https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-documents/the-growth-plan-2022-html#annex-b-infrastructure-projects

Annex B: Infrastructure Projects
The list below sets out infrastructure projects which will be accelerated
as fast as possible, aiming to get the vast majority starting construction
by the end of 2023. These projects may benefit from acceleration through
planning reform, regulatory reform, improved processes or other options to
speed up their development and construction, including through development
consent processes.

Presence on this list does not guarantee, where applicable, funding,
planning consent or approval for other regulatory or permitting processes
and the list is non-exhaustive of all projects which may benefit from
acceleration.

Where local authorities or agencies are the delivery leads, it is the
government’s intent to support where possible in acceleration.

<snip road projects>

Rail
87. Cambridge South Station

88. Northumberland Line

89. White Rose Station

90. Thorpe Park

91. Transpennine Route Upgrade

92. East West Rail

93. Leeds Station Enhancement

94. Manchester Improvements

95. Midland Main Line Phase 3

96. Northern Powerhouse Rail

In message <tgk5tl$2h0oo$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:39:33 on Fri, 23 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-document
>s/the-growth-plan-2022-html#annex-b-infrastructure-projects
>
>Annex B: Infrastructure Projects
>The list below sets out infrastructure projects which will be accelerated
>as fast as possible, aiming to get the vast majority starting construction
>by the end of 2023. These projects may benefit from acceleration through
>planning reform, regulatory reform, improved processes or other options to
>speed up their development and construction, including through development
>consent processes.
>
>Presence on this list does not guarantee, where applicable, funding,
>planning consent or approval for other regulatory or permitting processes
>and the list is non-exhaustive of all projects which may benefit from
>acceleration.
>
>Where local authorities or agencies are the delivery leads, it is the
>government’s intent to support where possible in acceleration.
>
> <snip road projects>
>
>Rail
>87. Cambridge South Station

A station hailed by NR not as serving the bio-campus, but as somewhere
for people living in the new housing south of Cambridge to commute to
London. And of course adding yet another station stop to through
services, which are becoming slower and slower over the years.

>88. Northumberland Line
>
>89. White Rose Station
>
>90. Thorpe Park
>
>91. Transpennine Route Upgrade
>
>92. East West Rail

I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
moment.

>93. Leeds Station Enhancement
>
>94. Manchester Improvements
>
>95. Midland Main Line Phase 3

That's electrification from south of Leicester to Sheffield.

>96. Northern Powerhouse Rail

Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
north of Birmingham?
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgk5tl$2h0oo$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:39:33 on Fri, 23 Sep
> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-document
>> s/the-growth-plan-2022-html#annex-b-infrastructure-projects
>>
>> Annex B: Infrastructure Projects
>> The list below sets out infrastructure projects which will be accelerated
>> as fast as possible, aiming to get the vast majority starting construction
>> by the end of 2023. These projects may benefit from acceleration through
>> planning reform, regulatory reform, improved processes or other options to
>> speed up their development and construction, including through development
>> consent processes.
>>
>> Presence on this list does not guarantee, where applicable, funding,
>> planning consent or approval for other regulatory or permitting processes
>> and the list is non-exhaustive of all projects which may benefit from
>> acceleration.
>>
>> Where local authorities or agencies are the delivery leads, it is the
>> government’s intent to support where possible in acceleration.
>>
>> <snip road projects>
>>
>> Rail
>> 87. Cambridge South Station
>
> A station hailed by NR not as serving the bio-campus, but as somewhere
> for people living in the new housing south of Cambridge to commute to
> London. And of course adding yet another station stop to through
> services, which are becoming slower and slower over the years.
>
That’s not what NR say

Benefits

The new station would connect the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with
potential destinations such as central London, London Stansted Airport,
Ely, Birmingham and Europe.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/improving-the-railway-in-anglia/cambridge-south-station/

