Newcastle 'like Beirut': They put the blame on Newcastle rail line & want it removed

R

Red_Rattler

Since 09 May 2003
Newcastle 'like Beirut': They put the blame on Newcastle rail line & want it removed

NOTE: THESE ARE NOT MY/OUR VIEWS, THAT THE RAIL LINE MUST BE REMOVED, but developers are after the land it is on, even though they don't admit it

http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...-removal-of-newcastles-rail-line/2542548.aspx
The readers of that newspaper are able to comment, however the comments MUST be approved before they are published.

Yet take a look at this one (the second comment from the bottom at the moment by the person calling themselves Ma and Pa Kettle posted 2/05/2012 9:14:50 PM, if it is not removed):
Que Save Our Rail - what about blind little old ladies, carrying surfboards, pushing prams and carrying bags. 99.99% of people want the rail to stay. Greedy developers, skyscrapers blocking the corridor, people will have to walk from Scone if the rail is cut at Wickham. Buses can't carry people all that way from Wickham to Civic, there are not enough buses on the planet to carry all the rail passengers, trains are so full that people can't fit on. Trains on Anzac Day were full to overflowing, 99% of people come to work by train.
Click to expand...
While I am uncertain, this style is similar to another person's style that I won't name.

This is the sort of comments that people who support cutting the rail are able to make. If those comments were made from the other side of the fence, it would not get approved.

And he is today's follow up article: http://www.theherald.com.au/news/lo...beirut-says-infrastructure-chief/2542904.aspx
 
Last edited:
As much as the nostalgic railfan in me wants to chain myself to a crossing gate and scream "over my dead body!" I've got to be logical about this. I like some of the comments on the first article that were saying (in so many words) "Nobody goes to the business district because there's nothing to do there. Get the businesses back in, and people living down there, and you'll fix the problem."

A couple years back the city I live in (Kansas City, MO) voted to approve a light-rail system, which frankly I wasn't totally on board with (at least the plan for it). However, it was vetoed and just basically died after we'd started to get everything in place, essentially for the same reasons this article states (IE the land developers want the property). If the people of Newcastle really want to get the business district restored, and they do go through with it, access to a railhead would expidite passenger travel in and out.
 
I was mainly showing how one side that newspaper is.

But I have evidence that it is because the developers are after that land. And that comment I quoted, is in very poor taste.

Yes, but Sawyer811, that proposal in Kansas, sounds like ADDING to, not removing transport, for developers interest.

the local MP (and yes I have to mention him) after the transport forum which was about ALL forms of public transport went on to a talk back radio show & turned into nothing but a Cut The Rail forum, and admitted he wants it replaced with buses. Light rail is only being used as a false "SOFTENER" in an attempt to get more people to support removing the rail line. When he means buses, he means replaced with the "existing" bus routes.

ANY CALL FOR REMOVING RAIL FROM A CBD IS MAD.

See: http://www.flickr.com/photos/34023326@N02/sets/72157628379844735 & a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpGks4P77qY
 
Last edited:
Hi Everybody.
I think my approach to this would be, "will the redevelopment of the business district create more jobs than there are at present". If the answer to that is yes, then perhaps there is justification in removing the station from the area. what the city authorities should be insisting on in that event, is that the developers of the area rebuild a new station has close to the present site as possible at their cost.

Do not be too disparaging about the use of buses. If you use for example a station like Bristol Temple Meads (UK) which is a large through and terminus station with 15 platforms in the centre of Bristol. Many thousands of rail travellers leave their trains daily at the station and then board city centre buses for their destinations throughout the city. Buses can be far more flexible than trains for ferrying commuters around cities with the railways being the major mass transit system for commuters coming into and out of the city.

The key to the " land grab" if that's what it is, is employment. As many European countries are now finding out it is the basis of everything that the Western way of life relies on. Therefore if re-development means re-employment for those who do not have jobs then the redevelopment of the area should go ahead along with the development of a new station as near as possible to the old. The use of other public transport such as buses to areas that the railway would no longer serve should then also be brought about.

Bill
 
They can easily "redevelop" or what they cll "renew" without the need to remove this vital piece of rail line that provides direct access to the CBD. While the developers won't admit it, it is ONLY about the land, as it is the last piece of land in the CBD that is not undermined, and more written evidence has come up that supports that it nothing more than a land grab by greedy developers.

Adelaide railway has a similar set up to Newcastle, even to the point that Adelaide has a river (Newcastle has a harbour), both Adelaide's & Newcatle's CBD are on the south side of their rail CBD rail lines, yet their is NO TALK or proposals to remove their railway from the CBD for greedy developers. While your not suppose to speak about it on this forum, however it IS relevant, some of these developers have given money to the local members. As someone said on another forum "I can see no tangable evidence presented by the proponents to remove the line that would be of any benfit to Newcastle - only benefits to developers and their comrade politicians."

To put simply here is a list with a common link:
The most important is number 1.
1. Auckland CBD (Had to rebuild their CBD railway after it was cut, and were forced to put it underground, due to developers)

2. South Brisbane to Roma St (both gauges: Extension of tracks from what was a terminus to Roma St)
3. Perth to Fremantle (Had to re-open, after it was closed)
4. Brisbane to Gold Coast (Had to rebuild it, after closing the original in 1962)
5. Bunbury (That city now regrets removing it's CBD railway)
6. Epping to South Morang in the north-eastish part of Melbourne (It was closed to Whittlesea, and now they had to re-build it to South Morang.)
7. Los Angeles
8. And now London is getting Cross-Rail as they see the benefits of a direct service.

