BBC article on other ambitious infrastructure projects (Includes Welwyn)

[jon0844]

I doubt Welwyn North is listed but I bet you can't easily close a well used station.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[jon0844]

I doubt Welwyn North is listed but I bet you can't easily close a well used station.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A fixed link would see a big increase in visitors, which would be a good thing. Along the coast you can see the difference between those coastal towns that have become fashionable anf those that have not.

With a fixed link local companies could expand on the Island rather than come to the inevitable point when they have to move off the Island.

For people who don't need to earn money on the Island, or has well paid state job (teacher etc), it is an idyllic retreat. For everyone else it has a combination of high house prices with low wages and lots of seasonal work.

The Island will remain poor until a fixed link is built, there are over a million people on the other side of the Solent, and it might as well be 50 miles away.

While I see the attraction, I think there's some failure to see the bigger picture here. Sure, a fixed link may bring more visitors. If so, those won't on the whole, in UK terms, be new visitors, they will be people who are visiting the island instead of visiting other places. The island's gain will be someone else's loss.

The usual cause of high house prices is not enough houses. Good transport links usually tend to increase, rather than reduce, prices. So it sounds rather implausible to me that building a bridge would ease house prices on the island, rather the reverse.

A bridge may well make it easier for people living on the island to seek jobs on the mainland. It will likewise make it easier for people living on the mainland to seek jobs on the island, thereby competing with the local population. That won't increase the number of jobs available - there will still be just as many people desperate and unable to find work, although maybe slightly fewer of them will be living on the island.

I totally sympathize with the difficulties of anyone (whether on the island or not) who is struggling to find work or a decent place to live etc. But ultimately, what's needed is Government action to improve the economy as a whole, including possibly specific support for places such as the Isle of Wight. And for the Government to figure out a way to build many more houses. (And yes I know how to do all that is a whole controversial subject in itself). A project whose main long term impact would primarily be to shuffle round all the existing jobs and businesses and likewise shuffle round where the existing tourists go doesn't strike me as good solution. Especially when that project is likely to cause massive environmental damage.

 

[yorksrob]

I don‘t really see the point of closing Welwyn North. Surely, as others have pointed out, there are other factors limiting capacity including (but not exclusively) the double track section itself which would need to be sorted out. Once all this has been done, you're left with a four track station no more of a problem than any of the others.

 

[HowardGWR]

I don‘t really see the point of closing Welwyn North. Surely, as others have pointed out, there are other factors limiting capacity including (but not exclusively) the double track section itself which would need to be sorted out. Once all this has been done, you're left with a four track station no more of a problem than any of the others.

I wrote earlier that according to my view in Google Earth, there was no need to demolish the station building in 4 tracking, but nobody corrected me, so perhaps no one has the knowledge here to do so?

 

[jopsuk]

surely if the additional lines were added to the west of the station, not the east, the station building would be unaffected?

 

[D365]

surely if the additional lines were added to the west of the station, not the east, the station building would be unaffected?

I think these are the options available if wanting to add two tracks to the existing route. Let me know what you all think and if this is similar to what has been planned historically, or how feasible these are. I'm not really that qualified, yet

• Additional viaduct; replica or at least non-intrusive depending on heritage regulations.
- Built on west or east of existing structure with additional two-track bore on respective side. Avoiding line through Welwyn North station. Flyover to return to standard track arrangement at either end. Much easier that way, rather than moving platforms about just to conform with the rest of the line, as yorksrob has said below.
- Could the avoiding line be built cut-and-cover under the car park so that land isn't lost and it is easier to grade separate at the north end?

• Double-deck and reinforce the existing structure. Tunnels re-bored between viaduct and station so that whichever deck carries the slow lines continues through the station and fast tracks use a new avoiding line.
- Once again, flyovers to return to standard arrangement. Exact arrangement of decks, tunnels and junctions debatable.