In message <tgkg9h$2ht8v$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:36:33 on Fri, 23 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgk5tl$2h0oo$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:39:33 on Fri, 23 Sep
>> 2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-document
>>> s/the-growth-plan-2022-html#annex-b-infrastructure-projects
>>>
>>> Annex B: Infrastructure Projects
>>> The list below sets out infrastructure projects which will be accelerated
>>> as fast as possible, aiming to get the vast majority starting construction
>>> by the end of 2023. These projects may benefit from acceleration through
>>> planning reform, regulatory reform, improved processes or other options to
>>> speed up their development and construction, including through development
>>> consent processes.
>>>
>>> Presence on this list does not guarantee, where applicable, funding,
>>> planning consent or approval for other regulatory or permitting processes
>>> and the list is non-exhaustive of all projects which may benefit from
>>> acceleration.
>>>
>>> Where local authorities or agencies are the delivery leads, it is the
>>> government’s intent to support where possible in acceleration.
>>>
>>> <snip road projects>
>>>
>>> Rail
>>> 87. Cambridge South Station
>>
>> A station hailed by NR not as serving the bio-campus, but as somewhere
>> for people living in the new housing south of Cambridge to commute to
>> London. And of course adding yet another station stop to through
>> services, which are becoming slower and slower over the years.
>>
>That’s not what NR say
>
>Benefits
>
>The new station would connect the Cambridge Biomedical Campus with
>potential destinations such as central London, London Stansted Airport,
>Ely, Birmingham and Europe.
>
>https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/impr
>oving-the-railway-in-anglia/cambridge-south-station/

I went to their "Open Day" which was just about the last thing before
lockdown, and it was entirely clear that their plans were all to do with
a new outer-suburban commuter station for London.

As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't just
take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on 1tph
trains?

And as for connecting it to Ely, there's almost no-one of the fairly
small community commuting from Ely to the Biocampus who wouldn't be just
as well served by the existing train to Cambridge and the Guided bus.

--
Roland Perry

On 23/09/2022 16:18, Roland Perry wrote:

> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
> Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't just
> take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on 1tph
> trains?

I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems wrong to
travel South into the centre of London to catch a train. Transport hubs
on the periphery of London would make more sense than relying on central
termini, which were built by the Victorians long before the suburban
sprawl took place.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:

>>
>> 92. East West Rail
>
> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
> moment.

FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm it. But I
doubt that work can start in 2023.

>
>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>
> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
> north of Birmingham?

It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.

On 23/09/2022 12:39, Tweed wrote:
> https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022-documents/the-growth-plan-2022-html#annex-b-infrastructure-projects
>
> Annex B: Infrastructure Projects
> The list below sets out infrastructure projects which will be accelerated
> as fast as possible, aiming to get the vast majority starting construction
> by the end of 2023. These projects may benefit from acceleration through
> planning reform, regulatory reform, improved processes or other options to
> speed up their development and construction, including through development
> consent processes.
>
> Presence on this list does not guarantee, where applicable, funding,
> planning consent or approval for other regulatory or permitting processes
> and the list is non-exhaustive of all projects which may benefit from
> acceleration.
>
> Where local authorities or agencies are the delivery leads, it is the
> government’s intent to support where possible in acceleration.
>
> <snip road projects>
>
> Rail
> 87. Cambridge South Station
>
> 88. Northumberland Line
>
> 89. White Rose Station
>
> 90. Thorpe Park
>
> 91. Transpennine Route Upgrade
>
> 92. East West Rail
>
> 93. Leeds Station Enhancement
>
> 94. Manchester Improvements
>
> 95. Midland Main Line Phase 3
>
> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>
-------------------------------------------------------
So - 10 rail projects, but 86 road projects on the list, and there are
also some Local Transport projects that involve rail. light rail or
tramways:

"Local Transport

99. LCR: Independently Powered Electric Multiple – Unit (IPEMU) –
Network Expansion

100. WMCA: Wednesbury to Brierley Hill Metro Extension

104. West Yorkshire Mass Transit

105. TVCA: Middlesbrough Station

106. TVCA: Darlington Station

110. WMCA: Walk, Cycle and Bus Access: Darlaston and Willenhall Train
Stations

111. WMCA: Aldridge Station

114. SYMCA: Supertram renewal"

Obvious that most of the funds will be devoted to help filling roads
with more lorries, cars, etc. with inevitable increases in pollution.

