DOCSLIB.ORG

Project Management Procedure

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Project Management Procedure Issue: A08 Date: December 2008 This is a Subsidiary Document of the Railway Operational Code, Control Arrangements Section DOCUMENT EFFECTIVE FROM th 14 December 2008 Title LNW CONTINGENCY PLANS Controlled Copy Number Controlled ONLY when the Controlled Copy Number appears above in RED. Document Manager (Signature) (Date) Approved by Jane Richardson (Signature) (Date) Current Operations Manager: ……………………………………… This document is the property of Network Rail. It shall not be reproduced in whole or in part, nor disclosed to a third party, without the written permission of the Network Rail LNW Current Operations Manager. LNW Contingency Plan Conference Date: 14 & 15th October 2008 Authorised by (Signature) © Copyright 2005 Network Rail Route Director (LNW) Date: ………………………………………. NETWORK RAIL Page 1 of 143 Issue: A08 Date: December 2008 Contents 1. PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................. 8 2. SCOPE....................................................................................................................................................... 8 2.1 Document Navigation........................................................................................................................ 8 2.2 Invoking Contingency Plans ........................................................................................................... 8 3. RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................................................................................ 8 3.1 Route Control Manager (RCM)/Train Running Controller (TRC) Network Rail .................. 8 3.2 RCM Birmingham (LNWICC) .......................................................................................................... 8 3.3 Train and Freight Operating Companies...................................................................................... 9 4.1 TOCs/FOCs .......................................................................................................................................... 9 4.2 Other...................................................................................................................................................... 9 5. PRINCIPLES........................................................................................................................................... 10 5.1 LNW route .......................................................................................................................................... 10 5.2 The Network Code and the Railway Operational Code .......................................................... 10 5.3 Holding of Trains at Stations ........................................................................................................ 10 5.4 Route Availability ............................................................................................................................. 10 5.5 Route Restrictions ........................................................................................................................... 10 5.6 Multiple Tracks.................................................................................................................................. 11 5.7 Temporary Block Working (TBW) ................................................................................................ 11 5.8 Single Line Working (SLW)............................................................................................................ 11 5.9 Contingency Plans........................................................................................................................... 12 5.10 Light Engines/Empty Coaching Stock.................................................................................... 13 5.11 Service Allocation ........................................................................................................................ 13 5.12 Engineering Possessions .......................................................................................................... 13 5.13 Revision.......................................................................................................................................... 13 6. ........................................................................................................................................................................... 14 7. CONTINGENCY PLANS ...................................................................................................................... 14 MD101 EUSTON – MADELEY .................................................................................................................... 14 MD101.1 EUSTON – CAMDEN JCN 1½ Miles. ............................................................................. 14 MD101.2 CAMDEN JCN. – WILLESDEN WEST LONDON JCN. (15 mph) - WILLESDEN NORTH JCN. (15 mph) 3½ Miles ............................................................................................................ 15 MD101.3 WILLESDEN WEST LONDON JCN. (15 mph) –NORTH WEMBLEY JCN. (50 mph) 3 ½ Miles 16 MD101.4 NORTH WEMBLEY JCN. (50 mph) – WATFORD SOUTH JCN. (15-50 mph) 8 Miles (Junction available) .................................................................................................................................... 17 MD101.7 BOURNE END JCN. – TRING NORTH JCN 7¼ Miles. ............................................... 19 MD101.9 LEDBURN JCN. – BLETCHLEY SOUTH JCN 8½. ...................................................... 