Disappointment at lack of high speed rail links

Mar 15 2008 by Peter Montellier, The Journal

The Journal’s reports on the campaign for high speed rail links from the North East have disappointed reader Michael Bell. He questions our ambition and here outlines his vision for the railways and the region.

THE Government has decided that for the next 10 years it will not build any new railway routes, but will concentrate on getting the best out of existing routes.

That takes us to 2018. I do not complain at that. And then?

It will have to build new routes because traffic is growing steadily and upgrading old routes has been a disaster of cost overruns, disruption, and will never allow the higher speeds intended by the work.

However, while it’s generally agreed that after 2018 trunk railways will be new, the lines will be run into existing stations as it is very expensive to build new routes through built-up areas.

There have been plans for “fast railways to the North” (notice the point of view: it thinks out from London) for many years, but in recent times you could say the idea started with John Prescott’s plan for a single-string route: Glasgow – Edinburgh – Newcastle – Middlesbrough – Leeds – Manchester – Birmingham – London.

That journey would be 510 miles long, compared to the 410 road miles between Glasgow and London, but the higher speed would more than offset the longer distance.

In our long thin country, the route strings together so many main centres, it would be overwhelmingly our “mainline”.

And the North East would be on it.

Through this region, the new route would mostly be built parallel to the Berwick – Newcastle route, one of the fastest in Britain, bypassing Morpeth where a bend restricts speed to 50mph.

It would run through Newcastle and Gateshead, before turning eastwards in the Chester-le-Street area to stop (“slow” trains only) at the Raintons on the A690 Durham – Sunderland road.

It would then run parallel to the A19 to a new station on the south bank of the Tees. Teesside is a much more important destination than Darlington, yet the present rail route between Newcastle and Middlesbrough involves a change at Darlington and takes about an hour.

To cut this down to 15 or 20 minutes would benefit Tyneside and Teesside. The route would continue southwards to cross the old mainline in the Thirsk area on the way to Leeds. York would be on a loop as a through route would have a sharp, speed-reducing bend.

This being the obvious solution, what are we offered? “They” all say the first stage will be London – Birmingham, then Birmingham – Manchester and already we see curious design choices.

The London – Birmingham route would go to Birmingham city centre; that’s obviously right, but the route wouldn’t go on from there to Manchester. Instead, cost fears would force the route to Manchester to stop in the suburbs of Birmingham, bypassing its centre.

Another fork on the London – Birmingham route would take the line to Leicester – Nottingham – Sheffield– Leeds, and on to Newcastle and Scotland.

The reason for this, apparently, is to avoid crossing the Pennines, yet high-power, high-speed trains can climb hills that would be difficult for older trains. The end result of forking the route like this would mean it would take another 20 years for high-speed rail to reach the North East and Scotland.

I feel the evidence supports the view that this planning has been done to spite the North and keep transport innovation for London.

The single-string route is obviously better. There are no good reasons against it, but there are bad ones. The single-string route would allow people from many parts of the country to meet anywhere along the route. London would not like that.

The layout of new routes seems to be designed to spread out to the regions to collect as much as possible from them to bring it to London and to make it as hard as possible for them to deal with each other.

We in the North have become too used to craving what we can from London without asking whether it’s actually good for us.

Some aspects of what’s offered seem designed to limit us. It is in the interests of the North East to prefer the single-string route; we’ll could get it 20 years sooner and it would connect us to so many more important places.

Michael Bell was born in North Shields and has had a lifelong interest in railways. A Newcastle University graduate, he worked as an industrial hygienist for Vauxhall Motors in Luton. Following his retirement, he moved back to Newcastle.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

MP raises the question of reopening rail link

THE future of a mothballed rail link that would provide a boost to North East passengers if it is reopened will be discussed in Whitehall.

Durham City MP Roberta Blackman-Woods will meet Rail Minister Tom Harris to discuss the Leamside line next week after the Government indicated no reassessment of the route was planned. Transport experts say re- opening the 21-mile link from south of Durham to Tyneside would divert freight off the East Coast Main Line, allowing quicker and more frequent passenger trains to use the track.

Dr Blackman-Woods had asked Transport Secretary Ruth Kelly what assessment had been made of the future of the route following the conclusion of a long-term strategy for the East Coast Main Line. In a written Commons answer, Rail Minister Tom Harris replied that the strategy "did not promote increased use of the Leamside line for the foreseeable future."

But a worried Dr Blackman-Woods said she was reassured after speaking to the Department for Transport. "I am reassured in that they have given the meeting with the minister really quickly. They know there is a problem with the response; it doesn’t reflect the context of the question," she said.

The Labour MP explained she had always known any scheme would be implemented after 2012, the date when current railway plans run up to.

"I will have to wait for the next answer to find out what is planned for the future stages of rail investment," said Dr Blackman-Woods.