In message <tgkjii$2igvq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:34 on Fri, 23 Sep
2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>On 23/09/2022 16:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
>>Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't just
>>take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on 1tph
>>trains?
>
>I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems wrong
>to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.

While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
Cambridge South station?

>Transport hubs on the periphery of London would make more sense than
>relying on central termini, which were built by the Victorians long
>before the suburban sprawl took place.

You are never going to get them to build a major terminus "for the
North" somewhere like Potters Bar. Apart from anything else, how would
most people get there by public transport if not into London then back
out again?
--
Roland Perry

In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> 92. East West Rail
>>
>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>> moment.
>
>FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm it. But I
>doubt that work can start in 2023.

There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
was a railway line?

>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>
>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>> north of Birmingham?
>
>It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.

Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
(via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
help to know exactly what was being proposed.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>
>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>> moment.
>>
>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm it. But I
>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>
> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
> was a railway line?

I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
our life times.

>
>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>
>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>> north of Birmingham?
>>
>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>
> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
> help to know exactly what was being proposed.

Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.

On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:06:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <tgkjii$2igvq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:34 on Fri, 23 Sep
>2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>On 23/09/2022 16:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>>> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
>>>Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't just
>>>take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on 1tph
>>>trains?
>>
>>I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems wrong
>>to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.
>
>While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
>Cambridge South station?
>
>>Transport hubs on the periphery of London would make more sense than
>>relying on central termini, which were built by the Victorians long
>>before the suburban sprawl took place.
>
>You are never going to get them to build a major terminus "for the
>North" somewhere like Potters Bar. Apart from anything else, how would
>most people get there by public transport if not into London then back
>out again?
>
Bus or other road transport in many cases if they are closer to
Potters Bar than London. There would be more by train if e.g. the NLL
had an interchange with the ECML (rather than e.g. via Highbury and
Finsbury Park) but any plans are still vapourware.

On 23/09/2022 21:03, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>
>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>> moment.
>>>
>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm it. But I
>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>
>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>> was a railway line?
>
> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
> our life times.
>
>
>>
>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>
>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>
>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>
>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>
> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>

One version suggested a possible new fastish line & tunnel from the
Manchester area that would join the current Trans Pennine line somewhere
between Standedge Tunnel and Huddersfield.
So some journey time improvements, but possibly not enough to get the
hoped-for 30 minute journey times between Manchester & Leeds.

But that was then....... it remains to be seen what the latest version
becomes.

Bevan Price <bevanprice666@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 23/09/2022 21:03, Recliner wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>
>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>> moment.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm it. But I
>>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>
>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>>> was a railway line?
>>
>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>> our life times.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>
>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>
>
> One version suggested a possible new fastish line & tunnel from the
> Manchester area that would join the current Trans Pennine line somewhere
> between Standedge Tunnel and Huddersfield.
> So some journey time improvements, but possibly not enough to get the
> hoped-for 30 minute journey times between Manchester & Leeds.
>
> But that was then....... it remains to be seen what the latest version
> becomes.
>
>

'Fastish' meaning a classic, not a high speed line.

In message <c66sihll3t7tlua9cp5cv6r8f35gsv0m7d@4ax.com>, at 21:53:05 on
Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
remarked:
>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:06:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>In message <tgkjii$2igvq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:34 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>On 23/09/2022 16:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>
>>>> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
>>>>Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't just
>>>>take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on 1tph
>>>>trains?
>>>
>>>I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems wrong
>>>to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.
>>
>>While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
>>Cambridge South station?
>>
>>>Transport hubs on the periphery of London would make more sense than
>>>relying on central termini, which were built by the Victorians long
>>>before the suburban sprawl took place.
>>
>>You are never going to get them to build a major terminus "for the
>>North" somewhere like Potters Bar. Apart from anything else, how would
>>most people get there by public transport if not into London then back
>>out again?
>>
>Bus or other road transport in many cases if they are closer to
>Potters Bar than London.