20 MD101.10 BLETCHLEY SOUTH JCN. – HANSLOPE JCN 10 Miles............................................ 20 (SOUTH OF MILTON KEYNES)..................................................................................................... 20 MD101.11 MILTON KEYNES Station Access from the North. ....................................................... 21 Normal operation to Bletchley. ................................................................................................................. 21 MD105 HANSLOPE JCN. – RUGBY (via Northampton) ................................................................ 22 MD105.1 HANSLOPE JCN. – NORTHAMPTON 9 Miles.............................................................. 22 NETWORK RAIL Page 2 of 195 Issue: A08 Date: December 2008 MD105.2 MILL LANE JCN. – ALTHORP PARK GROUND FRAME 4 ¾ Miiles, ALTHORP PARK GROUND FRAME – DAVENTRY 8 Miles, DAVENTRY – HILLMORTON 3 ½ Miles.......... 22 MD101.1 -13 EUSTON TO SOUTH OF RUGBY.............................................................................. 24 MD101.13 RUGBY – NUNEATON 14½ Miles ................................................................................. 34 MD101.14 NUNEATON – POLESWORTH 9¼ Miles, POLESWORTH – LICHFIELD TRENT VALLEY 10 Miles, LICHFIELD TRENT VALLEY – RUGELEY 8 Mile RUGELEY _ COLWICH 2¾ miles 35 MD101.15 TRENT VALLEY LINES: COLWICH – STAFFORD 6 ½ Miles.................................... 36 MD101.16 STAFFORD – NORTON BRIDGE 5 ¼ Miles ................................................................. 37 MD101.17 NORTON BRIDGE – CREWE SOUTH........................................................................... 38 MD101.18 CREWE STATION ............................................................................................................ 39 MD110 NORTON BRIDGE – STONE JCN. ........................................................................................ 40 MD110.1 NORTON BRIDGE – STONE JCN 3 ¾ Miles................................................................ 40 MD115.1 COLWICH – STONE JCN 11 ¾ Miles............................................................................. 41 MD115.2 STONE JCN. – STOKE JCN 6 ½ Miles ......................................................................... 41 MD115.3 STOKE JCN. – LONGPORT 3¼Miles, LONGPORT – KIDSGROVE 3 Miles .......... 41 MD115.4 KIDSGROVE – MACCLESFIELD ................................................................................... 42 MD120 CAMDEN JCN. – WATFORD JCN. (D.C. ELECTRIC LINES)........................................... 43 MD120.1 CAMDEN JCN. – KILBURN HIGH RD 1 ½ Miles.......................................................... 43 MD120.4 WEMBLEY CENTRAL – HARROW & WEALDSTONE 3¼ Miles............................... 44 MD120.5 HARROW & WEALDSTONE – WATFORD JCN 6¼Miles........................................... 45 MD130 WATFORD YARD – ST ALBANS ABBEY............................................................................ 45 MD130.1 WATFORD YARD GROUND FRAME – ST ALBANS ABBEY 6½ Miles.................. 45 MD140 BLETCHLEY – BEDFORD STATION JCN 7 Miles............................................................. 46 MD140.1 BLETCHLEY – RIDGMONT ............................................................................................. 46 MD140.2 RIDGMONT – BEDFORD STATION JCN 10 Miles ...................................................... 46 MD145 CAMDEN JCN. – CAMDEN ROAD WEST JCN. ................................................................. 47 MD145.1 CAMDEN JCN. – CAMDEN ROAD WEST JCN ¾ Miles............................................. 47 MD150 KENSAL GREEN JCN. – WILLESDEN SUBURBAN JCN................................................ 47 MD150.1 KENSAL GREEN JCN. – WILLESDEN SUBURBAN JCN. ......................................... 47 MD155 KENSAL GREEN JCN. – HARLESDEN JCN. (City Lines)..................................................... 47 MD155.1 KENSAL GREEN JCN. – HARLESDEN JCN 1 Mile....................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Lancashire and Cumbria Route Utilisation Strategy August 2008
    Lancashire and Cumbria Route Utilisation Strategy August 2008 Foreword I am delighted to present Network Rail’s Route There are currently aspirations for a service Utilisation Strategy (RUS) for Lancashire and between Southport, Preston and Ormskirk. Cumbria, which considers issues affecting This is partly facilitated by work to enhance the railway in this part of the country over the track and signalling between Preston and next decade and gives a view on longer-term Ormskirk, which will allow a standard hourly issues in the years beyond. service pattern with improved journey times but without the need for more rolling stock. Getting to this stage has involved following a now well-established process. However, there Services into Sellafield during peak hours are two key differences with this strategy. suffer from overcrowding, though Northern The first is that no part of the area it covers Rail’s anticipated service from December is the responsibility of either a Passenger 2008 will address that to a degree. It is Transport Executive or a regional body with important services on this route firstly cater public transport responsibilities. Secondly, for peak traffic at Sellafield and Barrow, with the challenge usually faced when producing services outside the peak being on as close a RUS, that of insufficient capacity to meet to an hourly pattern as possible. current or future demand, is not a major A number of consultation responses were problem here. As a result, this strategy received regarding a direct service between focuses on how to make the best use of Manchester and Burnley, including a report what is already available.
