🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 22:11:02 +0100 someone who may be David M
<david@bogus.domain.dom> wrote this:-

>It is, after all, the Executive that is promoting the railway, rather
>than Network Rail

Actually re-opening the Waverley Route is being promoted by a group
of councils, led by Scottish Borders Council. Unlike some roads
AFAIAA all railway schemes are promoted by Councils [1]. You may
draw your own conclusions about how much priority the Executive
gives to roads and railways from this.

>I'm not actually aware of any new rail lines where RT/NR has been the 
>party taking the "initiative", but I'd be interested to hear of any. 
>Fortunately, at least the government (and/or SPT and/or local 
>authorities) have said, "Well, we want a new railway, so we're going to
>pay to you build it, whether you like it or not" ;-)

I largely agree with you. However, the Newcraighall service was
suggested by the Capital Rail Action Group and this suggestion was
taken up by the railways as a scheme that they could do under the
(then) current setup, as opposed to endless planning with no result.
They lobbied the council and this led to the scheme going ahead.

Examples of pure railway initiatives include re-doubling various
bits of track on the lines to London Marlybone and Cornwall.
However, I don't think RT/NR took the initiative. The former were
too busy marketing their prime retail space which just had the
nuisance of trains running through it and the latter have only just
stabilised the mess the former left.

[1] Sometimes councils claim that the promoter is a separate
company, such as TIE in Edinburgh. However TIE is wholly owned by
the City of Edinburgh Council, takes its orders from the same place
and has a fair number of staff from the council. To all intents and
purposes TIE is simply an arm of the council and the wise treat it
as such.


-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54