Plea to DfT for £27m to achieve 'Nottingham in 90'
TRANSPORT chiefs at the city and county councils have joined forces to plead for an extra £27.5m to bring Nottingham-London train journeys inside 90 minutes.
The Midland Main Line is due for a £69m improvement while Nottingham Railway Station will have an £11.6m revamp of its track and signaling.
-
funding appeal: Richard Jackson
Journeys would be faster but still be about three minutes longer than the "Nottingham in 90" goal of city and county officials.
They say a 90-minute rail link with the capital would break a "psychological barrier" and encourage business.
Councillors said they were also keen to ensure that plans to include the East Midlands in a £30bn High Speed Rail network, expected to be complete by 2030, would not drain resources for other rail projects.
Coun Richard Jackson, Notts County Council's transport spokesman, said of the request for £27m: "Although this is a tiny sum in comparison to the cost of a High Speed Rail network, it would ensure that Nottingham's journey time to London was cut to 90 minutes."
Coun Jane Urquhart, Nottingham City Council's transport spokesman, said the councils had jointly written to Transport Secretary Lord Andrew Adonis and the Transport Select Committee about the issue.
The work proposed by the councils would include providing additional tracks (freight loops) at Desborough, Northamptonshire, to enable passenger trains to overtake freight trains and save three minutes.
It would also see the realignment of the track at Market Harborough, to reduce curvature and raise speeds from 60mph to possibly 90mph. This would save another minute.
If the cash was approved the Nottingham to London journey time could be cut to 90 minutes if trains called only at Leicester. The earliest this could happen is 2014.
Transport Minister Paul Clark, who visited Nottingham to unveil the High Speed Rail plans, insisted the project would not divert funds from other rail schemes.
"We have a track record of having invested in our railways and that is why they have been so successful," he said.
jon.robinson@nottinghameveningpost.co.uk
56 Comments
View all
by Mr B J Mann, Nottingham
Saturday, March 20 2010, 3:57PM
“I didn't ask if you knew what you were talking about you illiterate ignoramus.
I asked if you knew what you were trying to say.
Was that incoherent drivel supposed to be the answer?
.
Have you tried my little experiment yet?
Does your tiny brain even have the slightest inkling of what I'm trying to get you to see?
.
Accidents don't happen every day.
In fact, most days they don't happen.
And being the kind of phenomenon they are you might not get an accident for ages, and then one might happen.
Or a few.
.
And if a few happen close together they put in a camera.
.
But, just like the fact that after the single accident there wasn't an accident after it isn't down to whether or not a camera was put up after it.
Similarly, if you put up a camera after a spate of accidents:
The fact that you don't have another accident after the spate has *nothing* *WHATSOEVER* to do with the *CAMERA*
.
Try the experiment with the coin, you moron.
Or are you even incapable of tossing a coin?
I find that surprising considering how you spend your spare time.
.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Saturday, March 20 2010, 10:04AM
“Yes B J, I do know what I'm talking about.
If accidents fell after the introduction of cameras, then the most likely outcome would be that cameras have proved a seficient deterrent.”
by Mr B J Mann, Nottingham
Friday, March 19 2010, 8:44PM
“What the stupiding ell does that moronic post mean, Mr Moron?
Do you even know what you are trying to say?!?!?!
.”
by Mr. Sensible, The Real World
Friday, March 19 2010, 6:41PM
“B J I just don't believe this.
If accidents fell after the introduction of cameras anything else would be too much of a coincidence.”
by Mr B J Mann, Nottingham
Friday, March 19 2010, 2:42PM
“As for the other thread, your cretinous moronicity has been demolished yet again on it.
The fact that the government chooses to cut corners and under-spec roads does not prove that roads will alway congest and moeny spent on widening is a waste:
It proves the *OPPOSITE*
If they spec the roads to handle the projected actaul traffic growth expected on the new road.
Instead of the minimal growth expected on the old one:P
Then we will have a proper functioning free flowing road system.
.
And how much would be saved if you scrapped all the railway and tram schemes, you moron?
What kind of an "arguement" is that?
.
Do you have even a passing aquaintence with the concept of rational thought?
.”