    [Show full text]
  • Rail North West
    Rail North West A Class 350 service sits in platform 3 at Oxenholme, perhaps saying how things could have been if the Windermere line had been electrified. Photo courtesy Lakes Line Rail Users Association/ Malcolm Conway Timetable Chaos Caused by Electrification Delay and Cancellation A week of cancellations and delays at meaning a large number of services the start of the new timetable on May needed re-planning to operate with 20th has led to calls by the Mayor of available units, though insufficient Manchester Andy Burnham and the drivers trained on units new to routes Mayor of the Liverpool City Region, (e.g. electric trains to Blackpool North) Steve Rotherham for Northern to be has added to the issue. stripped of its franchise if improvements weren’t made. The Lakes Line between Oxenholme and Windermere is feeling the effects of The disruption was caused primarily by the failure to electrify that line. The delays to the Manchester – Preston replacement bi-mode trains aren’t electrification, and cancellation of ready, but Northern has received some Oxenholme to Windermere schemes, Class 158 diesels from Scotland. With a Newsletter of the North West Branch1 of Railfuture — Summer 2018 Rail North West 2 Summer 2018 top speed of 90mph, they are easier to the greatest timetable change for a timetable on the West Coast Main Line generation as the government carries than the current Class 156 and 153 out the biggest modernisation of the rail units. However, the new units will entail network since Victorian times to an extensive driver training programme, improve services for passengers across and their lack of availability is causing the country.” significant cancellations on this line in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Transpennine Express and Northern Rail Franchise Renewals Stakeholder Consultation
    APPENDIX 3 TransPennine Express and Northern Rail Franchise Renewals Stakeholder Consultation Response from the Furness Line Community Rail Partnership Contents 1. Summary of Key Points 2. Background 3. Existing Services 4. CRP Preparation for Consultation 5. The Consultation Principles and Proposals 6. Key Response Points from the Furness Line Community Rail Partnership 7. Answers to Consultation Questions Annex A Furness Line Study by The Railway Consultancy Annex B Fares comparison 1. Summary of Key Points 1.1 The current service on the Furness Line is unfit for purpose: o there is a strong case for the retention, and restoration of previous levels of service between Barrow-in-Furness and Manchester Airport; o local services on the line are failing to provide for key markets, particularly commuters wishing to travel west towards Barrow and Ulverston; o the timetable is uncoordinated and irregular and fails to provide adequate capacity at key times. 1.2 Remapping, with potential loss of through services to Manchester, will result in: o over-crowding of TransPennine Scottish services south of Lancaster; o uncertainty of connections at Preston/Lancaster, where poor historical reliability results in passengers having to wait an unacceptable hour or more for the next train. o uncertainty of through connectivity with interchanges on the Northern Hub and HS2 developments. 1.3 Maintaining and improving the quality of rolling stock serving the route, especially on longer distance services, is a strong necessity. 1.4 Franchise planning needs to provide for massive growth in the local economy: o up to ??? new jobs in Barrow and Ulverston alone in next few years; o up to £17 billion investment on Cumbrian coast by mid 2020s.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Rail Report
    Community Rail Report Author: Carolyn Watson Date: 31 March 2017 Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2 1.1 Foreword 2 1.2 Executive Summary 3 2. Community Rail Report 4 2.1 Introduction to the Report 4 2.1.1 Community Rail Partnerships 4 2.1.2 Funding for Community Rail Partnerships 4 2.1.3 Community Rail Partnership Funding Table 1 5 2.1.4 Community Rail Executive Group (ComREG) 6 2.1.5 Community Rail Conference 6 2.1.6 Seed Corn Fund – Kick-starting new ideas 6 2.1.7 Association of Community Rail Partnerships (ACoRP) - Partnership delivery 8 2.1.8 Community Rail Lancashire (CRL) - Developing Engagement Through Education 9 2.1.9 Station Adoption Scheme 10 2.1.10 Northern Franchise/Arriva