DOCSLIB.ORG

The Great British Transport Competition 2 Foreword

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Great British Transport Competition 2 Foreword THE GREAT BRITISH TRANSPORT COMPETITION 2 FOREWORD The case for scrapping High Speed 2 (HS2) gets stronger by the day. Increasingly, people from across the political spectrum are waking up to the fundamental issues which have plagued this project. Whether it be the spiralling costs, environmental damage, consistent mismanagement or overwhelming unpopularity of the project, the tide is turning against HS2. With the latest evidence suggesting that costs could almost double, taxpayers are demanding more for their money. Even on current estimates, scrapping HS2 would free up at least £50 billion to improve transport links up and down the country. But were this to happen, what should replace it? With this question in mind, we joined the TaxPayers’ Alliance in launching The Great British Transport Competition in September 2018, to find popular alternatives to HS2. We asked all interested parties from across the United Kingdom to submit ideas for transport infrastructure projects. As the judges for this competition - including qualified surveyors, engineers, accountants, politicians and transport industry experts - we have been lucky to receive and assess so many fantastic entries from all around the country. The judging process began in early January and was concluded by early March. After many hours of detailed deliberation and discussion, 28 winning entries were chosen and the sum total of their construction costs came to £45.1 billion. We were incredibly impressed by the high standard and variety of the entries we received. What particularly stood out was that many of the entries required only relatively small sums of money to achieve vast benefits for local communities. Thank you to everyone who submitted. Taken together, we believe these projects would dramatically transform the transport infrastructure of the nation and have a real impact on many peoples’ lives. All for less than the cost of HS2. I hope you enjoy reading the winning entries as much as we did judging them. Thank you to everyone who supported the judging process, including Chris Stokes and Harry Fone. We are delighted now to present the winners of the Great British Transport Competition. Phil Basey • Lord Berkeley OBE • Michael Byng Lord Framlingham • James Roberts • Craig Tracey MP MEET THE JUDGES 3 PHIL BASEY Research Fellow, TaxPayers’ Alliance LORD BERKELEY OBE Member of the House of Lords MICHAEL BYNG Infrastructure & Procurement Specialist LORD FRAMLINGHAM Member of the House of Lords JAMES ROBERTS Political Director, TaxPayers’ Alliance CRAIG TRACEY MP Member of Parliament for North Warwickshire 4 CONTENTS PAGE THE WINNERS 6 A1 - DUAL CARRIAGEWAY FROM DURHAM TO EDINBURGH 7 REOPEN THE SKIPTON-COLNE RAILWAY LINE 8 REOPEN THE BEVERLEY TO YORK RAILWAY 9 ASHINGTON, BLYTH & TYNE RAILWAY 10 BRITAIN’S S-BAHN NETWORK: LEEDS 11 REOPEN THE KESWICK TO PENRITH RAILWAY 12 UPGRADE THE SETTLE & CARLISLE RAILWAY 13 REOPEN BLACKBURN TO HELLIFIELD 14 HIGH SPEED UK-NORTH 15 THE WHITACRE LINK 16 REOPEN STOURBRIDGE TO LICHFIELD 17 UPGRADE THE RUGBY TO BIRMINGHAM RAILWAY LINE 18 UPGRADE THE A5 TO EXPRESSWAY STANDARD 19 REOPEN THE SUTTON PARK LINE TO PASSENGERS 20 CHILTERN MAIN LINE ELECTRIFICATION 21 MIDLAND MAIN LINE ELECTRIFICATION 22 IMPROVE THE FELIXSTOWE TO NUNEATON FREIGHT ROUTE 23 REOPEN THE MARCH TO WISBECH LINE TO PASSENGERS 24 A NEW STATION ON THE BURY ST EDMUNDS TO ELY LINE 25 EXTEND CROSSRAIL TO STANSTED AIRPORT & CAMBRIDGE 26 LOWER THAMES CROSSING 27 BRIGHTON MAINLINE 2: SUSSEX PHASE 28 IMPROVE CONNECTIVITY TO BRISTOL TEMPLE MEADS 29 REBUILD CULLOMPTON STATION 30 EXETER TO PLYMOUTH VIA OKEHAMPTON 31 REOPEN THE BODMIN TO WADEBRIDGE RAILWAY LINE 32 CROSS CORNWALL RAIL LINK 33 BUILD CYCLE PATHS NEXT TO MOTORWAYS & A-ROADS PAGE APPENDIX 34 JUDGING CRITERIA 35 COSTINGS OF WINNING ENTRIES MAP OF WINNING ENTRIES 5 6 A1 - DUAL CARRIAGEWAY FROM DURHAM TO EDINBURGH ENTRANT: REGION: Camaro Kimberley-Blackstar North East & Scotland TIMESCALE: COST: 10 to 15 years £1.3 billion The aim of this scheme is to operators. Upgrading the road would significantly upgrade a stretch of the help to ease congestion as cars would A1 road from single carriageway to be able to pass slower moving lorries, at least dual carriageway and ideally which in turn would greatly improve motorway specifications. safety and lower the road’s accident rate. The proposed section for upgrade is between Durham and Edinburgh and The environmental impact is likely is approximately 140 miles long. to be minimal and air quality may actually improve, as vehicles will be Improving this stretch of the A1 able to travel