Beeching's cuts

[Coxster]

Mods note:

This topic was formed by moving posts from Coxster's SWT fare rise topic, please use this topic to discuss the Beeching cuts. Thanks

(Sorry for using Coxster's original post, but if I delete this post the whole thread will disappear!)

 

[KODIAK BEAR]

Beeching smashed the railways in 1963 and rail workers thought and so did alot of people, belive the labour party when harold wilson said, we promise to do a U-turn on the beeching report etc and the public,in 1964 sadly like todays public, belived all they read in the newspapers and voted them in and did naff all about it and carried on with it ! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Castle if you belive this shower of sh*t called new labour, you are going to be sadly disappointed !

 

[Nick W]

Beeching smashed the railways in 1963

No he didn't, he produced a fair and logical report on them.

and rail workers thought and so did alot of people, belive the labour party when harold wilson said, we promise to do a U-turn on the beeching report

Thank goodness they didn't.

etc and the public,in 1964 sadly like todays public, belived all they read in the newspapers and voted them in and did naff all about it and carried on with it !

Indeed they carried on and gave us the trains that people love today, and invested extensively in routes such as the ECML.

 

[kiyran]

Petrol tax didn't go up as much as it should have due to the greater than predicted rise in oil costs...


The government is commited to reducing overcrowding so would be in favour of more restrictions.


No he didn't, he produced a fair and logical report on them.


Thank goodness they didn't.

Indeed they carried on and gave us the trains that people love today, and invested extensively in routes such as the ECML.


At least they have some sense.


Longer history than labour then.

Then again it was the liberal leader david lloyd george who was against nationalising transport in London because it was communist while many European cities had nationalised there. Paris's metro was a state project from the start.

beeching did smash the railways, just as most branch lines were starting to prosper with DMU's the axe had already been swung.

 

[Nick W]

beeching did smash the railways, just as most branch lines were starting to prosper with DMU's the axe had already been swung.

Yes the 50% of lines that contained 5% of all passenger traffic.

Freight traffic had sadly also gone

Naturally I'm against the selling of land on the routes, but that doesn't feature in anything Beeching wrote.

 

[yorkie]

Nick, I think you need to do more research before you go making statements supporting it, particularly the methodology used. Perhaps you can investigate whether it was sensible to close, for example, the York-Berverley line, and report back when you have done your research? ta

 

[paul1609]

Personally i think that the broad scope of the Beeching report was correct and the right thing to do. I think that you can with hindsight question some of the economics of a few routes but given the data that was available in the late fifties Beeching did a good job overall.

The way rail costs are spiralling out of control I think that it is enevitable that some lines will have to be re-examined in the future. I think that some rural branch lines are now hopelessly uneconomic and offer very little social benefit. I'd like to see some new lines opened in the country but unless we can be flexible and not oppose even the most obvious closure that is unlikely to happen.

 

[Zamracene749]

Hate to join in the Nick W bashing that goes on in this forum but good grief mate, the Ecml would have been truncated at Newcastle if Beeching had had all of his way!
Much of what Beeching did was unavoidable but his report went a little too far, he lived in an age when congestion was something you got with a cold and the car was seen as the ultimate symbol of freedom....

No he didn't, he produced a fair and logical report on them.


Thank goodness they didn't.

Indeed they carried on and gave us the trains that people love today, and invested extensively in routes such as the ECML.

 

[Nick W]

Nick, I think you need to do more research before you go making statements supporting it, particularly the methodology used. Perhaps you can investigate whether it was sensible to close, for example, the York-Berverley line, and report back when you have done your research?

I'm not denying that he didn't have the best information, but then people don't like being tracked [oyster etc].

I looked at the case for the York - Berverly line and all I can see is a passenger service from york - hull. Perhaps they should instead use money to create paths required to introduce a more frequent one on existing lines.

Personally i think that the broad scope of the Beeching report was correct and the right thing to do.

Thankyou, I appeciate my intercity journey to school with only one stop and more than 1 train an hour.

I think that you can with hindsight question some of the economics of a few routes but given the data that was available in the late fifties Beeching did a good job overall.

Yup, but clearly we are still low on paths on our railway so what would we have done without him?

The way rail costs are spiralling out of control I think that it is enevitable that some lines will have to be re-examined in the future. I think that some rural branch lines are now hopelessly uneconomic and offer very little social benefit. I'd like to see some new lines opened in the country but unless we can be flexible and not oppose even the most obvious closure that is unlikely to happen.