 

[yorksrob]

I wrote earlier that according to my view in Google Earth, there was no need to demolish the station building in 4 tracking, but nobody corrected me, so perhaps no one has the knowledge here to do so?

There are lots of people on here more qualified than me, but I'd have thought that in a situation with two tunnels and a viaduct, it would be easier to quadrouple by laying a pair of tracks to one side, rather than one either side, so unless there were some reason why they couldn't be laid on the West side of the line, I'd be inclined to agree with you.

 

[Chris125]

A road bridge on the West side of the Island is very practical, it's as you say not politically popular on the Island, by those people who like the Island isolated.

It's not even remotely practical, neither side of the Solent there has the necessary road infrastructure and would be opposed by pretty much 100% of the local population - there was enough of a furore over replacing the ferries! It's for good reason that bridge proposals have usually involved the East Wight or Gurnard.

A fixed link would see a big increase in visitors, which would be a good thing. Along the coast you can see the difference between those coastal towns that have become fashionable anf those that have not.

There simply isn't the road space for that, it's bad enough in the summer as it is - it would be utter madness to sacrifice the one thing that makes the Island unique, that differentiates it from other resorts along the South Coast, just to introduce a volume of traffic that it can't cope with. Don't underestimate the impact that a ferry journey has on how people view a trip to the Island and how long they stay, despite the cost.

For people who don't need to earn money on the Island, or has well paid state job (teacher etc), it is an idyllic retreat. For everyone else it has a combination of high house prices with low wages and lots of seasonal work.

Something I am well aware of, but there are upsides and downsides to wherever people live - some issues would no doubt be improved by a bridge, but it would likely cause as many problems as it would solve. Given the vast cost, and the difficulty trying to quantify exactly what would happen, such an investment would be utter madness and against the wishes of the vast majority of the Island's residents.

Chris

 

[Aictos]

As has been said before, Welwyn Tunnels (and viaduct) are not the worst capacity constraint(s) on the ECML. The long 2/3 track section from Peterborough to Huntingdon is. Then it is Welwyn North station.

A bridge to the IoW would be a good value time machine; spend £50 to go back to 1957!

Any news on the Peterborough to Huntingdon section?

 

[D365]

Would the population feel any different about Island Line being extended to the mainland, either in tube tunnels or mainline-size? Might have to be built with walkways, but that's a mere technicality. Would make it easier to get trains over!

The curiosity has struck me.

Any news on the Peterborough to Huntingdon section?

We here have already discussed this issue. Not sure when yet, but will have to be done in the future; definitely if Huntingdon North (Alconbury Weald) station is to be built. Will need a fair bit of work but not impossible.

 

[Aictos]

Would the population feel any different about Island Line being extended to the mainland, either in tube tunnels or mainline-size? Might have to be built with walkways, but that's a mere technicality. Would make it easier to get trains over!

The curiosity has struck me.




We here have already discussed this issue. Not sure when yet, but will have to be done in the future; definitely if Huntingdon North (Alconbury Weald) station is to be built. Will need a fair bit of work but not impossible.

Why a station at Huntingdon North? With the parkway road system that Peterborough has and as a much more heavily used station, surely it makes more sense to have a parkway station to take traffic off the congested roads in the Peterborough City Centre.

It could easily be called Peterborough Parkway with 12 car platforms on the slow lines only which would reduce the amount of construction needed and with quick access to the A1 would certainly be more attractive then another station further south.

Bearing in mind this Parkway station was proposed by Railtrack and WAGN in the early 2000s....

 

[D365]

Alconbury Weald. Massive enterprise zone development by Urban & Civic on the RAF airfield with 8000 jobs and 5000 houses. Huntingdon North station proposed for opening in 10-20 years if all goes to plan, including with the 4-tracking.

Although Peterborough Parkway doesn't sound too bad an idea for the future with the development in south Peterborough. As long as it is integrated well with the A1139 and A15; J3 is a bit of a pinch point. Would be especially fun if a track could be added on the Up Slow side for the Nene Valley Railway, although maybe not as good for them as the once-planned Crescent Link to the 'North' station.

