Annual Return 2012

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Annual Return 2012 Network Rail Annual Return 2012 Driving economic growth 1 Helping BritainNetwork run Rail better Infrastructure Limited Annual Report and Accounts 2012 Network Rail is helping to regenerate Birmingham by transforming New Street. The project is about much more than simply redeveloping the station. It will create new jobs and help stimulate economic growth. Investment in rail is estimated to generate at least a 3:1 benefit ratio – a £750m investment will deliver some £2bn in economic benefits. Changing the way we work Intermodal transport links will be improved in the centre of the city. Our plans support the extension of the Midland Metro tram system that will run through the heart of the city, terminating at New Street station. The Moor Street link, a new walkway, will create a pedestrian route across the city centre and improve links between New Street and Moor Street stations. A great place to do business. Station retail sales are outperforming the high street – Quarter 4 of 2011/12 (Jan, Feb, Mar) saw total sales in We are undertaking a major stations grow by 4.15 per cent while upgrade of the Pallasades shopping for the same period high street sales centre alongside the redevelopment grew by 0.23 per cent as reported of Birmingham New Street station. by the British Retail Consortium. The refurbished shopping centre will consist of 450,000 sq ft of high quality retail space in the heart of the city which will include a new 250,000 sq ft John Lewis full line department store. Up to 1,000 construction workers will be on site every day during the station redevelopment and Network Rail is working with Birmingham City Council’s Employment Access Team to open up these job opportunities The new John Lewis store alone to local people. Network Rail’s will directly create 650 new jobs and delivery partner Mace have pledged Birmingham City Council estimates to create 100 apprenticeships and that the store will boost the local opened the Birmingham Gateway economy by over £25m per annum. Construction Academy to provide support and training to the workforce during the redevelopment. Contents Signalling failures (M9) 70 Signalling asset condition (M10) 71 Points failures 73 Executive Summary 1 Train detection failures 73 Overall performance in 2011/12 1 Telecoms condition 74 Regulatory Issues 2 Telecoms failures 74 Operational performance and stakeholder relationships 2 Alternating current traction power incidents causing train Network capability and network availability 2 delays (M11) 75 Asset management 4 Direct current traction power incidents causing train delays Safety and environment 6 (M12) 76 Enhancements schemes 7 Electrification condition – AC traction feeder stations and track sectioning points (M13) 77 Introduction 9 Electrification condition – DC traction substations (M14) 78 Scope of reporting against targets 9 Electrification condition – AC traction contact systems (M15) 79 Independent Reporter 9 Electrification condition – DC traction contact systems (M16) 80 Confidence reporting 9 Power incidents causing train delays of more than 300 minutes 81 Section 1 – Operational performance and stakeholder Station Stewardship Measure (M17) 82 relationships 12 Light Maintenance Depot Stewardship Measure (M19) 84 Introduction 12 Public Performance Measure (PPM) 12 Section 4 – Activity volumes 87 Delay minutes 13 Introduction 87 Delays to passenger train services 14 Track renewals 89 Delays to freight train services 16 Rail renewed (M20) 89 Delay category 17 Sleepers renewed (M21) 90 Infrastructure incidents causing delay 22 Ballast renewed (M22) 91 Cancellations & Significant Lateness (CaSL) 23 Switches and crossings renewed (M25) 92 Customer satisfaction 24 Signalling renewed (M24) 93 Passenger satisfaction 26 Level crossing renewals 93 Telecom renewals 94 Section 2 – Network capability and network availability 28 Civils activity volumes 96 Introduction 28 Bridge renewals and remediation (M23) 97 Network capability 28 Culverts renewals and remediation (M26) 98 Linespeed capability (C1) 28 Retaining walls remediation (M27) 98 Gauge capability (C2) 30 Earthwork remediation (M28) 99 Route availability value (C3) 31 Tunnel remediation (M29) 99 Electrified track capability (C4) 33 Electrification and plant renewal activity volumes 100 Network change 35 Drainage renewals 101 Discrepancies between actual and published capability 35 Operational property volumes 102 Ongoing short-term network change proposals 36 Platform lengths 36 Section 5 – Safety and Sustainable development 104 Network availability 38 Introduction 104 Safety culture 104 Section 3 – Asset management 41 Passenger safety 104 Introduction 41 Workforce safety (fatalities and weighted injuries rate) 106 Excellence in asset management 41 System safety 107 Broken rails (M1) 46 Public safety 108 Rail defects (M2) 47 Health surveillance and screening 109 Track Geometry – Good Track Geometry (M3) 48 Sustainable development 111 Track geometry quality – Poor Track Geometry (M3) 53 Track geometry faults (M5) 56 Section 6 – Enhancement Programme 115 Track buckles 59 Introduction and Summary of progress in the year 115 Track failures 60 Change control 117 Condition of asset temporary speed restriction sites (M4) 61 England and Wales 120 Earthwork failures (M6) 64 Scotland 181 Earthwork condition (M33) 64 Tunnel condition 65 Bridge condition (M8) 66 Contents Network Rail – Annual Return 2012 1 Annual Return in 2011 and is prepared in accordance with Condition 12 of our network licence. Reporting on the year There are some new measures and additional information included in this year’s Annual 2011/12 Return. These are principally supporting measures which provide more detail to our high level outputs. The following are the new areas of Executive Summary information; occupational health measures, platform lengths, some asset condition Introduction measures, drainage renewals volumes and This Annual Return reports on our operational property expenditure. achievements, developments and challenges during 2011/12, year three of Control Period 4 Overall performance in 2011/12 (CP4), and is the primary means by which we While overall train performance is at an all time report progress in delivering outputs established high with more trains arriving on time than ever in the Periodic Review 2008 (PR08). before, we