Strategy - Working with Communities 12 2.1.11 The Community Rail Partnerships 13 3. Community Rail Partnership profiles 14 3.1 Settle - Carlisle Railway Development Company 14 3.2 Leeds - Morecambe Community Rail Partnership 16 3.3 Barton - Cleethorpes Community Rail Partnership 18 3.4 Yorkshire Coast Community Rail Partnership 19 3.5 Penistone Line Community Rail Partnership 20 3.6 Bishop Line Community Rail Partnership 22 3.7 Tyne Valley Community Rail Partnership 24 3.8 Esk Valley Railway Development Company 26 3.9 South Fylde Line Community Rail Partnership 28 3.10 West of Lancashire Community Rail Partnership 30 3.11 Cumbrian Coast Line Community Rail Partnership 32 3.12 Furness Line Community Rail Partnership 34 3.13 Lakes Line Community Rail Partnership 36 3.14 North Cheshire Rail Users Group 38 3.15 Mid Cheshire Community Rail Partnership 39 3.16 East Lancashire Community Rail Partnership 41 3.17 Clitheroe Line Community Rail Partnership 43 3.18 South East Manchester Community Rail Partnership 45 3.19 Crewe to Manchester Community Rail Partnership 47 3.20 High Peak and Hope Valley Community Rail Partnership 49 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Freight Transport
    House of Commons Transport Committee Freight Transport Eighth Report of Session 2007–08 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 July 2008 HC 249 Published on 19 July 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £24.50 The Transport Committee The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Transport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mrs Louise Ellman MP (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chairman) Mr David Clelland MP (Labour, Tyne Bridge) Clive Efford MP (Labour, Eltham) Mr Philip Hollobone MP (Conservative, Kettering) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Mr Eric Martlew MP (Labour, Carlisle) Mr Lee Scott MP (Conservative, Ilford North) David Simpson MP (Democratic Unionist, Upper Bann) Mr Graham Stringer MP (Labour, Manchester Blackley) Mr David Wilshire MP (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mrs Gwyneth Dunwoody MP (Labour, Crewe and Nantwich) was also a member of the Committee during the period covered by this report. Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/transcom. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Tom Healey (Clerk), Annette Toft (Second Clerk), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Tim Steer (Committee Specialist), Alison Mara (Committee Assistant), Ronnie Jefferson (Secretary), Gaby Henderson (Senior Office Clerk) and Laura Kibby (Media Officer).
    [Show full text]
  • West Midlands and Chilterns Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Contents 3 Foreword 4 Executive Summary 9 1
    November 2010 West Midlands and Chilterns Route Utilisation Strategy Draft for Consultation Contents 3 Foreword 4 Executive summary 9 1. Background 11 2. Dimensions 20 3. Current capacity, demand, and delivery 59 4. Planned changes to infrastructure and services 72 5. Planning context and future demand 90 6. Gaps and options 149 7. Emerging strategy and longer-term vision 156 8. Stakeholder consultation 157 Appendix A 172 Appendix B 178 Glossary Foreword Regional economies rely on investment in transport infrastructure to sustain economic growth. With the nation’s finances severely constrained, between Birmingham and London Marylebone, as any future investment in transport infrastructure well as new journey opportunities between Oxford will have to demonstrate that it can deliver real and London. benefits for the economy, people’s quality of life, This RUS predicts that overall passenger demand in and the environment. the region will increase by 32 per cent over the next 10 This draft Route Utilisation Strategy (RUS) sets years. While Network Rail’s Delivery Plan for Control out the priorities for rail investment in the West Period 4 will accommodate much of this demand up Midlands area and the Chiltern route between to 2019, this RUS does identify gaps and recommends Birmingham and London Marylebone for the next measures to address these. 30 years. We believe that the options recommended Where the RUS has identified requirements for can meet the increased demand forecast by this interventions to be made, it seeks to do so by making RUS for both passenger and freight markets and the most efficient use of capacity.
