A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
could link Leeds with Manchester.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml

-- 
 
Regards

Mike

mikedotroebuckatgmxdotnet

Mike Roebuck wrote:

> A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
> could link Leeds with Manchester.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml
> 


But the first maglev line in the country (world?) linked Birmingham 
airport with the station!  It was such a roaring success they replaced 
it with a cable hauled thingy.

Robin

In message , at 13:56:19 on 
Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Mike Roebuck  remarked:

>A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
>could link Leeds with Manchester.
>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml


It's a London to Edinburgh line, taking a scenic route via Birmingham 
and Manchester. The Leeds-Manchester (and Leeds-Newcastle) aspect is 
simply some local journo in Leeds with a slow news day.
-- 
Roland Perry

"Mike Roebuck"  wrote in message
news:lt9hf154lro8hib4mut07t6j0q02f1ti8g@4ax.com...

> A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
> could link Leeds with Manchester.
>
>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml

It was reported with great gusto on Real Radio yesterday (must have been a
quiet news day) as a "30 million scheme" to connect Leeds and London in an
hour by 2009 using trains which magically float above the track with other
related nonsense, vox pops etc. I wonder if 30 million is the advertising
budget?

Carl Bowman wrote:


> It was reported with great gusto on Real Radio yesterday (must have been a
> quiet news day) as a "30 million scheme" to connect Leeds and London in an
> hour by 2009 using trains which magically float above the track with other
> related nonsense, vox pops etc. I wonder if 30 million is the advertising
> budget?


It'll be ready in 2009, and a sod hasn't even been turned, yet people in 
Kent will have to wait until 2009 to see domestic trains running on the 
CTRL which is nearly finished!

30 billion seems a more realistic cost...

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:40:19 +0100, "Carl Bowman"
 wrote:


>"Mike Roebuck"  wrote in message
>news:lt9hf154lro8hib4mut07t6j0q02f1ti8g@4ax.com...
>> A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
>> could link Leeds with Manchester.
>>
>>
>http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml
>
>It was reported with great gusto on Real Radio yesterday (must have been a
>quiet news day) as a "30 million scheme" to connect Leeds and London in an
>hour by 2009 using trains which magically float above the track with other
>related nonsense, vox pops etc. I wonder if 30 million is the advertising
>budget?


30 million on that? Hell, they can't even get their supertram project
going.

Cheers

Chris

In article ,
Chris Johns <cmj@eh.org.invalid> wrote:


>On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:40:19 +0100, "Carl Bowman"
> wrote:
>
>>"Mike Roebuck"  wrote in message
>>news:lt9hf154lro8hib4mut07t6j0q02f1ti8g@4ax.com...
>>> A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
>>> could link Leeds with Manchester.
>>>
>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml
>>
>>It was reported with great gusto on Real Radio yesterday (must have been a
>>quiet news day) as a "30 million scheme" to connect Leeds and London in an
>>hour by 2009 using trains which magically float above the track with other
>>related nonsense, vox pops etc. I wonder if 30 million is the advertising
>>budget?
>
>30 million on that? Hell, they can't even get their supertram project
>going.


The article at the top says 30 *b*illion for the whole London to Glasgow
scheme. Either it's typical Real Radio garbage [*] or the section north of
Leeds is really expensive compared to the southern section.

[*] I nearly missed a train last summer when it took me three times as long
to walk from Glasgow Central to Glasgow Queen Street as it normally does,
due to dozens of morons stopping me and asking me if I was the Real Radio
[something]; apparently some stupid competition they were running which got
out of hand.

Cat.

R.C. Payne wrote:

> Mike Roebuck wrote:
> > A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
> > could link Leeds with Manchester.
> >
> > http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml
> >
>
> But the first maglev line in the country (world?) linked Birmingham
> airport with the station!  It was such a roaring success they replaced
> it with a cable hauled thingy.
>
> Robin


Actually, I think the main problem with the Maglev was sourcing spares
as B'ham Airport was the only ever customer.

Ride was much smoother than the new sky train and it was also quieter
due to not being fitted with in-train entertainment.

Mind you, the Maglev probably gave you cancer.

"Carl Bowman"  wrote in message
news:3lrtg9F143lfjU1@individual.net...

> "Mike Roebuck"  wrote in message
> news:lt9hf154lro8hib4mut07t6j0q02f1ti8g@4ax.com...
> > A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
> > could link Leeds with Manchester.
> >
> >
>

http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml

>
> It was reported with great gusto on Real Radio yesterday (must have been a
> quiet news day) as a "30 million scheme" to connect Leeds and London in
an
> hour by 2009 using trains which magically float above the track with other
> related nonsense, vox pops etc. I wonder if 30 million is the advertising
> budget?


It was a VERY quiet day in BBC Leeds - which is why the story ran.

Sadly there wasn't time to discuss how much the electricity would cost, per
passenger, to move them at these fantastic speeds. If it ever did "get off
the ground" I'd hope it got slapped with a massive tax for its energy
inefficiency, we're supposed to be working towards more efficient
transport - not less!