missed the train performance targets for London & South East, long distance and The Annual Return is a public document that Scotland as well as for freight. Over the past provides an important reference for year demand on the network has grown faster stakeholders. This and previous editions of the than predicted at the beginning of the control Annual Return are available on the Network Rail period and this provides more challenges on the website. In the interests of transparency, a network. We are balancing the sometimes summary of the historical data is also available conflicting aims of increased capacity, better on our website in a single document. train performance and cost reduction. In the past The Annual Return is divided into the following ten years, there have been over a million more sections: train services a year, passenger numbers have increased by half a billion, despite this the operational performance and number of passengers arriving on time has stakeholder relationships; doubled. network capability and network In 2011/12 Network Rail changed how its routes availability; are managed in order to give better customer asset management; service and to help all stakeholders work together more effectively to deliver a more cost activity volumes; effective rail industry. Accountability for the day safety & sustainable development; and to day management of various activities has now been devolved to the routes. Adapting the enhancement schemes. company’s working practices and organisation, has increased accountability and ownership at a local level. We have established one “deep Expenditure and efficiency is separately reported alliance” with South West Trains on the Wessex in the Regulatory Financial Statements as well route as well as several framework alliance as the Annual Report and Accounts which are agreements. To further improve value for money published separately and are available on our and service, our Infrastructure Projects function website. has become a separate business unit within For most measures we have provided Network Rail. information for Scotland and England & Wales Highlights for the year include: together with the network total where appropriate, although there are some measures progress with our enhancements which only have network-wide information and programme across the network; cannot be disaggregated further. During 2011/12 continued high investment on our assets we created a tenth operating route (Wales). while achieving further efficiencies; Although this document does not include information for the ten operating routes, this disruption to passenger and freight trains more detailed information is available for most being lower despite the increased work on measures on the ORR website portal. the network due to increased expenditure on enhancements and renewals work; This Annual Return follows the agreed form as approved by the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR) overall PPM (i.e. trains arriving on time) being at its highest ever at 91.6 per cent Executive Summary and Introduction Network Rail – Annual Return 2012 2 (although we did not meet the regulatory operators to improve performance against our target); regulatory targets
Recommended publications
  • 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]
  • Solent Connectivity May 2020
    Solent Connectivity May 2020 Continuous Modular Strategic Planning Page | 1 Page | 2 Table of Contents 1.0 Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................... 6 2.0 The Solent CMSP Study ................................................................................................................................... 10 2.1 Scope and Geography....................................................................................................................... 10 2.2 Fit with wider rail industry strategy ................................................................................................. 11 2.3 Governance and process .................................................................................................................. 12 3.0 Context and Strategic Questions ............................................................................................................ 15 3.1 Strategic Questions .......................................................................................................................... 15 3.2 Economic context ............................................................................................................................. 16 3.3 Travel patterns and changes over time ............................................................................................ 18 3.4 Dual-city region aspirations and city to city connectivity ................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE
    ITEM 1 TRANSPORT COMMITTEE NEWS 07 MARCH 2000 This report may be of interest to: All Members and Parish/Neighbourhood Councils RAIL UPDATE Accountable Officer: John Inman Author: Stephen Mortimer 1. Purpose 1.1 To advise the Committee of developments relating to Milton Keynes’ rail services. 2. Summary 2.1 West Coast Main Line Modernisation and Upgrade is now in the active planning stage. It will result in faster and more frequent train services between Milton Keynes Central and London, and between Milton Keynes Central and points north. Bletchley and Wolverton will also have improved services to London. 2.2 Funding for East-West Rail is now being sought from the Shadow Strategic Rail Authority (SSRA) for the western end of the line (Oxford-Bedford). Though the SSRA have permitted a bid only for a 60 m.p.h. single-track railway, excluding the Aylesbury branch and upgrade of the Marston Vale (Bedford-Bletchley) line, other Railtrack investment and possible developer contributions (yet to be investigated) may allow these elements to be included, as well as perhaps a 90 m.p.h. double- track railway. As this part of East-West Rail already exists, no form of planning permission is required; however, Transport and Works Act procedures are to be started to build the missing parts of the eastern end of the line. 2.3 New trains were introduced on the Marston Vale line, Autumn 1999. A study of the passenger accessibility of Marston Vale stations identified various desirable improvements, for which a contribution of £10,000 is required from this Council.
