Hansard – Prime Ministers Questions 25th June 2008-06-27
Quote
Q6. [213432] Norman Baker (Lewes)(LD): As a Scottish MP, the Prime
Minister will have noticed the strong success of the recently reopened
railway between Stirling and Alloa, where passenger numbers are
currently three times greater than the projected figure for 2011, and
the reopened line to Ebbw Vale in Wales is similarly a success story.
If reopening lines in Scotland and Wales makes such good economic
sense, why has the Department for Transport ruled out, despite the
strong social and environmental case, reopening lines in England, such
as the line from Lewes to Uckfield?
The Prime Minister: Last year, we said that we want to double the
capacity of the existing network, which includes the whole of the
United Kingdom. We have invited Network Rail to examine options for
supporting further growth, which might include new lines and
electrification. The hon. Gentleman will find that Network Rail and
the Government are looking at those issues. I also hope that he
acknowledges that we have committed £10 billion to increasing capacity
over the next five years, which will result in the single biggest
increase in capacity for a generation, 1,300 new carriages and funding
for major projects in all parts of the country. We are honouring our
commitment to the railways of this country, which is why more people
are using the railways than at any time since the 1940s.
Unquote

On 27 Jun, 08:19, Mwmbwls  wrote:
> Hansard – Prime Ministers Questions 25th June 2008-06-27
> Quote
> Q6. [213432] Norman Baker (Lewes)(LD): As a Scottish MP, the Prime
> Minister will have noticed the strong success of the recently reopened
> railway between Stirling and Alloa, where passenger numbers are
> currently three times greater than the projected figure for 2011, and
> the reopened line to Ebbw Vale in Wales is similarly a success story.
> If reopening lines in Scotland and Wales makes such good economic
> sense, why has the Department for Transport ruled out, despite the
> strong social and environmental case, reopening lines in England, such
> as the line from Lewes to Uckfield?
> The Prime Minister: Last year, we said that we want to double the
> capacity of the existing network, which includes the whole of the
> United Kingdom. We have invited Network Rail to examine options for
> supporting further growth, which might include new lines and
> electrification. The hon. Gentleman will find that Network Rail and
> the Government are looking at those issues. I also hope that he
> acknowledges that we have committed £10 billion to increasing capacity
> over the next five years, which will result in the single biggest
> increase in capacity for a generation, 1,300 new carriages and funding
> for major projects in all parts of the country. We are honouring our
> commitment to the railways of this country, which is why more people
> are using the railways than at any time since the 1940s.
> Unquote

'Might' include new lines and electrification.

What else might support extra growth?

14 coach trains double headed with Deltics?

Still, analysing ministerial statements for subtle nuance is a mugs'
game - if fun.  At least he mentions new lines and the E-word.

"Capt. Deltic"  wrote:
>
>'Might' include new lines and electrification.
>
>What else might support extra growth?
>
>14 coach trains double headed with Deltics?
>
>Still, analysing ministerial statements for subtle nuance is a mugs'
>game - if fun.  At least he mentions new lines and the E-word.



There is absolutely no point trying to read anything into what
ministers are saying - about anything.  This Government is on its way
out.  The Government knows it.  The opposition know it.  The media
know it.  The electorate knows it.

Anything that the Government might now be saying about the future is
meaningless.  They can talk as much as they want, because they aren't
going to be in office long enough to implement any of it.  Two years
from now, they will be gone. 

Listening to the Tories' plans makes more sense, since they have a
good chance of being put into practice.  The Tories are strong
supporters of high speed rail, and they have been looking at it in
some detail for several years now.  What is needed now is to convince
them of the benefits of electrification.  

Over to you, Captain Deltic!

(Should we rename you Captain Electra for this project?)