at more optimal speeds, would greatly improve transport links resulting in shorter journey times and between the North East of England engines being used more efficiently. and Scotland, particularly for haulage 7 REOPEN THE SKIPTON-COLNE RAILWAY LINE ENTRANT: REGION: Derek Jennings North East & North West Skipton & East Lancs Rail Action Partnership TIMESCALE: COST: 4 years £100 million Reopening a short stretch of the Powerhouse’s vision and objectives. missing link railway line between By linking Pendle & Burnley directly to Skipton and Colne would extend a both Leeds and Bradford city centres, regional passenger service from East this reopened rail line will boost Lancashire to Leeds City Centre. This 12 employment opportunities, economic mile line could be built on the formation growth, urban regeneration and the of the currently-disused original route availability of low-cost housing. As a of 1848, which crosses the county result, it provides an impressive cost- boundary between Lancashire and benefit ratio. Yorkshire in the central Pennines. The project enjoys widespread support, This ‘Northern Link’ will complete a new including all eight MPs representing coast-to-coast East-West route, which constituencies along the route, several is fully compatible with both Transport important regional businesses and for the North’s (TfN) and the Northern multiple district and county councils. 8 REOPEN THE BEVERLEY TO YORK RAILWAY ENTRANT: REGION: Dr Adrian Morgan North East Minsters Rail Campaign TIMESCALE: COST: 5 to 8 years £300 million Hull and Beverley are linked with network, needed because the existing Market Weighton, Pocklington, rail infrastructure serving Hull lacks Stamford Bridge and York by the resilience. increasingly congested A1079. The project calls for the reinstatement of Regionally, the line will contribute the 32 mile Beverley to York ‘Minsters’ to the government’s ‘Northern rail line which was closed in 1965. Powerhouse’ initiative, improving east- west connectivity between East and This will contribute substantially North Yorkshire. Hull to York would to the long-term economic and take just 56 minutes and Beverley to social future of the East Riding, York only 46 minutes. Existing bus improving public transport, reducing services take significantly longer. car dependency and encouraging sustainable development. It will also A 2005 feasibility study estimated be an alternative link from Hull and costs at £239 million which will likely be the East Riding to the rest of the rail nearer £300 million in 2019. 9 ASHINGTON, BLYTH & TYNE RAILWAY ENTRANT: REGION: Dennis Fancett North East South East Northumberland Rail Users Group TIMESCALE: COST: 3 to 4 years £50 million This proposal seeks to reintroduce as a Park & Ride facility for commuters passenger services on the fully from the outlying villages of Newbiggin- operational and maintained freight line by-the-Sea, Linton, Lynemouth and between Newcastle and Ashington, Ellington. In addition, off-peak demand with intermediate stations at would be created for visitors to the Northumberland Park (which forms part aforementioned mining museum. Blyth of the Tyne and Wear Metro), Seghill, would be served by a new station at Seaton Delaval, Newsham for Blyth, Newsham, on the outskirts of the town, Bebside and Bedlington. and the station at Bebside. Beyond Ashington, the working freight The proposal has widespread public line continues and passes alongside support. It would serve as a very the Woodhorn Museum of Mining and useful commuter service to Newcastle Northumberland Life, a major tourist especially given new housing attraction in the region. A station developments in the area. adjacent to the museum would serve 10 BRITAIN’S S-BAHN NETWORK: LEEDS ENTRANT: REGION: Paul Magson North East TIMESCALE: COST: 5 to 6 years £1 billion This proposal examines how a model Leeds suffers from a lack of transport similar to the S-Bahn rapid transit infrastructure; the local transport railway system in Munich, Germany network is woefully inadequate. could be implemented in Leeds. Several hundred thousand people commute into Leeds every day but S-Bahns travel along existing rail only 3.7 per cent of them do so by tracks and then go underground for train, which are full to capacity. short distances under the city centre, using ‘supertrams’ as the rolling stock. This scheme would increase capacity on the rail network by transferring They can travel at greater speeds commuters from national trains to than either surface trams or cars local supertrams, reduce the number during busy periods meaning faster of car journeys, get commuters closer journey times. to their final destination, decrease air pollution and boost economic growth. 