    [Show full text]
  • HLOS and Unlocking the Local Rail Network
    Information Sheet 5 Issue 1: July 2013 RUS - Network Rail Great Western Route Utilisation Strategy HLOS - High Level Output Specification ORR CP5 - Office of Rail Regulation ‘control period 5’ spending LTPP – Long Term Planning Process The Network Rail Great Western RUS was published on 1st March 2010. This sets the strategy for Network Rail going forwards for the next 30 years. Proposals within the RUS which will benefit train services in the West of England area include: · Bristol Temple Meads to Parson · Additional rolling stock for services Street four tracking; between Bristol Temple Meads and · Train lengthening Manchester and Gloucester, Portsmouth, Taunton and Gloucester to Bristol Temple Meads Cardiff; and Cardiff to Portsmouth and · Electrification of the Great Western Taunton; mainline and opportunities for electric · Increased line speed Bristol Temple services on the Greater Bristol Metro Meads to Bridgwater; (now known as MetroWest); · Filton Bank three/four tracking; · Bath Spa capacity upgrade · Bristol Temple Meads to Yate half (committed scheme 2009 to 2014); hourly extension; · Westerleigh Junction to Barnt Green · Bristol Temple Meads to Bath (with linespeed increase (committed possible extension to Clifton scheme 2009 to 2014). Down/Avonmouth) additional services; Whilst the RUS sets the strategy, Network Rail funding for schemes is determined by the High Level Output Specification (HLOS) that covers the period 2014 to 2019. High Level Output Specification The Department for Transport published its High Level Output Specification (HLOS) document on 16 July 2012. This set out major rail capacity schemes over the period 2014 to 2019 (known in the rail industry as Control Period 5).
    [Show full text]
  • Network Rail Response to Grand Union Trains Wales Application- 30
    OFFICIAL 30 October 2020 Gareth Clancy Head of Access and Licensing By email only Dear Gareth Grand Union Trains Section 17 Application between London and Carmarthen: Capacity and Performance Assessment I am writing in response to your letter of 16 October 2020. Network Rail has been working on assessing the Grand Union Trains Ltd (GUTL) applications in good faith. We have taken a methodical and logical progression of work to assess the applications. A timeline showing the work undertaken by Network Rail to assess the GUTL applications is in Annex 1. This demonstrates the volume of work which has been undertaken to assess the applications, as well as the considerable effort by Network Rail to assist GUTL in finding compliant proposals for train slots. It is only with the latest iteration of the proposed service specification that Network Rail and GUTL are in a position to understand which parts of the proposition can have a compliant train and platform plan; this will now allow meaningful performance modelling to be carried out. The static performance analysis conducted so far on the various GUTL applications using historic performance data shows there is a potential performance risk which is why the detailed modelling is required. The Coronavirus pandemic has significantly impacted the railway industry, with a collapse in passenger numbers, which has been sustained for several months. As service levels were reduced, there was an immediate improvement in punctuality and performance on the network. Indeed, during the early months of the pandemic, punctuality reached record levels with the proportion of trains arriving on time, to the minute, rising to 80-90% and around 95% of trains routinely arriving within 5-10 minutes of their scheduled time.