We've already seen some lines replaced with light railway, or one line of two converted . It depends on freight really, as I would oppose the closure of any railway branch with decent freight traffic.

Hate to join in the Nick W bashing that goes on in this forum but good grief mate, the Ecml would have been truncated at Newcastle if Beeching had had all of his way!

Now that's a straw man (or is it straw person) and you know it. I might as well make claims that you want a railway in everyone's garden...

Beeching had no objection to improvements of lines, including resignalling, of lines he didn't single out for LARGE scale investment.

Much of what Beeching did

he wrote a report.

was unavoidable but his report went a little too far,

No it didn't, it wasn't him who decided it was wise to sell the land.

he lived in an age when congestion was something you got with a cold and the car was seen as the ultimate symbol of freedom....

Yes I suppose the lines he suggested closing serve areas where congestion is prominent?


(To metroland) thank you for a very well-informed posting. I understand that the Government of this country hasn't helped railways be used the best, but hopefully this will change in light of the current concerns.

 

[Dennis]

Never mind Beeching, give him credit for cutting out a lot of dead wood even if the cuts were occasionally misplaced, imagine if the Serpell report had been implemented....now that is frightening; there would not be much of railway left at all; ECML, WCML, GWML all truncated and a network around London and thats about it.


Also, don't forget Dr Beechng "invented" freightliner, the growth of which is today being constricted by inadequacies in both the rail network (guaging and capacity) and port infrastructure (primarily capacity related).

 

[Nick W]

Also, don't forget Dr Beecihng "invented" freightliner, the growth of which is today being constricted by inadequacies in both the rail network (guaging and capacity) and port infrastructure (primarily capacity related).

Very good point. At a time when coal was the only profitable freight, he recommended the introduction of liner trains. I don't see freightliner being subsidised now..

 

[Nick W]

What I do see is a lot of congestion, pollution, urban sprawl and social exclusion.

Perhaps a little reminder of what Britain looked like in 1950, before a mile of motorway was built and with 10 million less population..?

Felixstowe is about a third the size and has less hock: railway and no liner terminal.

I doubt it had an hourly service or anywhere near as much freight traffic.

There's an extra stop on the Felixstowe line and 2 extras between in Ipswich and Colchester, doubt there were 3tph .

Hmm kettles, Britannia's? but I do get an hourly class 47 soon don't I?

Perhaps someone will come along and give me an intercity service with fewer stops and greater frequency, because:
This is the age of the train

 

[Dennis]

What I do see is a lot of congestion, pollution, urban sprawl and social exclusion.

http://www.npemap.org.uk/

And the answer is??? A total rethink of global socio-economic policy?

What I fail to comprehend with much of modern society is the tolerance of idly waiting around.

I go to work, and the company I work for will 'subcontract' my services for ~£100 per hour (of which I'm paid but a tiny fraction). Imagine, every minute I'm idle (in a traffic jam, or whatever), I'm effectively throwing away over £1.

The most awful thing is that other people value my time at over £1 per minute, so contemplate how much I should value the time myself...would I throw a pound out the car window every minute I'm in a traffic jam, or chuck a fiver on the railway every time my train is late? No.

Even those people working on minimum wage should value their time in this way; the company they work for would value the ten minutes extra sitting on the bus in traffic at ~£1.

The obvious ultimate answer to the costs of congestion and delay (not to mention the environmental impact) is surely to discourage all travel. However, this is somewhat naive and simplistic and on a more practical level, transport (by whatever mode) must be made as efficient as possible in terms of time, cost and environmental impact. Each mode has it's role to play but there is one which has been utilised to it's full advantage in this country; light rail.

 

[yorkie]

I looked at the case for the York - Berverly line and all I can see is a passenger service from york - hull. Perhaps they should instead use money to create paths required to introduce a more frequent one on existing lines.

You totally miss the point! (Also your research is lacking again )

The current York to Hull line has absolutely nothing in common with the line via Beverley (except for the final approach to Hull).

The line was from York via Stamford Bridge, Pocklington, Beverley, Cottingham to Hull. Only Beverley-Hull exists today.