On Jun 27, 8:19 am, Mwmbwls  wrote:
> Hansard – Prime Ministers Questions 25th June 2008-06-27
> Quote
> Q6. [213432] Norman Baker (Lewes)(LD): As a Scottish MP, the Prime
> Minister will have noticed the strong success of the recently reopened
> railway between Stirling and Alloa, where passenger numbers are
> currently three times greater than the projected figure for 2011, and
> the reopened line to Ebbw Vale in Wales is similarly a success story.
> If reopening lines in Scotland and Wales makes such good economic
> sense, why has the Department for Transport ruled out, despite the
> strong social and environmental case, reopening lines in England, such
> as the line from Lewes to Uckfield?
>
The story moves on but who are the Central Rail Corridor Board?

http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/seaford/More-work-needed-on-idea.4238399.jp
quote
More work needed on idea for train link
FURTHER work must take place to decide the fate of the possible
reinstatement of the Lewes to Uckfield rail line — an issue Seaford MP
Norman Baker is supporting.
A study into the matter has been termed 'substantially complete' by
the Central Rail Corridor Board but more talks must go ahead before a
conclusion is reached.

Mr Baker has launched a policy paper with proposals to significantly
increase long-term rail investment and one of the improvements to the
railways the Shadow Transport Secretary suggests includes the
reinstatement of the Lewes-Uckfield line.

The MP said the case for re-opening this journey was overwhelming and
would have social, economic and environmental benefits for local
people.

The Central Rail Corridor Board met on June 20 to receive the draft of
the study from Network Rail. After much deliberation, the Board judged
that there are still issues that require clarification.

Network Rail will present a final version of the study to the board in
July.

Once the board is satisfied that all relevant matters have been taken
into consideration, the report will be published and the public
invited to comment.

Details of how to obtain a copy of the study and comment forms will be
made available.

Councillor Rupert Simmons, chairman of the Central Rail Corridor
Board, said, "A lot of time and effort has been put into getting the
report to the stage it is at and a lot of professional expertise has
been brought to bear on the matter.

"It is essential that comments are invited from local communities and
organisations so that we do not miss any evidence before the Central
Rail Corridor Board makes a decision on whether or not to progress to
a next stage study.

"We will develop a consultation exercise to inform the Board at a
decision making meeting on this study, which is likely to be in
October.
"I want to ensure that the board does not miss any new evidence before
it decides on the future of this rail link
unquote

Mwmbwls wrote:
> The story moves on but who are the Central Rail Corridor Board?
>
> http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/seaford/More-work-needed-on-idea.4238399.jp
> quote
> "More work needed on idea for train link...

From the information pack here:

http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/roads/roadschemes/rail/default.htm

"The Central Rail Corridor Board [seems to be led by East Sussex CC]
comprises local MPs and representatives from regional, county and district
levels, to provide a planning and policy perspective for reinstatement of
the Central Rail Corridor..."

"Southern Railway; South East England Development Agency; South East England
Regional Assembly; East Sussex, Wealden and Lewes Councils; and, Uckfield,
Lewes and Crowborough Town Councils..."

Paul

"Paul Scott"  wrote in message 
news:drydnVNfPIsEdvDVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> Mwmbwls wrote:
>> The story moves on but who are the Central Rail Corridor Board?
>>
>> http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/seaford/More-work-needed-on-idea.4238399.jp
>> quote
>> "More work needed on idea for train link...
>
> From the information pack here:
>
> http://www.eastsussex.gov.uk/roadsandtransport/roads/roadschemes/rail/default.htm
>
> "The Central Rail Corridor Board [seems to be led by East Sussex CC]
> comprises local MPs and representatives from regional, county and district
> levels, to provide a planning and policy perspective for reinstatement of
> the Central Rail Corridor..."
>
> "Southern Railway; South East England Development Agency; South East 
> England
> Regional Assembly; East Sussex, Wealden and Lewes Councils; and, Uckfield,
> Lewes and Crowborough Town Councils..."
>
> Paul
>

Seems slightly ironic given that ESCC were one of the main instigators in 
the closing of the railway, IIRC, the closure of the railway cleared the way 
for the Lewes ring road.

Paul

It's not looking good:

http://home.clara.net/wealdenline/st_set.html

EE507  wrote:

>It's not looking good:
>
>http://home.clara.net/wealdenline/st_set.html



No surprise there.  The economic case for re-opening a rural railway
was always going to be marginal at best.  Network Rail's study has
shown that it isn't even marginal.

>
> There is absolutely no point trying to read anything into what
> ministers are saying - about anything.  This Government is on its way
> out.  The Government knows it.  The opposition know it.  The media
> know it.  The electorate knows it.
>

Actually, the mathematics is very interesting.