    [Show full text]
  • Fosbr Newsletter Number 88 May 2015 Highlighting Pilning's “Ghost”
    FoSBR Newsletter Number 88 May 2015 Highlighting Pilning’s “ghost” train service On Saturday 21st March Friends of Suburban Bristol Railways (FOSBR) invited local rail users to join them in riding a “parliamentary service” from Pilning railway station. A “parliamentary train” is a token service, run to avoid the cost of formal closure of a railway station. In the case of Pilning, this ghost service is provided by two trains on a Saturday, the 08:32 to Bristol Temple Meads and the 15:41 to Newport. 15 FOSBR members & friends took a roundabout route to Pilning, riding the “Beach Line” to Severn Beach and walking across fields and lanes to lunch at The Plough in Pilning. FOSBR then caught the westbound “parliamentary train” under the River Severn to Newport. In Newport the disabled lift was out of action so station staff helpfully re- platformed the next train to allow our colleague David to board the eastbound Bristol train in his wheelchair. This train provided a fleeting glimpse of Pilning station sleeping peacefully for another week. Pilning is only 2 miles from Severn Beach, Severn Beach station being convenient for a large number of local residents. Until 1964 the railway from Severn Beach continued north to Redwick Halt to loop around to join the South Wales Main Line via Pilning Low Level 1 station. Pilning station has massive potential for passengers in view of planned commercial developments nearby at West Gate, Western Approach and Central Park - covering many of the fields across which we walked. These new premises could employ 10,000+ workers in the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Jones, Peter ORCID: 0000000295669393 and Comfort, Daphne (2019) Elm Trees Under Attack Again. Town And
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Gloucestershire Research Repository This is a peer-reviewed, final published version of the following document and is licensed under All Rights Reserved license: Jones, Peter ORCID: 0000-0002-9566-9393 and Comfort, Daphne (2019) Elm trees under attack again. Town and Country Planning. pp. 71-74. ISSN 0040-9960 Official URL: https://www.tcpa.org.uk/ EPrint URI: http://eprints.glos.ac.uk/id/eprint/6552 Disclaimer The University of Gloucestershire has obtained warranties from all depositors as to their title in the material deposited and as to their right to deposit such material. The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation or warranties of commercial utility, title, or fitness for a particular purpose or any other warranty, express or implied in respect of any material deposited. The University of Gloucestershire makes no representation that the use of the materials will not infringe any patent, copyright, trademark or other property or proprietary rights. The University of Gloucestershire accepts no liability for any infringement of intellectual property rights in any material deposited but will remove such material from public view pending investigation in the event of an allegation of any such infringement. PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR TEXT. elm trees under attack again Peter Jones and Daphne Comfort outline the potential environmental impact of a new threat to elms in Britain, and look at current control treatments English elms in Cuckmere Valley in East Sussex The ConservationThe Foundation From the late 1960s onwards, Dutch elm disease there is no evidence from Europe to date of even spread rapidly within southern Britain,1 devastating severely defoliated elms dying.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Resource Survey Report
    BRIGHTON SUBDIVISION HISTORIC PROPERTIES SURVEY PHASE I CLG Grant CO-17-013 Cultural Resource Survey Report Prepared by Autobee & Autobee, LLC 6900 W. 26th Avenue Lakewood, CO 80214 June 18, 2018 Acknowledgements The activity that is the subject of this material has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Historic Preservation Act, administered by the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior for History Colorado. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of the Interior or History Colorado, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute an endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or History Colorado. This program received Federal funds from the National Park Service. Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental Federally-assisted programs on the basis of race, color, national origin, age or handicap. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. Brighton Subdivision Historic Properties Survey-Phase I 2 Table of Contents Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Dev-Plan.Chp:Corel VENTURA
    On Track for the 21st Century A Development Plan for the Railways of Wales and the Borders Tua’r Unfed Ganrif ar Ugain Cynllun Datblygu Rheilffyrdd Cymru a’r Gororau Railfuture Wales 2nd Edition ©September 2004 2 On Track for the 21st Century Section CONTENTS Page 1 Executive summary/ Crynodeb weithredol ......5 2 Preface to the Second Edition .............9 2.1 Some positive developments . 9 2.2 Some developments ‘in the pipeline’ . 10 2.3 Some negative developments . 10 2.4 Future needs . 10 3 Introduction ..................... 11 4 Passenger services .................. 13 4.1 Service levels . 13 4.1.1 General principles .............................13 4.1.2 Service levels for individual routes . ................13 4.2 Links between services: “The seamless journey” . 26 4.2.1 Introduction .................................26 4.2.2 Connectional policies ............................27 4.2.3 Through ticketing ..............................28 4.2.4 Interchanges .................................29 4.3 Station facilities . 30 4.4 On-train standards . 31 4.4.1 General principles .............................31 4.4.2 Better trains for Wales and the Borders . ...............32 4.5 Information for passengers . 35 4.5.1 Introduction .................................35 4.5.2 Ways in which information could be further improved ..........35 4.6 Marketing . 36 4.6.1 Introduction .................................36 4.6.2 General principles .............................36 5 Freight services .................... 38 5.1 Introduction . 38 5.2 Strategies for development . 38 6 Infrastructure ..................... 40 6.1 Introduction . 40 6.2 Resignalling . 40 6.3 New lines and additional tracks / connections . 40 6.3.1 Protection of land for rail use ........................40 6.3.2 Route by route requirements ........................41 6.3.3 New and reopened stations and mini-freight terminals ..........44 On Track for the 21st Century 3 Section CONTENTS Page 7 Political control / planning / funding of rail services 47 7.1 Problems arising from the rail industry structure .