 

[Rational Plan]

It's not even remotely practical, neither side of the Solent there has the necessary road infrastructure and would be opposed by pretty much 100% of the local population - there was enough of a furore over replacing the ferries! It's for good reason that bridge proposals have usually involved the East Wight or Gurnard.



There simply isn't the road space for that, it's bad enough in the summer as it is - it would be utter madness to sacrifice the one thing that makes the Island unique, that differentiates it from other resorts along the South Coast, just to introduce a volume of traffic that it can't cope with. Don't underestimate the impact that a ferry journey has on how people view a trip to the Island and how long they stay, despite the cost.



Something I am well aware of, but there are upsides and downsides to wherever people live - some issues would no doubt be improved by a bridge, but it would likely cause as many problems as it would solve. Given the vast cost, and the difficulty trying to quantify exactly what would happen, such an investment would be utter madness and against the wishes of the vast majority of the Island's residents.

Chris

It would quite simple to build a bridge West of Gunard as the Solent is shallow and narrower there. It would not be madness it would transform the economy of the Island. The coastal resorts would have much longer seasons and no longer have to rely on the slim pickings of coachloads of pensioners which fill most hotels.

The attiteude of 'there are up and downs' of living somewhere is just your justification of keeping the Island undeveloped and the significant portions of the Islands population in poverty. But nimbys don't really care about those people. Those retiress and holiday home owners who dominate the Islands politic don't worry about that because their kids don't live on the Island.

I know a bridge won't be built because those with money are perfectly happy the way it is.

 

[jon0844]

All these different things discussed on one thread is beginning to confuse me.

Let me just check I'm up to speed; we're talking about four tracking from a new station near Huntingdon down to a new bridge from Welwyn that extends to the IOW, right?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The attiteude of 'there are up and downs' of living somewhere is just your justification of keeping the Island undeveloped and the significant portions of the Islands population in poverty. But nimbys don't really care about those people. Those retiress and holiday home owners who dominate the Islands politic don't worry about that because their kids don't live on the Island.

I know a bridge won't be built because those with money are perfectly happy the way it is.

Significant portions of the population live in poverty right across the UK. I agree with you that it's a terrible problem. But roads don't on balance make a significant difference to that. I've lived in several areas that have extremely good road and rail links, but which still have big problems of poverty in the areas.

Perhaps it's best to focus efforts on something that will actually help reduce poverty, rather than on something that will cause massive environmental damage, increase car-dependency, but do virtually nothing to reduce total poverty levels. (It's possible a bridge might export some poverty from the island over to South Hampshire because it would cause the existing jobs to be redistributed somewhat, but overall that's not a net benefit).

 

[TheBigD]

With reference to the Peterborough Parkway station there is land reserved already for a proposed station. It's located behind the Willis & Gambol (?) warehouse off the first roundabout on the A605, just off the A1139...

If you go onto the PCC website and persevere with it you can eventually find the outline plannning map...

No idea about any funding or timescales though...

 

[OxtedL]

All these different things discussed on one thread is beginning to confuse me.

Let me just check I'm up to speed; we're talking about four tracking from a new station near Huntingdon down to a new bridge from Welwyn that extends to the IOW, right?

And then onto Ireland in an extremely long tunnel...

 

[TheKnightWho]

Significant portions of the population live in poverty right across the UK. I agree with you that it's a terrible problem. But roads don't on balance make a significant difference to that. I've lived in several areas that have extremely good road and rail links, but which still have big problems of poverty in the areas.

Perhaps it's best to focus efforts on something that will actually help reduce poverty, rather than on something that will cause massive environmental damage, increase car-dependency, but do virtually nothing to reduce total poverty levels. (It's possible a bridge might export some poverty from the island over to South Hampshire because it would cause the existing jobs to be redistributed somewhat, but overall that's not a net benefit).