The A1079 road is considered to be a very dangerous road, and some people want £millions to be spent 'improving' that road (which will further encourage more car use), however a more sustainable solution is to rebuild the railway line.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/humber/content/articles/2005/03/22/bev_york_railway_feature.shtml [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]for more info, and see how it makes perfect sense to rebuild it. Believe me, if it's not rebuilt they'll end up wasting £millions on that awful road instead![/FONT]

Beeching's report may have been necessary and some of his ideas were good, but his methodology was sometimes flawed and it was certainly the case here.

He made the mistake of thinking that passengers would accept a massive detour via Selby (the reality is that many choose to drive instead) and disregarding local traffic. He admitted that the line made a profit, but allegedly fudged the figures to try to turn that profit into a "loss". By all means he was right to close some branch lines with few users, but not this line. There can be no doubt that the line would be thriving if it was in use today.

For Max, his journey time to York (and all points north) would be reduced by at least 30 minutes!

(One final question, though it's beside the point, how do you create extra paths on the ECML between Hambleton and York for slow DMUs without affecting the vastly more popular 125mph VXC/GNER services? They'll take up about 3 125mph paths, and trains to York also block the Up Main at Hambleton. Also, what's the point in having a more frequent service when it's very slow compared to the direct route and it won't get people out of their cars?)

 

[Guinness]

The Passenger numbers today are the same as they were in the 1950s. It's been mentioned numerous times by Network Rail and TOCs (especially Virgin). The network may have shrunk by 1/3 but it still carries the same amount of passengers, everyday. I'm unsure about Freight however.

As Metroland said the Railways were losing money. Bad. Money had to be saved somewhere and cost cutting and closing lines had be made, something a Railwayman couldn't have done. Open the Door for Dr Beeching. Someone with a mind full of Business who knew nothing about Railways. Brilliant idea. I'm serious. A Railwayman who was born and bred with steam could never have closed lines or axed Steam, Beeching could. His mind crunched figures and knew where money had to be saved. Just what the Government ordered.

It wasn't all cuts. Beeching Modernised too, he saw money to be made in it. WCML was electrified, money focused on R&D at Derby, Deltics were born and journey times were slashed. Dieselising was the way forwards to return BR to some form of stability. 8 men were apparently needed to Clean and Empty Steam Engines at Nights, Diesels needed one lad to go around shutting valves and turning off switches. 1 man vs 8 men, figure that out in Business Costs.

This Message was brought to by Chaz Style Moderation. "For those posts that randomally appear now and again".

 

[Nick W]

You totally miss the point! (Also your research is lacking again )

An admission that there wouldn't be any freight traffic?

The current York to Hull line has absolutely nothing in common with the line via Beverley (except for the final approach to Hull).

The line was from York via Stamford Bridge, Pocklington, Beverley, Cottingham to Hull. Only Beverley-Hull exists today.


The A1079 road is considered to be a very dangerous road, and some people want £millions to be spent 'improving' that road (which will further encourage more car use), however a more sustainable solution is to rebuild the railway line.

Leave the road out of this as it targets markets a railway line would not. There's no reason we couldn't have both, given that no everything can go by train.

See http://www.bbc.co.uk/humber/content/articles/2005/03/22/bev_york_railway_feature.shtml [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]for more info, and see how it makes perfect sense to rebuild it. Believe me, if it's not rebuilt they'll end up wasting £millions on that awful road instead![/FONT]

Perhaps if they built it as a medum-light railway with 6 tram-trains per hour, and took a deviation to do an FtR style route before terminating in an unused bays at york station, with no interference to the profitable mainline services. That way it might get used more, especially given the complaints about people getting to york. No mention of any people wanting to go beyond york..

Beeching's report may have been necessary and some of his ideas were good, but his methodology was sometimes flawed and it was certainly the case here.

He made the mistake of thinking that passengers would accept a massive detour via Selby (the reality is that many choose to drive instead) and disregarding local traffic. He admitted that the line made a profit, but allegedly fudged the figures to try to turn that profit into a "loss". By all means he was right to close some branch lines with few users, but not this line. There can be no doubt that the line would be thriving if it was in use today.

Still no mention of freight traffic. I'm willing to admit i'm wrong when I see some mention of potential traffic.

For Max, his journey time to York (and all points north) would be reduced by at least 30 minutes!

If he didn't have to then wait 30 minutes for a connection, as i don't think you could fit in so great a frequency of trains.