That's exactly why the idea is a non-starter.

>There would be more by train if e.g. the NLL had an interchange with
>the ECML (rather than e.g. via Highbury and Finsbury Park) but any
>plans are still vapourware.

How many NLL outer suburban trains an hour would you need to service
even half the people currently using Kings Cross, St Pancras and Euston?
--
Roland Perry

In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>
>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>> moment.
>>>
>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm it. But I
>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>
>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>> was a railway line?
>
>I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>our life times.

The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.

Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.

>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>
>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>
>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>
>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>
>Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.

This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
pictured HS2 lines):

<https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
..png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>

In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>
>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>> moment.
>>>>
>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm it. But I
>>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>
>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>>> was a railway line?
>>
>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>> our life times.
>
> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>
> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>
>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>
>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>
>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>
>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>
> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
> pictured HS2 lines):
>
> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>
> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.

'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.

In message <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm
>>>>>it. But I
>>>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>>
>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>>>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>>>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>>>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>>>> was a railway line?
>>>
>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>>> our life times.
>>
>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>
>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>>
>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>>
>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>
>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>>>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>>>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>>>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>>
>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>
>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>
>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>
>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>
>'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.

You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
press, so what about this:

A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
....
Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
matter of months ago.

<https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>

Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>>>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>>>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>>>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm
>>>>>> it. But I
>>>>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>>>>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>>>>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>>>>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>>>>> was a railway line?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>>>> our life times.
>>>
>>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>>
>>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>>>
>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>>>>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>>>>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>>>>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>
>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>>
>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>
>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>
>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>> too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>> to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>
> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
> press, so what about this:
>
> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
> ...
> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
> matter of months ago.
>
> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>
> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.

There’s quite a lot of detail here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Powerhouse_Rail

about the various proposals. At the very best 140 mph for some bits have
been proposed. And we all know what happens to 140 mph railways - subtract
15 mph.

In message <tgmmo0$2v3rg$1@dont-email.me>, at 10:38:56 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, Tweed <usenet.tweed@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>
>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>>>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>
>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>
>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>
>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>>> too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>>> to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>>
>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>> press, so what about this:
>>
>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>> ...
>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>> matter of months ago.
>>
>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>
>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>
>There’s quite a lot of detail here
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Powerhouse_Rail

See above, I quoted that yesterday. But the map is five years old now.
--
Roland Perry

On Sat, 24 Sep 2022 06:53:56 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
wrote:

>In message <c66sihll3t7tlua9cp5cv6r8f35gsv0m7d@4ax.com>, at 21:53:05 on
>Fri, 23 Sep 2022, Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com>
>remarked:
>>On Fri, 23 Sep 2022 19:06:45 +0100, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>In message <tgkjii$2igvq$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:32:34 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>2022, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> remarked:
>>>>On 23/09/2022 16:18, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> As for connecting the biocampus to Stansted airport, Birmingham and
>>>>>Europe, exactly how many of the people making such trips wouldn't just
>>>>>take a taxi/limo to or from the airport, rather than relying on 1tph
>>>>>trains?
>>>>
>>>>I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems wrong
>>>>to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.
>>>
>>>While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
>>>Cambridge South station?
>>>
>>>>Transport hubs on the periphery of London would make more sense than
>>>>relying on central termini, which were built by the Victorians long
>>>>before the suburban sprawl took place.
>>>
>>>You are never going to get them to build a major terminus "for the
>>>North" somewhere like Potters Bar. Apart from anything else, how would
>>>most people get there by public transport if not into London then back
>>>out again?
>>>
>>Bus or other road transport in many cases if they are closer to
>>Potters Bar than London.
>
>That's exactly why the idea is a non-starter.
>
Potters Bar, yes.