    [Show full text]
  • Electrification October 2009  Foreword
    Network RUS Electrification October 2009 2 Foreword I am pleased to present this Electrification Electrification has a potentially significant role Strategy, which forms part of the Network Route to play in reducing carbon emissions from rail Utilisation Strategy (RUS). The Network RUS transport as well as improving air quality and looks at issues affecting the whole network reducing noise. Electric trains, on average, rather than in specific geographical areas. emit 20 to 30 percent less carbon than diesel trains, and their superior performance in Approximately 40 percent of the network in terms of braking and accelerating can help terms of track miles is currently electrified, reduce journey times. In addition, they provide though several main lines, much of the cross- more seats for passengers, making a greater country network, as well as key freight links contribution to increasing the overall capacity of and diversionary routes remain un-electrified. the railway. Passengers and freight operators This document therefore sets out a potential would also both benefit from an improved longer-term strategic approach to further service in other ways, such as through the electrification of the network. creation of more diversionary routes. Electrification presents a huge opportunity for In England and Wales, two options in particular the industry, for those who use the railway and – the Great Western and Midland Main Lines for the country as a whole. Our analysis shows – are shown to have high benefit to cost ratios. the long-term benefits of electrifying key parts These options, along with key strategic infill of the network, in terms of both reducing its schemes, are both presented in the proposed ongoing cost to the country and improving its strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • AA 2019 FLAG Application Form.Cdr
    Furness Line Action Group Furness Line Action Group Furness Line Action Group Furness Line Action Group Furness Line Action Group Furness Line Action Group THE RAIL USER GROUP FOR FUFLAGRNESS AND WEST CUMBRIA THE RAIL USER GROUP FOR FUFLAGRNESS AND WEST CUMBRIA Membership Application Form COMMITTEE Chairman - Derek Faulds Vice Chairman - Fred Hammond Hon Treasurer - Derek Walmsley Hon. Secretary - Anthony Edmondson Barry Peters Bruce Eastwood Jack Smith Tony Parker Furness Line Action Group Furness Line Action Group Membership Application Form Furness Line Action Group If you wish to join the group, please ll in THE RAIL USER GROUP FOR FUFLAGRNESS AND WEST CUMBRIA and detach this section of the form and send it, along with your payment, to:- In 2016, the Furness Line Action Group Freight and passenger trafc trafc has Derek Walmsley (Hon Treasurer), (FLAG) had been promoting and protecting increased over the last 25 years and we must 116 Holker Street, the Furness Coast rail services for 30 years. do all we can to see that this trend continues. Barrow in Furness We have approximately 200 members and The privatisation of the railways has brought Cumbria, LA14 5RU produce a 24 page colour newsletter three both benets and problems. We need to Title _____ Name ___________________ times each year for members and distribution ensure that the train operating companies are Address _________________________ to MPs, the press, council ofcials and like effectively supported and resourced by the minded user groups. Department for Transport and Network Rail _________________________ OUR AIMS so that improvements in services can be _________________________ delivered effectively.
    [Show full text]
  • Cumbria Strategic Economic Plan 2014-2024
    THE FOUR PRONGED ATTACK Cumbria Strategic Economic Plan 2014–2024 March 2014 CUMBRIA LEP BOARD MEMBERS George Beveridge (Chair) Jackie Arnold (Vice Chair) Stephen Broughton Bill Jefferson Sellafield Ltd BAE Systems* Mountain Goat Lake District National Park Katie Milbourn Graham Lamont Marna McMillin Cllr Peter Thornton – South Walby Farm Park Lamont Pridmore* Energy4All Lakeland District Council Cllr Alan Smith Moira Tattersall Cllr Stewart Young Cllr Colin Glover Allerdale Borough Council Carlisle College Cumbria County Council Carlisle City Council MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FOR CUMBRIA Tim Farron Rory Stewart Jamie Reed Tony Cunningham John Stevenson John Woodcock 02 CUMBRIA STRATEGIC ECONOMIC PLAN * No signature available as financial signatory for their company. THE FOCUS Cumbria is a big county with big plans. Working in the north west corner of England, adjacent to the Scottish border, Cumbria Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) is focused on unleashing the economic potential of Cumbria by building upon the county’s unique combination of assets. We know we can’t do everything for everyone. We need to focus and prioritise on projects and initiatives that will deliver our growth targets. This 10-year Strategic Economic Plan concentrates on FOUR strategic priorities with intervention through FOUR economic drivers. This ‘four by four’ approach will deliver the maximum benefit for Cumbria and drive economic growth at a county, national and international level. Our four-pronged attack fully unleashes Cumbria’s potential in both rural and urban
    [Show 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.
    [Show full text]