The size of the Government’s majority still suggests they’re unlikely
to be beaten outright in an election but the opinion polls (and by-
election results) say they haven’t got a chance.

Either way, one historical precedent will have to be broken whatever
the result.

There’s also the Brown factor and Thursday’s result could have a big
bearing on that.

For Brown to go, the blood letting required would be immense however
the blood letting required for him to claim the throne was already
considerable, something festering away that can’t be ignored.

From a historical perspective, these are very interesting times and,
purely from the perspective of historical interest (of course), it
would be absolutely marvellous if Labour suffered a (still unlikely)
defeat on Thursday.

It’s a great time to be a historian because, for sure, the rise of
Gordon Brown to power has occurred in the way that is quite
unprecedented in recent times and all very Machiavellian.

>
> No surprise there.  The economic case for re-opening a rural railway
> was always going to be marginal at best.  Network Rail's study has
> shown that it isn't even marginal.

Given the context that a highly successful franchise such as Gatwick
Express has had to be scrapped in order to provide a fudge solution to
Brighton line capacity, I would suggest that considering the Uckfield
reopening purely in terms of a rural railway is the sort of
consideration that, to me anyway, says we just don't want to do it –
please go away.

It was a most stupid and entirely spiteful ‘ulterior motive inspired’
closure in the first place.

In message 
          allan tracy  wrote:

[snip]
> 
> It=92s a great time to be a historian because, for sure, the rise of
> Gordon Brown to power has occurred in the way that is quite
> unprecedented in recent times and all very Machiavellian.

Callaghan?

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

On Jul 23, 5:32 pm, allan tracy  wrote:
> > No surprise there.  The economic case for re-opening a rural railway
> > was always going to be marginal at best.  Network Rail's study has
> > shown that it isn't even marginal.
>
> Given the context that a highly successful franchise such as Gatwick
> Express has had to be scrapped in order to provide a fudge solution to
> Brighton line capacity

Hardly scrapped, more integrated into Southern with peak extensions to/
from Brighton.  You're right that this probably won't work very well,
especially in the up direction with trains arriving full at Gatwick.
I've seen the timetables and can confirm sensible GTW dwell times have
been incorporated.

> I would suggest that considering the Uckfield
> reopening purely in terms of a rural railway is the sort of
> consideration that, to me anyway, says we just don't want to do it –
> please go away.

Yes, it goes way beyond a rural railway.  Uckfield will cease to be
rural given its expansion plans, BML capacity is saturated, a sensible
diversionary route is needed during weekend closures and, possibly,
modern DMUs could be cascaded elsewhere.  Unfortunately the nature of
the layout at Lewes makes running to Brighton extremely difficult.
This fact alone could generate an unfavourable CBA, even more so if
Hurst Green-Oxted electrification costs are also (incorrectly)
apportioned solely to this project.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:28:39 +0100, EE507  wrote:

> On Jul 23, 5:32 pm, allan tracy  wrote:
>> > No surprise there.  The economic case for re-opening a rural railway
>> > was always going to be marginal at best.  Network Rail's study has
>> > shown that it isn't even marginal.
>>
>> Given the context that a highly successful franchise such as Gatwick
>> Express has had to be scrapped in order to provide a fudge solution to
>> Brighton line capacity
>
> Hardly scrapped, more integrated into Southern with peak extensions to/
> from Brighton.  You're right that this probably won't work very well,
> especially in the up direction with trains arriving full at Gatwick.
> I've seen the timetables and can confirm sensible GTW dwell times have
> been incorporated.
>
>> I would suggest that considering the Uckfield
>> reopening purely in terms of a rural railway is the sort of
>> consideration that, to me anyway, says we just don't want to do it –
>> please go away.
>
> Yes, it goes way beyond a rural railway.  Uckfield will cease to be
> rural given its expansion plans, BML capacity is saturated, a sensible
> diversionary route is needed during weekend closures and, possibly,
> modern DMUs could be cascaded elsewhere.  Unfortunately the nature of
> the layout at Lewes makes running to Brighton extremely difficult.
> This fact alone could generate an unfavourable CBA, even more so if
> Hurst Green-Oxted electrification costs are also (incorrectly)
> apportioned solely to this project.