(One final question, though it's beside the point, how do you create extra paths on the ECML between Hambleton and York for slow DMUs without affecting the vastly more popular 125mph VXC/GNER services? They'll take up about 3 125mph paths, and trains to York also block the Up Main at Hambleton. Also, what's the point in having a more frequent service when it's very slow compared to the direct route and it won't get people out of their cars?)

The "thriving" line would have 3 or 6 coach 100mph DMUs with fast acceleration?

 

[Donny Dave]

Nick, where abouts in York station would this "medium-light" railway fit. The only bay available is P2 (where the current Northern Scarborough services go), as the York - Beverly route diverges from the Scarbough line.

Also your point about connections....

From York, there is 2 GNER and 2 VXC services an hour to Newcastle and Scotland. There is also 2 TPE an hour to Newcastle/Middlesboro.

South, there is 2 GNER services an hour to Doncaster and London, and 2 VXC an hour (1 via Leeds, 1 via Doncaster) to Birmingham, South West and South Coast. There is also a lot of trains each hour to Leeds, with 3 an hour going to Manchester and the WCML.

One last thing, where would these 100mph DMUs come from? There is none spare....

Next time you try to argue something, can you please check your facts first?

 

[Nick W]

Nick, where abouts in York station would this "medium-light" railway fit. The only bay available is P2 (where the current Northern Scarborough services go), as the York - Beverly route diverges from the Scarbough line.

Guess it would have to be the south side of the station then, where there were unuesd bays last time i was there.

Also your point about connections....

From York, there is 2 GNER and 2 VXC services an hour to Newcastle and Scotland. There is also 2 TPE an hour to Newcastle/Middlesboro.

South, there is 2 GNER services an hour to Doncaster and London, and 2 VXC an hour (1 via Leeds, 1 via Doncaster) to Birmingham, South West and South Coast. There is also a lot of trains each hour to Leeds, with 3 an hour going to Manchester and the WCML.

One last thing, where would these 100mph DMUs come from? There is none spare....

We'd better not start re-opening new railway lines then...

Next time you try to argue something, can you please check your facts first?

Sorry I'm not sure where the connections play.

 

[Donny Dave]

For Max, his journey time to York (and all points north) would be reduced by at least 30 minutes!

If he didn't have to then wait 30 minutes for a connection, as i don't think you could fit in so great a frequency of trains

That's the point I was making about connections. It would be quicker for Max to get nearly everywhere from York, than having to go via Hull, then York.

Nick, where abouts in York station would this "medium-light" railway fit. The only bay available is P2 (where the current Northern Scarborough services go), as the York - Beverly route diverges from the Scarborough line

Guess it would have to be the south side of the station then, where there were unuesd bays last time i was there.

OK then, explain how something coming of the Scarborough line can get to P1 and the unused bay without having to run through the station and reverse....

 

[yorkie]

Leave the road out of this as it targets markets a railway line would not. There's no reason we couldn't have both, given that no everything can go by train.

No, the road is integral to this discussion! The fact is that the road is saturated and it's generally accepted that something must be done. You can either increase the capacity of the road or you can reduce the number of people wanting to use it. Your comment above makes no sense.

No mention of any people wanting to go beyond york..

You've concluded that the people of Hull only ever go west, or south? and not north (unless it's to York)? Oh dear..

 

[Z12XE]

Perhaps someone will come along and give me an intercity service with fewer stops and greater frequency, because:
This is the age of the train

I may have read this wrong, but are you saying you think Felixstowe should have an Intercity service?

:?

 

[Max]

OK as a Hull (well, Cottingham) resident I'm going to have my say.

The A1079 is an infamous and extremely dangerous road. The only decent bit is the Beverley by-pass just to the north of Hull, but that's only about 5 miles long. Pretty much all of the rest is a death-trap - fairly narrow, blind spots, large HGV usage, tractors, tight corners, sections of dual carriageway that throw you out into narrow 30 mph roads in villages (look for Hayton on the map!). Overall it is a far from ideal road, with drivers doing dangerous speeds and crazy manouvers to try and overtake slow lorries.

Instead of spending millions upgrading this road, surely the government would be far better off ploughing money into public transport by re-opening the Beverley-York line. It would make perfect sense! They'd be cutting traffic on a hugely overcrowded road, therefore reducing the number of accidents, and cutting emissions as well! From the number of cars that use the A1079 it is clear to see that there is a market for a train service. Virtually all of East Yorkshire's York commuters use the road, because frankly there is little alternative.