11 REOPEN THE KESWICK TO PENRITH RAILWAY ENTRANT: REGION: Cedric Martindale North West CKP Railways PLC TIMESCALE: COST: 3 to 4 years £110 million Rail passenger services ran between Sustrans into a railway path that forms Keswick and Penrith until ceasing part of the Coast to Coast National in 1972 following the recommended Cycle Route 71 but industry experts closure of the line in the Beeching advise that it can be easily rerouted. Report. The line will form part of the national Much of the trackbed and many of the rail network with services to Penrith existing structures remain in place. and further afield. The amount of congestion caused by cars is a significant issue in the Lake The scheme will reduce air pollution by District and led to the proposal to re- taking cars off the road and would help open the railway in the mid-1990s.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Value for Money Integration in the Renegotiation of Public Private Partnership Road Projects by Ajibola Oladipo Fatokun
    Value for Money Integration in the Renegotiation of Public Private Partnership Road Projects By Ajibola Oladipo Fatokun A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Central Lancashire October 2018 i STUDENT DECLARATION I declare that while registered as a candidate for the research degree, I have not been a registered candidate or enrolled student for another award of the University or other academic or professional institution I declare that no material contained in the thesis has been used in any other submission for an academic award and is solely my own work Signature of Candidate: ____________________________________________________ Type of Award: ________________________ PhD _______________________ School: ______________________ Engineering ____________________ ii ABSTRACT The governments of various countries have continued to adopt Public Private Partnership (PPP) for infrastructure projects delivery due to its many advantages over the traditional procurement method. However, concerns have been raised by stakeholders about the viability of PPP to deliver Value for Money (VfM), especially for the client. These discussions have generated debates and arguments in policy and advisory documents within the last decade mainly in the renegotiation of PPP water and transport projects and their VfM implications. Poor or non-achievement of VfM in PPP contracts renegotiation has led to this study in PPP road projects with the overall aim of integrating VfM considerations into the renegotiation process of PPP road projects. Mixed methodology research approach is used to achieve the objectives set for the study. Interviews and questionnaires of professionals involved in Design-Build-Finance-Operate (DBFO) road projects in the UK are used in the study.
    [Show full text]
  • Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Devolution Proposal
    CAMBRIDGESHIRE AND PETERBOROUGH EAST ANGLIA DEVOLUTION PROPOSAL 17 June 2016 1 Contents Overview and strategic context page 3 Summary table page 5 Governance page 6 Finance and Funding page 7 New Homes and Sustainable Communities page 8 Connectivity – Transport and Digital page 10 Learning and Skills page 13 Apprenticeships page 14 Employment page 15 Business Support page 17 Public Service Reform - Health and Social Care; Community Safety page 18 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority commitments page 19 Implementation of this agreement is subject to the completion of the statutory processes and approval of all local authorities which are party to the deal. The agreement below sets out the devolution proposal that it is agreed Leaders will take to each council for full debate by no later than the 1 July 2016. 2 Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Devolution Deal This document sets out the terms of a proposed agreement between Government, the seven local authorities covering Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership to devolve a range of funding, powers and responsibilities. It should be considered as part of the Government’s devolution to East Anglia. This Devolution Deal marks the next step in the transfer of resources, powers and accountability from central Government to Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. The document below sets out the current devolution proposal, which it is agreed leaders will take to each council for full debate and consultation with relevant local stakeholders. This process will be completed by no later than 1st July. In return for this level of devolution and local control Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will establish a Combined Authority, with a directly elected Mayor in place by May 2017 with interim arrangements in place in 2016/17.