I'm not really going to wade into this discussion properly, as I don't have the time at the moment, but you're making a pretty major assumption throughout your posts: wealth is not a zero-sum game. Creating wealth on the island would not necessarily (and is in fact unlikely to) export poverty elsewhere. That's simply not how economics tends to work.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm not really going to wade into this discussion properly, as I don't have the time at the moment, but you're making a pretty major assumption throughout your posts: wealth is not a zero-sum game. Creating wealth on the island would not necessarily (and is in fact unlikely to) export poverty elsewhere. That's simply not how economics tends to work.

What you say is true, and would certainly be the key argument if we were talking about - say - building some new factory or some new business creating a new product. In that case you would be looking at increasing overall levels of prosperity. But what we're talking about is a road. The point I'm making is it's highly unlikely any road will by itself result in significant creation of new factories, services or industries etc. While I accept that there may be a marginal impact in that direction, any impact it has on the island's economy will primarily come from moving existing jobs or existing industries - and that is to a good approximation a zero-sum game.

 

[OxtedL]

What you say is true, and would certainly be the key argument if we were talking about - say - building some new factory or some new business creating a new product. In that case you would be looking at increasing overall levels of prosperity. But what we're talking about is a road. The point I'm making is it's highly unlikely any road will by itself result in significant creation of new factories, services or industries etc. While I accept that there may be a marginal impact in that direction, any impact it has on the island's economy will primarily come from moving existing jobs or existing industries - and that is to a good approximation a zero-sum game.

If transport infrastructure worked like that then we'd never have anything built out of the current benefit-cost driven system.

There are examples in almost every scheme to show that it isn't necessarily a zero sum game. Better access almost inevitably stimulates new as well as relocated economic activity.

Whilst I don't know the Isle of Wight and associated markets very well, I could certainly say that if the totally unrelated example of an Uckfield-Lewes link came about then I would almost certainly visit that stretch of the Sussex coast more than I do - I might go on a Sunday like today instead of sitting at home. Of course I could do it now with a fairly trivial change at East Croydon but a more direct link might be the psychological push required. Perhaps the same is true for other people of the IOW. (Perhaps not.)

One notable thing that my example has in common with the IOW bridge is the fact that it doesn't currently seem to be on anyone's list of infrastructure projects to build, but I think that to suggest that anything like this is a zero sum game is to misunderstand the capitalist mechanics underlying it.

 

[Rational Plan]

Significant portions of the population live in poverty right across the UK. I agree with you that it's a terrible problem. But roads don't on balance make a significant difference to that. I've lived in several areas that have extremely good road and rail links, but which still have big problems of poverty in the areas.

Perhaps it's best to focus efforts on something that will actually help reduce poverty, rather than on something that will cause massive environmental damage, increase car-dependency, but do virtually nothing to reduce total poverty levels. (It's possible a bridge might export some poverty from the island over to South Hampshire because it would cause the existing jobs to be redistributed somewhat, but overall that's not a net benefit).

Sorry transport infrastructure does stimulate growth, we have 200 years of evidence to show this. Making travel to the Island cheaper, easier and not subject to the weather would increase the numbers of people traveling and therefore dtimulate growth. More tourists would mean mean more shops and restaurants, hotels to be able to charge more and therefore invest to upggrade facilites etc. The Island is very pretty with a reliable link to the Mainland different types of people would move here. Instead of retirees we'd get more ex London families who have mobile business, the types that colonise most of the Home counties and beyond. More small business would be able to grow and employ more local people.

The problem of course, like in much of the South, is that many people are already well off and don't want anyone else to join them in there rural idyll. A revived Island would see demand for more housing to be built and some of those village bypass plans cancelled in the 90's might need to be revived. But on the other hand they should look at the collapse of the town centres of Ryde, Sandown and Shanklin and see something needs to be done.