There is a bus (X46), but it is very slow, taking around 1 hour 30 minutes from Beverley, as opposed to the journey time of more like 55 minutes by car! Meanwhile, the train, especially for East Yorkshire Wolds passengers is totally worthless. There is an 0640 train from Beverley to York via Hull (direct), but it takes a grand total of 1 hour 40 minutes! I've been on this a handful of times, and I couldn't believe that there were actually a handful of commuters who used this train all the way to York! Surely this shows that if the journey was cut to say around an hour or just under, there would definitely be a market!

If the line doesn't get opened, traffic is going to continue to worsen. It could be years before anything is done on the A1079. A new railway is really the only way forward.

Nick, what are you on about with trams? It's around 35 miles from Hull-York via Market Weighton. Do you really think that kind of system is appropriate? You need to get your facts right and do your research more thoroughly it seems!

 

[yorkie]

Guess it would have to be the south side of the station then, where there were unuesd bays last time i was there.

David - TPE operate all services to Scarborough now, and I'm not aware of anything booked into platform 2 these days (maybe there are some additionals in summer?), so it would be available for use by the Hull services.

Nick - how on earth would trains get to the south side of the station?! This is proof that you have done very little - if any - research on the subject.

The tram idea I will not comment on, because it's just daft.

 

[Ascot]

David - TPE operate all services to Scarborough now, and I'm not aware of anything booked into platform 2 these days (maybe there are some additionals in summer?), so it would be available for use by the Hull services.

Nick - how on earth would trains get to the south side of the station?! This is proof that you have done very little - if any - research on the subject.

The tram idea I will not comment on, because it's just daft.

Thought MML do a summer one to Scarborough (did last year)

 

[WessexWarrior]

As an aside, what do people think about preservationists (such as those on the Somerset and Dorset Railway) who are trying to bring back closed lines in order to reduce modern road congestion?

Could this be evidence that the Beeching cuts in the 60's were short sighted in failing to estimate the massive growth required in public transport?

 

[Nick W]

Read the following story about a line in Germany

In 1994 they took a poorly performing line which in Britain would have been closed ages ago, electrified it (at 15,000v ac), added a few new 'local' halts and replaced the local trains with through services (using dual-voltage light rail vehicles) direct to the heart of the city. Much to their utter astonishment the increase in passengers was over 500%!

At first overcrowding became a problem which initially was solved by running 3-unit trains, although as soon as possible the timetable was recast with increased services to meet the high demand. Then they drew up plans to extend the system to other routes too.

Nowadays the network of regional lines worked by Karlsruhe's LRV's extends to over 400km in length - and is still expanding. Included are some InterCity services to nearby towns such Heilbronn in the neighbouring Neckar region and Baden Baden, which is on the mainline towards Switzerland and involves track sharing with all manner of international freight and passenger trains - including the very high speed ICE (InterCity Express). Here the LRV's provide the 'all-stations' local services whilst 'heavy rail' trains provide the long distance non-stop express services. In some towns some of the new services have seen the construction of new sections of urban tramway so that 'seamless journeys' can be provided between town centres and the pre-existing mainline routes.

In addition:

Transport "experts" seemed surprised that when the trams took over the former mainline service between Wimbledon and West Croydon there was a very significant 700% increase in passenger loadings, despite a longer journey time.

Perhaps it was because the tram service took people where they wanted to go (ie: into the heart of Croydon) without additional travelling? Or maybe that a mainline train every 44 minutes was just plain 'passenger repelling' whilst a tram every 10 minutes is 'passenger enticing'?

And in york itself the ftr busses could use the same alignment.

 

[Nick W]

myopic is the word concerning the Beeching report.

Nick, Trams are generally a short distance vehicles, not fast inter-urban transit. Not suitable for use outside conurbations in general.

This is how I've idenified the problem:

People from communities on a corridon between York and Hull would like to get to a destination at either end of the corridor, or perhaps intermediate places. In addition, there is some traffic from such local communities that wishes to get to York station for onward connections. Finally there is some York - Hull intercity traffic.

Currently this market is being served by a road and slow bus. However this is not idea. A disused alignment exists, but it has been built on in places and misses a few communities, but can be used for 60mph running.