    [Show full text]
  • Rf LTW Chiltern Response
    campaigning by the Railway Development Society Limited Development of Train Services for Chiltern Routes Response from Railfuture 1. Introduction Railfuture is pleased to respond to the London TravelWatch document regarding the Development of Train Services for Chiltern Routes. Our comments will be brief and to the point. Railfuture is the campaigning name of the Railway Development Society Limited, a (not for profit) Limited Company organised in England as twelve regional branches plus two national branches in Scotland and Wales. This coordinated response has been compiled by Railfuture London & South East, and has been agreed with Railfuture Thames Valley for those sections of line in their area (Amersham to Aylesbury and West Ruislip to Bicester North). 2. General Comments Railfuture welcomes the initiative from LTW to suggest ways of raising standards of service on Chiltern Railways services in London and South East. We note the work that has gone into gathering the detail on network capacity and existing services. Chiltern is unique for a number of reasons: its close working relationship and shared infrastructure with London Underground (LU) on the Aylesbury Line; the close proximity of other LU and London Bus services to many Chiltern ‘metro’ stations on the High Wycombe line; the close mix of short and medium distance commuter traffic and the poor interchange facilities at Marylebone. It is equally unique for the impressive increase in patronage generated by reliable modern rolling stock and infrastructure; the benefits of a long-term franchise agreement and an imaginative customer oriented professional management team. It is also inhibited by many of the factors that make it unique! These range from the poor interchange facilities at Marylebone, to a lack of infrastructure between Wembley and West Ruislip.
    [Show full text]
  • Solent to the Midlands Multimodal Freight Strategy – Phase 1
    OFFICIAL SOLENT TO THE MIDLANDS MULTIMODAL FREIGHT STRATEGY – PHASE 1 JUNE 2021 OFFICIAL TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY .......................................................................................................................................................... 9 2. STRATEGIC AND POLICY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................................................... 11 3. THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SOLENT TO THE MIDLANDS ROUTE ........................................................................................................ 28 4. THE ROAD ROUTE ............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 5. THE RAIL ROUTE ............................................................................................................................................................................... 40 6. KEY SECTORS .................................................................................................................................................................................... 50 7. FREIGHT BETWEEN THE SOLENT AND THE MIDLANDS ....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix F CAPABILITY MODELLING
    Ref: 139797 Version: 1.1 Date: June 2015 Appendix F CAPABILITY MODELLING Governance of Railway Investment Projects Ref: 139797 Version: 1.1 Date: June 2015 This page left deliberately blank Governance of Railway Investment Projects Group Strategy - Capability Analysis MetroWest Phase 2 Report Rhys Bowen Group Strategy – Capability Analysis MetroWest Phase 2 Report Document Control Scheme Name MetroWest Phase 2 Report Document Ref. No. Document V:\SAP-Project\CA000000 - MetroWest RSV8 TH\004 Report\Phase Two Location Version No. 1.0 Status Final Author Rhys Bowen Version Date 15/12/2014 Security Level Unrestricted Authorisation Control Lee Mowle Signature Date Project Manager –Capability Analysis (Document Owner) Alistair Rice Signature Date Major Schemes Project Manager - South Gloucester council Andrew Holley Signature Date Senior development Manager - Network Rail Group Strategy – Capability Analysis MetroWest Phase 2 Report DOCUMENT CONTROL & ADMINISTRATION Change Record Version Date Author(s) Comments 0.1 12/09/14 Rhys Bowen First Draft 0.2 17/09/14 Rhys Bowen Amended after diagrams added 0.3 18/09/14 Rhys Bowen Amended after review 0.4 23/09/14 Rhys Bowen Amended after review 0.5 26/09/14 Rhys Bowen Draft for external review 0.6 04/11/14 Rhys Bowen Final draft for internal review 0.7 07/11/14 Rhys Bowen Final draft for external review 0.8 28/11/14 Toby Hetherington Minor amendments to final draft. Further minor amendments and report 1.0 15/12/14 Toby Hetherington finalised. Reviewers Version Date Reviewer(s) Review Notes Structure
    [Show full text]
  • Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Department for Transport
    Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Department for Transport 30 August 2017 Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Report OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Department for Transport’s information and use in relation to Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Business Case. Atkins assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents. This document has 108 pages including the cover. Document history Job number: 5159267 Document ref: v4.0 Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Interim draft for client Rev 1.0 - 18/08/2017 comment Revised draft for client Rev 2.0 18/08/2017 comment Revised draft addressing Rev 3.0 - 22/08/2017 client comment Rev 4.0 Final 30/08/2017 Client signoff Client Department for Transport Project Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Document title Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme: KO1 Final Business Case Job no. 5159267 Copy no. Document reference Atkins Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme | Version 4.0 | 30 August 2017 | 5159267 2 Midland Main Line Upgrade Programme Economic Case Report OFFICIAL SENSITIVE: COMMERCIAL Table of contents Chapter Pages Executive Summary 7 1. Introduction 12 1.1. Background 12 1.2. Report Structure 13 2. Scope of the Appraisal 14 2.1. Introduction 14 2.2. Scenario Development 14 3. Timetable Development 18 3.1. Overview 18 4. Demand & Revenue Forecasting 26 4.1. Introduction 26 4.2. Forecasting methodology 26 4.3. Appraisal of Benefits 29 4.4.
    [Show full text]
  • 29 July 1931
    [2') Jc'sy, 1931.] '10313 ]Eon. J. NICHOLSON: Very well, Sir. I-on. H. SEDDON: The definition of I move an amendment- "Chattel" haviin been amended, it becomes necessary to strike out certain other words. That after the woard ''contrary'' the fol- lowing be strutck out:-''and AhalI extend( to I move all amendment- any hire -puirvbasr agree tut miad e an.d in 'That the following be st ruck ohut: - opera tiont at or before the vommnemcent'ut uf M.Notor veelde' and 'vehicle ' have tli, this Act.'' same nmeanlings respectively as in the Tra'iv Acet, 1919-1i93O.' The M1INI STER FORt COUNTRY WATER SUPPLIES: Though I did not Amnicdmen t put a 31( passed; the clause, take part in the debat!' on this matter yes- ;es almended, agreed to. tcrda v, I ca nnot sit silent under the state- I1iil again reportel with further amend- nients made by '.%r. Nicholson. We have ilcuts. beffore us the evidence given to the select committee by reputable firms. They are not l)iLe aIdjI)uI Jld (it t,.4 p.m. worrying in the slightest degree about the restrospective phase of the Bill. Mr. Nichol- son has said we should he fair and impartial. The clause is fair and impartial. 'What is there wrong with allowing the hirer to go to court when he canl prove that the interest charged is excessive? Is he not entitled to pro)tection, no matter how long the agreement has been made? Surely Mr. Nicholson does not wish to protect firms who do business on unfit'r and utir-nisonable lines.
    [Show full text]
  • M4 Junction 18A Link Study – Combined Modelled and Appraisal Report
    M4 Junction 18a Link Study – Combined Modelled and Appraisal Report Prepared for South Gloucestershire Council and Highways England March 2018 Draft 1 The Square Temple Quay Bristol BS1 6DG Draft Document history M4 Junction 18a Link Study Combined Modelling and Appraisal Report This document has been issued and amended as follows: Version Date Description Created by Verified by Approved by 001 01.03.18 Working Draft JB HS HS Draft Contents Section Page Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1‐1 1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................... 1‐1 1.2 Scheme Objectives ..................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.3 Scheme Description ................................................................................................... 1‐1 1.4 Previous Studies ......................................................................................................... 1‐3 Local Transport Situation ............................................................................................................ 2‐3 2.1 Existing Local Transport System ................................................................................ 2‐3 2.2 Key Travel Demands .................................................................................................. 2‐5 2.3 Transport Problems and Factors ...............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Midland Lodge, Sutton Park
    MIDLAND LODGE, SUTTON PARK A history of the building with details of its architecture, its association with two well-known tenants and the establishment of Sutton Coldfield’s Vesey Club in 1888. Roy Billingham Midland Lodge is a residential property situated within Sutton Park, designed by William Jenkins, a Birmingham architect, and built in 1880 for the Warden and Society of Sutton Coldfield. Following the Town’s incorporation in 1886, ownership passed to the new Corporation of Sutton Coldfield, and to Birmingham City Council in 1974 after Government reorganisation of local authority boundaries. The site of Midland Lodge (O.S. Grid Ref. SP 1121 9715) is adjacent to the Midland Gate entrance to Sutton Park at the western end of Midland Road which was constructed as a private road by the Midland Railway Company in 1879 to provide direct access for train passengers to and from the Park for their Sutton Park railway station. “New Lodge”, as the cottage was originally called, had several tenants prior to 1886 when Benjamin Stone, Sutton Coldfield’s first Mayor, took over the tenancy in order to meet the necessary residential qualifications to become a burgess of the Town. During his four years as Mayor, 1886-90, the lodge was known as “The Mayor’s Cottage” which he treated as his pied- à-terre, his own home being in Grange Lane, Erdington. After Stone terminated his tenancy in 1891 the cottage was referred to ever afterwards as “Midland Lodge”. Fig. 1(a) – Midland Lodge in c. 1910 Fig. 1(b) – Midland Lodge in February, 2014 Photograph by Benjamin Stone [Ref.
