Conservative's policy on HS2 and Crossrail

[DaveNewcastle]

Here's their proposals - quite revolutionary for a Conservative government!
Its a real committment to radical investment in rail infrastructure.
Note too that they've chosen the London - Brimingham route that links through Heathrow, and further north, the Manchester - Leeds cross-pennine link.

"Shadow chancellor George Osborne has today pledged that his party will build London’s £15.9bn Crossrail scheme and start work on a north-south high speed rail line should they win the next General Election.

Launching the Conservatives’ economic model, Osborne said that Britain’s tax system, education and national infrastructure will be revamped to help British firms out-compete others in the world.

“We will create a stable and transparent framework to encourage private sector investment in infrastructure. We support Crossrail,” says the report A New Economic Model: Eight Benchmarks for Britain.

“We will begin work on Britain’s first ever North-South high speed rail line to connect London and Heathrow with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds, increasing
capacity and reducing travel times.

“Our aspiration is to go further in years to come, to a line that stretches north to Newcastle and Scotland and to a network connecting many of the UK’s major cities in a national high-speed network.

“We will also reform the way our existing railways are run, with longer franchises to encourage private sector investment in much needed improvements.”

The Association for Consultancy and Engineering welcomed the announcement, but said it was keen to see how the plans would be financed.

“George Osborne today launched the Conservatives’ policy paper A New Economic Model: Eight Benchmarks for Britain. In it, the shadow chancellor set out a range of policy options to be implemented should the Conservatives form the next government.

“These included an unambiguous commitment to a new high speed railway line linking London and Leeds, with ambitions to connect to Scotland.

The ACE looks forward to seeing further details about how this ambitious programme would be financed,” it said in a statement.

http://www.nce.co.uk/news/business/conservatives-vow-to-build-crossrail-and-begin-work-on-high-speed-rail-line/5213680.article

 

[jopsuk]

Give it a few days, they'll be saying something else. There's rather a lack of consistency when it comes to their economic policy of late.

Not that the other lot are any better, mind. But they seem to be be determined to be consistent in their wrongensss, rather than changing their wrongness every time the wind changes.

 

[royaloak]

Does the statement include any intended time scales, or is it the usual "commitment" without committing to anything?

 

[PhilipW]

Compare this to what Theresa Villers is saying:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/02/03-no-guarantees-about-major-rail.html

which is basically
>>> Crossrail -- not sure
>>> GWR electrification -- not sure
>>> Lancashire electification schemes -- not sure
>>> IEP program -- not sure
>>> Thameslink replacement trains -- not sure

So the summary of Conservative transport policy can be summed up as "not sure" -- hardly a policy to atract votes and instill confidence.

Ah well !

 

[ailsa]

As it happens, I have a letter from my (Conservative) MP this morning. I wrote to him a while ago explicitly asking about Crossrail and GWML electrification.

He states that the Conservative party has always been strongly in support of Crossrail, and that it is an important piece of infrastructure for London. He says that Crossrail will (my italics) reduce congestion and overcrowding, and 'improve accessibility' in London.

Regarding the GWML he states that the Conservative party recognises that electrification is an 'important way to improve efficiency and reduce carbon emissions'. He says however that he cannot see a way in which the GWML electrification can be funded without 'impacting on existing transport commitments, or putting further strain on public finances and making the taxpayer foot the bill'.

He further adds that 'if the Conservatives are elected, rolling programme to fill in the major electrification gaps on the network will be an important priority for us within the constraints of what is affordable'.

Make of it what you will.

 

[gordonthemoron]

he's contradicting himself

 

[ailsa]

My thought is that he's trying to say that Crossrail will go ahead but the GWML electrification would be mothballed.

Maybe 'filling in major electrification gaps' consists of juicing up the neutral sections and stopping tube train lights dimming from time to time :roll:

 

[LMS6202]

"They love me, They love me not"

 

[Chafford1]

Compare this to what Theresa Villers is saying:
http://www.railnews.co.uk/news/general/2010/02/03-no-guarantees-about-major-rail.html

which is basically
>>> Crossrail -- not sure
>>> GWR electrification -- not sure
>>> Lancashire electification schemes -- not sure
>>> IEP program -- not sure
>>> Thameslink replacement trains -- not sure

So the summary of Conservative transport policy can be summed up as "not sure" -- hardly a policy to atract votes and instill confidence.

Ah well !

The last 4 are unlikely. Keep the 319s on Thameslink and there will be no commuter stock for the new electrified lines. Therefore electrification won't go ahead and IEP won't be required.

 

[PhilipW]

Keep the 319s on Thameslink

But there has to be new rolling stock for Thameslink. To get the planned throughput of approx 20tph, there has to be a standard rolling stock. The existing mixture of 319s, 377s et all just won't be able to do it. Neither Labour, Tories or Lib Dems can alter that fact.

If you keep the existing stock and decrease the numbers of tph instead, you are nullifying the whole point of the Thameslink scheme. That doesn't sound like a sensible option either.

With new stock this then leaves many 319s available for work elsewhere. So it's either refurbish them and use them elsewhere or leave them to rot in sidings. One would hope that even the dimmest of politicians (of whatever party) will be able to choose the sensible option there.

 

[tbtc]

But there has to be new rolling stock for Thameslink. To get the planned throughput of approx 20tph, there has to be a standard rolling stock. The existing mixture of 319s, 377s et all just won't be able to do it. Neither Labour, Tories or Lib Dems can alter that fact.

If you keep the existing stock and decrease the numbers of tph instead, you are nullifying the whole point of the Thameslink scheme. That doesn't sound like a sensible option either.

With new stock this then leaves many 319s available for work elsewhere. So it's either refurbish them and use them elsewhere or leave them to rot in sidings. One would hope that even the dimmest of politicians (of whatever party) will be able to choose the sensible option there.

Sorry if this isn't the best place to ask, but how many 319s (and 377s etc) are expected to be "saved" by the new class of Thameslink EMU?

(I'm trying to work out how many there will be to cover existing diagrams in Lancashire, and scope for potential improved services there too)

 

[jopsuk]

I'd have thought that all 86 (subject to weeding out of near dead ones) will be available for cascade- the TL 377s will go to Southern.

 

[tbtc]

I'd have thought that all 86 (subject to weeding out of near dead ones) will be available for cascade- the TL 377s will go to Southern.

Thanks.

I'll try doing the maths on the current number of DMUs used on Manchester Airport Edinburgh, Manchester Airport - Glasgow, Manchester Airport - Blackpool, Manchester Victoria - Blackpool, Manchester Airport - Liverpool, Stockport - Preston, Liverpool - Wigan and Liverpool - Blackpool services (which, AFAIK are the routes that the 319s would run on, based on current service patterns), but off the top of my head there would be a lot spare (Thames Valley local services for them? Maybe even London - Oxford?