If the problem is:

People from Hull and selected destinations on route want to get to places north of York and a minority want to go to York itself. For some reason they are using a local road not the motorway which is a bit longer distance but faster. There is also freight wanting to use the route.The houses built can be knocked down with an order.

Then I give my sincere apologies and you can delete all my posts.

 

[Max]

This is how I've idenified the problem:

People from communities on a corridon between York and Hull would like to get to a destination at either end of the corridor, or perhaps intermediate places. In addition, there is some traffic from such local communities that wishes to get to York station for onward connections. Finally there is some York - Hull intercity traffic.

Currently this market is being served by a road and slow bus. However this is not idea. A disused alignment exists, but it has been built on in places and misses a few communities, but can be used for 60mph running.

If the problem is:

People from Hull and selected destinations on route want to get to places north of York and a minority want to go to York itself. For some reason they are using a local road not the motorway which is a bit longer distance but faster. There is also freight wanting to use the route.The houses built can be knocked down with an order.

Then I give my sincere apologies and you can delete all my posts.

That is the problem but I don't believe that a tram-type line is a suitable solution. The example you featured from Germany is a very flat, densely populated area, mostly pretty urban. I know because I've been to that area. In contrast, the Hull-York via Market Weighton route is pretty hilly, and extremely rural. Trams would not be suitable at all. In addition, this would require the ordering of new stock, when class 156s/158s would be perfectly suitable! I think the alignment would in many cases allow for more than 60mph running - probably more like 80-90mph I would have thought.

http://citytransport.info/Share.htm - this website is pretty interesting, and seems to explain Nick's concept fairly well. I think in some places it would work, perhaps densely populated regions such as West Yorkshire or Birmingham, but not on such a rural line.

Also, I think a good proportion of the traffic using the A1079 is actually heading for York itself. Some will be heading north, but not all of it by any means. To be honest, the A1079 is hardly a 'minor road'! - just a not very good A-road! The motorway is a much longer way round, and in some cases takes longer than going via York, even if the speeds are higher. Going via York is a good way to get to Middlesborough for example, as it avoids the busy A1, and is a good way of getting to the A19.

 

[Tom]

I'd agree with Nick's first point - but I think if the alignment has capacity for 90mph then I'd say that you should go with it, it would be reasonably handy to expand the network (TPE, etc.).

 

[Nick W]

That is the problem but I don't believe that a tram-type line is a suitable solution. The example you featured from Germany is a very flat, densely populated area, mostly pretty urban.

I know because I've been to that area. In contrast, the Hull-York via Market Weighton route is pretty hilly, and extremely rural. Trams would not be suitable at all. In addition, this would require the ordering of new stock, when class 156s/158s would be perfectly suitable! I think the alignment would in many cases allow for more than 60mph running - probably more like 80-90mph I would have thought.

They started with a rural line, under threat of closure, which feeded a not so major city in Germany. If we're talking about hills then i know that light railway does a good job in sheffield and nottingham.

Interestingly the project was delayed initially so for ages the tramtrains spent all their time on heavy railway making up for other stock shortages, before they began street running.

I'd rather a 30-40mph average speed if I could get off in the centre of where I wanted to go, than 55mph (typical intercity average speed here with 100mph linespeed), with a walk from the station the the centre.

http://citytransport.info/Share.htm - this website is pretty interesting, and seems to explain Nick's concept fairly well. I think in some places it would work, perhaps densely populated regions such as West Yorkshire or Birmingham, but not on such a rural line.

Also, I think a good proportion of the traffic using the A1079 is actually heading for York itself. Some will be heading north, but not all of it by any means. To be honest, the A1079 is hardly a 'minor road'! - just a not very good A-road! The motorway is a much longer way round, and in some cases takes longer than going via York, even if the speeds are higher. Going via York is a good way to get to Middlesborough for example, as it avoids the busy A1, and is a good way of getting to the A19.

So we're looking at intercity services from Hull - Scotland etc via York and Tyneside? Hmm maybe first hull trains and grand central could merge

I'd agree with Nick's first point - but I think if the alignment has capacity for 90mph then I'd say that you should go with it, it would be reasonably handy to expand the network

Only if we demolish what's in the way. Usually it's me in favour of demolition while others tell me it's not acceptable.... eg Northern line could be extended, as planned ages ago but there are now houses in the way...

Remember, we can't even demolish houses under welwyn viaduct these days...