>>There would be more by train if e.g. the NLL had an interchange with
>>the ECML (rather than e.g. via Highbury and Finsbury Park) but any
>>plans are still vapourware.
>
>How many NLL outer suburban trains an hour would you need to service
>even half the people currently using Kings Cross, St Pancras and Euston?
>
You wouldn't need to service that much, only those for whom the NLL is
a practical feeder. Many will be using LU and other NR routes.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>
> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.

No, that was the last kerfuffle. The preferred route has been selected via
Cambourne, the main question is whether the route and hence station would be
north or south. The preferred route also swings round through a lot of
south Cambs (the Eversdens, Harlton) to join the Shepreth Branch near
Foxton. This is quite environmentally sensitive (SSSI etc). There is
strong lobbying to take a northern route via Oakington and meeting the main
line somewhere in the Waterbeach area - less environmentally destructive
(flat fen farmland), but operationally less convenient (misses Cambridge
South; have to reverse for Ipswich).

In other news, the A428 upgrade is going ahead - there appears to be little
joined-up planning so that means *two* new routes being built between south
St Neots and Cambourne.

Theo

Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
> In message <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>>>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>>>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>>>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm
>>>>>> it. But I
>>>>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>>>
>>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>>>>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>>>>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>>>>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>>>>> was a railway line?
>>>>
>>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>>>> our life times.
>>>
>>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>>
>>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>>>
>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>
>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>>>>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>>>>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>>>>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>>>
>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>
>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>>
>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>
>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>
>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>> too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>> to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>
> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
> press, so what about this:
>
> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
> ...
> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
> matter of months ago.
>
> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>
> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.

I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising put-downs).
I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you don't know.

In message <tXj*md8Yy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:16:35 on Sat,
24 Sep 2022, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>
>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>
>No, that was the last kerfuffle. The preferred route has been selected via
>Cambourne, the main question is whether the route and hence station would be
>north or south. The preferred route also swings round through a lot of
>south Cambs (the Eversdens, Harlton) to join the Shepreth Branch near
>Foxton. This is quite environmentally sensitive (SSSI etc).

I suspected there might have been a public enquiry in the pipeline, but
hadn't see any news of the conclusion.

>There is strong lobbying to take a northern route via Oakington and
>meeting the main line somewhere in the Waterbeach area - less
>environmentally destructive (flat fen farmland), but operationally less
>convenient (misses Cambridge South; have to reverse for Ipswich).

And as has been discussed here many times in the past- a very steep
slope down from Cambourne towards the Fen line. I suppose it would have
to go north of Histon, and south of Waterbeach (because the land north
of the letter is currently being built on as a new
monster-housing-estate). Reportedly the developer has reneged on their
commitment to pay for relocation Waterbeach Station from the current
site in the historic village.

I don't think I've seen anything about where Oxford/Bedford/Cambridge
passenger services would end up - terminating at Cambridge or running
through to Ipswich via Newmarket.

Cambourne Station being to the north or south of the town is down in the
noise level as far as I'm concerned.

>In other news, the A428 upgrade is going ahead - there appears to be little
>joined-up planning so that means *two* new routes being built between south
>St Neots and Cambourne.

I do my very best not to have any journeys by either rail or road from
the Cambridge area towards Milton Keynes and Oxford beyond.
--
Roland Perry

