are roads being upgraded at cost and new ones called for?
b. what use is steep gradients and rock tunnels on the Hope Valley to lend to OHLE and 9'6 container traffic... if it was cost-effective, why not done by now?
10. Page 40 Standedge for all trans-Pennine rail freight in a context of axis realignment and growth means one thing... 2/3 will be by road defaultively if we do not re-build/new-build a Woodhead Railway. Failure to apprehend this, is a failure to apprehend what this rail link can bring to the 'now' situation.
11. Page 40 "However, few (if any) container trains go that way anyway" must be contrasted with this: https://www.hull.ac.uk/work-with-us/research/institutes/logistics-institute/our-work/lhoft More study work needs doing whilst at the same time protecting the route from further destruction/redevelopment blight to keep options open, see what potential 'now' and 'then' and if it serves a purpose and saves elsewhere... why not? Why should roads take all the freight tonnages?
12. Page 41: "given it [Woodhead] was 60 mph line speed for most of the way."
a. compare and contrast with average same distance/direction/axis road speeds for people and goods.
b. a consistent 60mph enables quicker end to end timings, obstruction free and keeps things on the move = efficiency, saving and who needs 220mph anyway between Sheffield and Manchester?
13. Page 41:
a. new bore tunnel can be done/savings on road and elsewhere
b. does not have to go into Piccadilly, restore the south Manchester orbital rails and reopen Manchester Central as an interchange with trains from east and west for interchange, connectivity and more capacity.
14. Page 42 Gareth Dennis, firm HS2/3 supporter, how objective is he when approaching perceived or actual challengers and cheaper options/more inclusive options like this? Compare £1.5 billion for an international all-inclusive passenger and freight environmentally friendly solution like Woodhead with costs of Birmingham-Leeds Northern arm of HS2 and upgrading roads with volumes to match spiralling patterns never satisfied - all costs ratcheted and this rail could be done asap... should be in the frame not for dismissal, but revitalisation on and off the tracks. Woodhead presents good value for money and versatility than High Speed trans-Pennine solutions if the truth be known?
This is my initial reflection and the model repeats... time to wake up and re-rail Britian and get things moving in a cleaner and more sustainable fashion - people AND goods!
Richard Pill
ERTA Chairman
15-07-2021
No comments:
Post a Comment