TM

Roland Perry wrote:

> In message , at 13:56:19 on 
> Tue, 9 Aug 2005, Mike Roebuck  remarked:
> 
>> A BBC report hints that the first Maglev main line in this country
>> could link Leeds with Manchester.
>>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/leeds/content/articles/2005/08/05/travel_maglev_train_feature.shtml 
>>
> 
> 
> It's a London to Edinburgh line, taking a scenic route via Birmingham 
> and Manchester. The Leeds-Manchester (and Leeds-Newcastle) aspect is 
> simply some local journo in Leeds with a slow news day.


Looking at the map on the BBC site, there's also a spur from "E Mcr" to 
"S Yorks" heading in a Woodheadwardly direction...  maybe Guide Bridge 
Parkway lives !

(and we just did all the S.R. gags again recently, so don't even think 
of it...)

The Maglev thing is one big red herring.

Just another transport project that's being talked about for the long
term. Road pricing is the same - fifteen years time. It's all just a
way for New Labour to sound as if it is doing something, whilst
actually doing nothing.

They are not interested and TB is on record as saying so. Education,
education and health are the priorities, those self serving
institutions of the new left.

For the railways, we are reduced to SRA micro managed initiatives where
an extra train in the timetable, here and there, is presented as a big
deal.

"Tony Miles"  wrote in message
news:ddb48q$d46$3$8300dec7@news.beeb.net...

> Sadly there wasn't time to discuss how much the electricity would cost,
per
> passenger, to move them at these fantastic speeds. If it ever did "get off
> the ground" I'd hope it got slapped with a massive tax for its energy
> inefficiency, we're supposed to be working towards more efficient
> transport - not less!


Never mind the electricity, it would have to earn 2.4 billion a year
operating surplus just to match the Treasury's requirement for an 8% rate of
return.  To cover that it would need either an astronomic number of
passengers (and capacity to match) or else astronomic fares.

Roger

"Roger H. Bennett"  wrote:


>Never mind the electricity, it would have to earn 2.4 billion a year
>operating surplus just to match the Treasury's requirement for an 8% rate of
>return.  To cover that it would need either an astronomic number of
>passengers (and capacity to match) or else astronomic fares.



Sounds like a job for Virgin Trains.

;-)

I thought this was an April Fools joke that had got out of hand.
Watching the local news in Leeds, the maglev company did sound very
convincing. As previously mentioned though we can't even win the
supertram bid, so little point in chasing this very expensive option.

What also stuck me was where are they going to build the track?

I thought this was an April Fools joke that had got out of hand.
Watching the local news in Leeds, the maglev company did sound very
convincing. As previously mentioned though we can't even win the
supertram bid, so little point in chasing this very expensive option.

What also stuck me was where are they going to build the track?

Gee-Bee wrote:


> What also stuck me was where are they going to build the track?


A minor detail ;)

-- 
Jonathan Stott
Canterbury Weather: http://www.canterburyweather.co.uk/
Reverse my e-mail address to reply by e-mail

In message , at 
13:57:41 on Tue, 9 Aug 2005, allan tracy  
remarked:

>They are not interested and TB is on record as saying so. Education,
>education and health are the priorities, those self serving
>institutions of the new left.


Except education isn't. Yet again this year the schools have been given 
new tasks to do (regarding new working practices and hours for teachers) 
but not the money to do it. Instead of funding rising with inflation, 
it's effectively falling :-(
-- 
Roland Perry

Gee-Bee wrote:


> I thought this was an April Fools joke that had got out of hand.
> Watching the local news in Leeds, the maglev company did sound very
> convincing. As previously mentioned though we can't even win the
> supertram bid, so little point in chasing this very expensive option.
> 
> What also stuck me was where are they going to build the track?
> 


If we're talking about Manchester - Leeds, there's maybe enough room 
alongside the existing TPX line which used to be four-tracks all the 
way, plus some nice empty tunnels to use.

It'd rattle the windows of the residents of Micklehurst though :-)

(Actually quite a lot of the Micklehurst loop has been filled in or 
built on or bridges removed etc. and I guess the same is true of the 
Leeds New Line too, so maybe not !).

IIRC, there were other proposals to build it on a deck on top of the M62!

The whole thing is a complete joke. I can't help myself laughing at the
comments on this subject.

If only the existing infrastructure could be run effeciently!!!

On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 08:31:58 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:


>Except education isn't. Yet again this year the schools have been given 
>new tasks to do (regarding new working practices and hours for teachers) 
>but not the money to do it. Instead of funding rising with inflation, 
>it's effectively falling :-(


You can't have money, we have illegal wars to pay for you know!

Cheers

Chris

> Sadly there wasn't time to discuss how much the electricity would cost, 
> per
> passenger, to move them at these fantastic speeds. If it ever did "get off
> the ground" I'd hope it got slapped with a massive tax for its energy
> inefficiency, we're supposed to be working towards more efficient
> transport - not less!
>


I'd rather have a Maglev system running on windmills / wavepower / tidal 
schemes / even nuclear than carry on down the road of more and more domestic 
flights chucking out CO2 and using up fossil fuels...