In message <tgn3ce$30883$2@dont-email.me>, at 14:14:38 on Sat, 24 Sep
2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>> In message <tgm8kc$2tvva$2@dont-email.me>, at 06:38:04 on Sat, 24 Sep
>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <tgl3fd$2l3pe$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:03:57 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <tgkos6$2jaig$2@dont-email.me>, at 17:03:02 on Fri, 23 Sep
>>>>>> 2022, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 92. East West Rail
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I though this was going to be privately funded. Which phase is it
>>>>>>>> anyway, they can't agree a route from Bedford to Cambridge at the
>>>>>>>> moment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> FWIW, Shapps was musing that the case for that section was too poor to
>>>>>>> proceed. The only question currently is whether the existing line from
>>>>>>> Bletchley to Beford gets upgraded to EWR standards. Shapps was dubious
>>>>>>> about that, too, so it's possible the new government will confirm
>>>>>>> it. But I
>>>>>>> doubt that work can start in 2023.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was someone on the local TV news earlier who appeared to be saying
>>>>>> that the major attraction of E/W rail was so businesses in Bedfordshire
>>>>>> could poach staff from Cambridge. But why would someone paying Cambridge
>>>>>> house prices commute to jobs paying Bedfordshire wages, even if there
>>>>>> was a railway line?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think there's any danger of it getting anywhere near Cambridge in
>>>>> our life times.
>>>>
>>>> The main kerfuffle at the moment is whether you miss Bedford (and
>>>> incidentally Cambourne) altogether, and skirt around the south, with new
>>>> build to join the Kings Cross line at Shepreth; or go into Bedford then
>>>> demolish a route through its northern suburbs and via at least a couple
>>>> of proposed new towns on the Beds/Cambs borders, once again swinging
>>>> south to join the Kings Cross line somewhere near Foxton.
>>>>
>>>> Either of them would of course also involve running through the proposed
>>>> Cambridge South station, and have a potential interchange station with
>>>> the ECML vaguely in the St Neots or Sandy area respectively.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 96. Northern Powerhouse Rail
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are we still awaiting details on how this somehow substitutes for HS2
>>>>>>>> north of Birmingham?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It doesn't. The plan is to connect HS2 and NPR north of Crewe, so they
>>>>>>> share the line from Manchester airport into Manchester.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Isn't the plan for NPR to have at least some vestige of high-speed route
>>>>>> across the Pennines so people might get from London to Leeds quicker
>>>>>> (via Crewe) than using the ECML. All completely bonkers, but it would
>>>>>> help to know exactly what was being proposed.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not that I'm aware of. NPR won't be a high speed line.
>>>>
>>>> This was the proposal in 2017 (and of course we aren't now expecting the
>>>> pictured HS2 lines):
>>>>
>>>> <https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/HS3-2017-map
>>>> .png/1280px-HS3-2017-map.png>
>>>>
>>>> In both projects, more detail of what they actually want us to believe
>>>> they might start building before the next election, would be welcome.
>>>
>>> 'HS3' was never going to be a high speed line. It would be too short, with
>>> too many stops. At best, it'll be a 125mph line all the way from Liverpool
>>> to Leeds and on to the ECML, but that's very unlikely.
>>
>> You've often given the impression you favour the opinions of specialist
>> press, so what about this:
>>
>> A project to connect major cities in the north of England with a
>> dedicated high-speed railway, vastly increasing capacity for freight
>> and passenger traffic, could be back on the agenda, but only if
>> members of the Conservative Party vote for the right leader.
>> ...
>> Liz Truss, one of two candidates for the leadership of the ruling
>> Conservative Party, told a meeting of party members in Leeds that
>> she would revive the Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) high-speed
>> project, which was spectacularly dumped by her own party just a
>> matter of months ago.
>>
>> <https://www.railtech.com/infrastructure/2022/08/04/uk-mega-project-
>> northern-powerhouse-rail-back-on-track/?gdpr=accept>
>>
>> Or are you quibbling about what "High Speed" means, which in the context
>> of a classic class 43 HST, I agree is only 125mph.
>
>I'm not quibbling about anything (one of your many patronising put-downs).
>I'm just using the standard terminology, which it appears you don't know.

HS1 - 125mph (I don't think so)
HS2 - 125mph (I don't think so)
HS3 - let's see what they are actually planning; some input (rather than
heckling) from yourself would be helpful.
--
Roland Perry

On 23/09/2022 19:06, Roland Perry wrote:
>>
>> I live in North London, and, if I am travelling North, it seems wrong
>> to travel South into the centre of London to catch a train.
>
> While your feeling may be well-founded, what does it have to do with
> Cambridge South station?

About the same as this:

"I went to their "Open Day" which was just about the last thing before
lockdown, and it was entirely clear that their plans were all to do with
a new outer-suburban commuter station for London. "