Unfortunately any argument about BML capacity would be demolished by  
simply comparing the cost benefit of Lewes-Uckfield against a scheme to  
re-open Haywards Heath to East Grinstead. Sorry bluebell Suporters1

PAUL

-- 
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

allan tracy wrote:

> for sure, the rise of Gordon Brown to power has occurred in the way
> that is quite unprecedented in recent times

A Chancellor of the Exchequer becoming PM between general elections, on
no more than the say-so of his party?

Gosh, you're right - this is the first time it's happened since 27 Nov
1990. How amazing.

-- 
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13857143.html
(37 099 at Colchester, 6 May 1980)

>
> Callaghan?
>

... was the last person to be told he was to become PM.

Wilson's decision to resign was his own.

Blair's decision to resign was a back knife meeting.

Brown had resorted to plotting, planning and all round disloyalty to
achieve his goal. Nothing new in that (remember Heseltine) what's new
is that he has prospered by it (and been allowed to do so) - that's
what's so unprecedented.

You probably have to go back to Richard III for something like this.

As Heseltine reminded his supporters, whilst overthrowing Maggie, the
tradition has always been ‘he that wields the dagger never wears the
crown’ and in his case so it was. It’s British good manners and more
importantly acts as a healing process within the party as neither side
completely gets their way.

That’s why Brown’s rise to power is so interesting all the bile is
still there, in tact, festering away. Blair was deposed despite there
being no pressure from the electorate or the party, quite the contrary
he had just won a third term.

Brown put his own ambition before party and country and without
reference to either, it may be in the rules but boy does that create
fall out – interesting times.

On 23 Jul, 22:57, allan tracy  wrote:
> That’s why Brown’s rise to power is so interesting all the bile is
> still there, in tact, festering away. Blair was deposed despite there
> being no pressure from the electorate or the party, quite the contrary
> he had just won a third term.

Sorry, what? Is your memory so short you can't remember how reviled
Blair was 18 months ago, and how pleased everyone initially was to see
Brown on sheer anyone-but-Blair grounds?

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

>
> Sorry, what? Is your memory so short you can't remember how reviled
> Blair was 18 months ago, and how pleased everyone initially was to see
> Brown on sheer anyone-but-Blair grounds?
>

Only amongst traditional Labour supporters, the fact he was returned
for a third term shortly before is evidence enough of his core
popularity.

It should also be remembered that the war was not universally
unpopular, I know many that were quite pleased about it all.

On Jul 24, 1:20 pm, allan tracy  wrote:
> > Sorry, what? Is your memory so short you can't remember how reviled
> > Blair was 18 months ago, and how pleased everyone initially was to see
> > Brown on sheer anyone-but-Blair grounds?
>
> Only amongst traditional Labour supporters, the fact he was returned
> for a third term shortly before is evidence enough of his core
> popularity.

Hardly - it's evidence of how reviled Michael Howard was. Check
Blair's personal approval numbers:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4717504.stm

> It should also be remembered that the war was not universally
> unpopular, I know many that were quite pleased about it all.

Arms dealers, mercenaries and gibbering idiots, presumably.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org

In message 
          allan tracy  wrote:

> >
> > Callaghan?
> >
> 
> .. was the last person to be told he was to become PM.
> 
> Wilson's decision to resign was his own.

Alledgedly.

> 
> Blair's decision to resign was a back knife meeting.

Don't believe everything you read in the tabloids.

> 
> Brown had resorted to plotting, planning and all round disloyalty to
> achieve his goal. Nothing new in that (remember Heseltine) what's new
> is that he has prospered by it (and been allowed to do so) - that's
> what's so unprecedented.
> 
> You probably have to go back to Richard III for something like this.

You have a poor grasp of history then.


-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>

In message 
          allan tracy  wrote:

> >
> > Sorry, what? Is your memory so short you can't remember how reviled
> > Blair was 18 months ago, and how pleased everyone initially was to see
> > Brown on sheer anyone-but-Blair grounds?
> >
> 
> Only amongst traditional Labour supporters, the fact he was returned
> for a third term shortly before is evidence enough of his core
> popularity.
> 

Possibly more to do with the fact that the Tories were still unelectable last
time round.

-- 
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at <http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html>