    [Show full text]
  • West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices
    Long Term Planning Process West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices August 2017 Contents August 2017 Network Rail – West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices 02 Technical Appendices 03 A1 - Midlands Rail Hub: Central Birmingham 04 elements A2 - Midlands Rail Hub: Birmingham to 11 Nottingham/Leicester elements A3 - Midlands Rail Hub: Birmingham to 17 Worcester/Hereford via Bromsgrove elements A4 - Chiltern Route 24 A5 - Birmingham to Leamington Spa via 27 Coventry A6 - Passenger capacity at stations 30 A7 - Business Case analysis 50 Technical Appendicies August 2017 Network Rail – West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study Technical Appendices 03 Introduction to Technical Appendices Cost estimation These Technical Appendices provide the technical evidence to Cost estimates have been prepared for interventions or packages of support the conclusions and choices for funders presented in the interventions proposed in the Route Study. The estimates are based main Route Study document. The areas of technical analysis on the pre-GRIP data available, concept drawings and high level outlined in these appendices are capability analysis, concept specification of the intervention scope. To reflect the level of development (at pre-GRIP level), cost estimation, business case information available to support the estimate production, a analysis and passenger capacity analysis at stations. contingency sum of 60% has been added. The estimates do not include inflation. Indicative cost ranges have been provided based The appendices are presented by geographical area with the on this assessment. exception of the business case analysis and passenger capacity analysis. Business case analysis The areas of technical analysis are summarised below. Business case analysis has been undertaken to demonstrate to funders whether a potential investment option is affordable and Capability Analysis offers value for money.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • Brunel's Dream
    Global Foresights | Global Trends and Hitachi’s Involvement Brunel’s Dream Kenji Kato Industrial Policy Division, Achieving Comfortable Mobility Government and External Relations Group, Hitachi, Ltd. The design of Paddington Station’s glass roof was infl u- Renowned Engineer Isambard enced by the Crystal Palace building erected as the venue for Kingdom Brunel London’s fi rst Great Exhibition held in 1851. Brunel was also involved in the planning for Crystal Palace, serving on the The resigned sigh that passed my lips on arriving at Heathrow building committee of the Great Exhibition, and acclaimed Airport was prompted by the long queues at immigration. the resulting structure of glass and iron. Being the gateway to London, a city known as a melting pot Rather than pursuing effi ciency in isolation, Brunel’s of races, the arrivals processing area was jammed with travel- approach to constructing the Great Western Railway was to ers from all corners of the world; from Europe of course, but make the railway lines as fl at as possible so that passengers also from the Middle East, Africa, Asia, and North and South could enjoy a pleasant journey while taking in Britain’s won- America. What is normally a one-hour wait can stretch to derful rural scenery. He employed a variety of techniques to two or more hours if you are unfortunate enough to catch a overcome the constraints of the terrain, constructing bridges, busy time of overlapping fl ight arrivals. While this only adds cuttings, and tunnels to achieve this purpose. to the weariness of a long journey, the prospect of comfort Rain, Steam and Speed – The Great Western Railway, a famous awaits you on the other side.
    [Show full text]