For a while on this forum, popular topics were about the Northern Electrification, London Bridge remodelling, Norton Bridge grade separation and probably a few others I can't remember. In your opinion, which recent, say completed in the last 5 years, has had the most relative benefit (for the cost) in terms of improving reliability, improving journey times, allowing new services to run or any other reasonably measurable measure? Also which one has had the least benefit (for the cost)?
Do you know what benefits were declared ( not in the media or by word of mouth but actual benefits) by each project and how much of that declared benefit has been delivered or are you just using the word " benefit" to mean whatever you want it to mean? This seems entirely subjective and opinion based and that will lead to this kind of sillyness:
It's an utterly confusing concourse layout too, having used it a couple of times in it's new form. Vast empty spaces, with a few ticket barriers and escalators scattered seemingly at random. I wanted to get into the Leon for a bit of breakfast, but it appeared to be behind ticket barriers. I wandered around a bit and discovered the way in was not at all where it appeared to be.
Very difficult to work out which exit I needed to, not being from town.
The old concourse might have been a bit grim and crowded, but at least it worked as a station.
Agree, just because it's got a bigger and newer concourse it doesn't equate to also being massively improved. The passenger seems to have been forgotten once he/she leaves the concourse, not only the platforms and escalators are all over the place but the train platforms are still dark and depressing.
New Street is
MASSIVELY improved on almost every possible measure except RUK "experts" analysis. New Street is nether confusing nor difficult to use ( or "read" as another posters insists on). It is well laid out, has lots of space to wait in the dry and the warm, lots of seating, good PA systems, has lots of refreshment outlets, it has lifts and escalators from all platforms etc etc etc
What it ISNT is a traditional station and that seems to cause trouble for posters here. And, btw, it didn't work as a station in the past. It was a dump and totally unable to cope with the number using it. Lets be realistic about that shall we?
As far as bang for your bucks are concerned the New St development at £3/4 billion for a few shops and a couple of escalators I would say it is the worst value railway development for decades, never mind in the last 5 or so years.
This is a fantastically silly post. The station is miles better than it ever was.
If it’s value for money, then Shaftholme and Borders take the (joint) wooden spoon. Both have left the country worse off than if they had not been done.
Politics at play with Borders mind. The politicos think it is really great, as do the passengers.
Shaftholme was a well delivered project if now a bit pointless! However, the business case at the time of inception and delivery was very good. I also don't recall many dissenting voices warning how the project was a white elephant because coal traffic was going to collapse in short order.
Shaftholme. Why could the latter not have been built down the line at the Newark flat crossing instead.
Firstly it shouldn't be one or the other but Shaftholme was more required when planned and built. The fact the backside dropped out of coal traffic meant it ended up being a little bit superfluous.............
Looking at the most recent, Norton Bridge, Hitchin, now Werrington, great but they seem to have expanded their scope and land take way beyond what was onetime provided. Surely you could get two now for the costs and scale of one of these.
I am sure you know best.
Will the Werrington flyover now in construction prove its worth?
Unless the backside falls out of container traffic post BREXIT it should be ok!