    [Show full text]
  • Eveleigh Carriagevorks
    EVELEIGH CARRIAGEWORKS CONSERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN VOLUME I OTTO CSERHALMI + PARTNERS PL 2002 Table of Contents i 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 SECTION 2.0 INTRODUCTION -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5 2.1 Aims of the Report ------------------------------------------------------------------- 7 2.2 Site and Ownership ------------------------------------------------------------------ 8 2.3 Scope of the Report ----------------------------------------------------------------- 10 2.4 Methodology and Structure -------------------------------------------------------- 10 2.5 Terminology and Abbreviations --------------------------------------------------- 11 2.6 Contributors and Acknowledgements -------------------------------------------- 17 2.7 Constraints and Limitations -------------------------------------------------------- 18 2.8 Further Research --------------------------------------------------------------------- 18 2.9 Other Reports ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 19 SECTION 3.0 HISTORICAL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------------ 21 3.1 History and Development of the Site --------------------------------------------- 23 3.1.1 Geology & Geography ------------------------------------------------------ 23 3.1.2 Aboriginal History ----------------------------------------------------------- 24 3.1.3 Early Development ----------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Spatial Plan Joint Transport Study Final Report October 2017
    WEST OF ENGLAND “BUILDING OUR FUTURE” West of England Joint Spatial Plan Joint Transport Study final report October 2017 NOVEMBER 2017 9 www.jointplanningwofe.org.uk West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report Notice This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for the West of England authorities’ information and use in relation to the West of England Joint Transport Study. Atkins Limited 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 120 pages including the cover. Document history Job number: 5137782 Document ref: Final Report Revision Purpose description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date Rev 1.0 First Draft JFC TP, SG RT, TM JFC 05/05/17 Rev 2.0 Second Draft JFC, TP 26/05/17 Rev 3.0 Third Draft JFC BD, SG RT JFC 07/06/17 Rev 4.0 Fourth Draft JFC SG RT JFC 21/06/17 Rev 5.0 5th Draft (Interim Version) JFC 27/06/17 Rev 6.0 Sixth Draft JFC SG RT JFC 28/06/17 Rev 7.0 Final Draft JFC RT RT JFC 07/07/17 Rev 8.0 Revised Final Draft JFC JFC 01/09/17 Rev 9.0 Final JFC SG RT JFC 19/10/17 Client signoff Client West of England authorities Project West of England Joint Transport Study Document title Final Report Job no. 5137782 Copy no. Document 5137782/Final Report reference Atkins West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report | October 2017 West of England Joint Transport Study Final Report Table of contents Chapter Pages 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Railways As World Heritage Sites
    Occasional Papers for the World Heritage Convention RAILWAYS AS WORLD HERITAGE SITES Anthony Coulls with contributions by Colin Divall and Robert Lee International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) 1999 Notes • Anthony Coulls was employed at the Institute of Railway Studies, National Railway Museum, York YO26 4XJ, UK, to prepare this study. • ICOMOS is deeply grateful to the Government of Austria for the generous grant that made this study possible. Published by: ICOMOS (International Council on Monuments and Sites) 49-51 Rue de la Fédération F-75015 Paris France Telephone + 33 1 45 67 67 70 Fax + 33 1 45 66 06 22 e-mail [email protected] © ICOMOS 1999 Contents Railways – an historical introduction 1 Railways as World Heritage sites – some theoretical and practical considerations 5 The proposed criteria for internationally significant railways 8 The criteria in practice – some railways of note 12 Case 1: The Moscow Underground 12 Case 2: The Semmering Pass, Austria 13 Case 3: The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, United States of America 14 Case 4: The Great Zig Zag, Australia 15 Case 5: The Darjeeling Himalayan Railway, India 17 Case 6: The Liverpool & Manchester Railway, United Kingdom 19 Case 7: The Great Western Railway, United Kingdom 22 Case 8: The Shinkansen, Japan 23 Conclusion 24 Acknowledgements 25 Select bibliography 26 Appendix – Members of the Advisory Committee and Correspondents 29 Railways – an historical introduction he possibility of designating industrial places as World Heritage Sites has always been Timplicit in the World Heritage Convention but it is only recently that systematic attention has been given to the task of identifying worthy locations.
    [Show full text]