The common link is that most had their lines closed, and now have or are in the process of rebuilding rail lines to the CBD
 
Last edited:
Alternative view

I actually live in an apartment right on the harbour waterfront in Newcastle and I'm by no means a fan of, or in the pay of, any Developers or politicians. But if you ask me, the best thing they can do is get rid of that ugly, noisy rail line and all its frustrating, traffic-snarling rail crossings as soon as possible. The line acts as a barrier preventing proper integration of the city with its waterfront. There are whole stretches of the Newcastle CBD along that line which have fallen into a very shabby unattractive state because the rail line precludes any nicer development of the area. You only have to contrast the derelict and crappy area along the rail line with the 'good' rail-free area close to the harbour entrance to see what might be possible. Of course it all depends on the quality of the future developments - the hopeless Newcastle City Council is capable of screwing up almost anything - but with the current rail in place there isn't even the possibility of something decent being done. The climate here is one of the best in the country, not too hot or cold, plenty of water, and right on the ocean and the city is not yet too big for its own boots. If they did the developments right, it could be a real gem of a city.
 
With the caveat that I do not live in the area, I fail to see how a rail line can so horribly affect development. I live about one block away from a three track mainline that hosts not only UP freight trains but Metra commuter trains as well. From Chicago to Harvard this route is littered with level crossings and very few overpasses or underpasses, yet business thrives on either side of the ROW. Most of the suburban towns have built their town centers around the passenger stations, and the trendy eateries and shops pay prime rates for being located in the area within walking distance from the same. My path to and from my place of employment runs on the road that is parallel to the tracks, and I often have to stop for trains from either direction during peak times, but it has never become an issue to local residents as far as I know. The commuter line is invaluable to those that want to go downtown for work or play, and the freight is limited to off peak hours.

Couldn't it be possible to transform the area, and keep the rail line, or is this a one or the other matter. It seems to me from afar that both sides of the argument are wasting a valuable resource that could be combined with upscale profitable use of real estate in the area.

As I said, I'm not familiar with the city, but blaming a rail line for preventing progress, throwing up hands and walking away from a better solution seems unreasonable to me.
 
Euphod said:
Couldn't it be possible to transform the area, and keep the rail line, or is this a one or the other matter. It seems to me from afar that both sides of the argument are wasting a valuable resource that could be combined with upscale profitable use of real estate in the area.
Click to expand...
That's what the train users want. However, while they don't admit it, it is just another land grab.

We have suggested these options: Building OVER the rail line and keeping the direct service, having the rail line on a modern looking viaduct, and some have suggested why not a tunnel. However the main developer and developers say NO to all of these. They have stated in the past that they [the developers] don't want anything on the rail land, and we are all wondering why they don't. A small and what looks to be a steepish flyover was built six years ago or so, to take the main line at what is known at Sandgate, to make it easier for both passenger and coal trains.

Euphod, do this: Put this entry into Google Maps: Merewether St, Newcastle, NSW, and then using the street view, point towards the harbour (harbor in US speak). And move in a west direction from their, and see how the recent developments block the harbour views. They claim they want to remove it to have "better" connectivity and for better harbour views, but they can easily do that with suitable crossings.

I have to re-upload a picture to show you what I mean. See below

Dinorius_Redundicus said
I actually live in an apartment right on the harbour waterfront in Newcastle and I'm by no means a fan of, or in the pay of, any Developers or politicians. But if you ask me, the best thing they can do is get rid of that ugly, noisy rail line and all its frustrating, traffic-snarling rail crossings as soon as possible.
Click to expand...
Um excuse me, Dinorius_Redundicus, you knew the train line was their before moving in to your apartment. Of course you are exempt if you moved to a harbour waterfront before 1857! Those railway crossing only old hold up the traffic for around 1 minute or so. You wait longer at the nearby traffic lights, be it in a car or as a pedestrian.

And with a number of those level crossings, on the media, they have a traffic report. And on a number of occasions, it was reported that the gates were stuck, or that an incident occurred at the gates. however after contacting a nearby station, they said their were no delays.

New building showing what is the real "barrier"
http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w502/platformonephotos/a3c9e013.jpg

That building in the background, so which is the real barrier to a harbour view?
http://i1079.photobucket.com/albums/w502/platformonephotos/96f8c9fa.jpg
 
Last edited:
Yes I knew there was a rail line, but there's always been talk of removing it and that was my hope, that one day they will. Besides, I'm not on the side of the building that looks at it. And while you picture some buildings, you neglect to say that in front of them there is a waterfront promenade with restaurants and bars etc extending all the way along the harbourside, fully accessible to anyone and enjoyed by hundreds or thousands of people every day. As for the crossing lights taking 1 minute..pff..you probably don't try to get through them on your way to and from work every day. I would almost swear they spend more time closed than open, maybe not literally, but it seems that way. You are right though when you say the traffic light sequences need some streamlining, it's very hard to get a good run in that area. I won't expect you to change your mind one iota, but equally don't expect me to change mine. I hate that rail line. They can rip it up right back to Broadmeadow for all I care. The whole argument reminds me of when BHP steel were threatening to close down, everyone said it would be the death of Newcastle. In reality I think it proved to be quite the opposite.
 
Last edited:
That may be so, but why did you move there, knowing FULL well the railway was there?
And same to those that move near airports, and then "howl" our noisy it is.
 
Like I said, I'm on the side of the building that faces the water, I don't have to hear or look at that monstrosity myself, just drive across it. My distaste for it is born of the wish that one day that whole precinct could be opened up, renovated, made more aesthetically pleasing, more enjoyable for everyone not me in particular. I like the idea of an underground line along that section, just to get it out of sight, if that was possible.
 
Hi Everybody.
Red rattler quotes the London crossrail development in an earlier posting as support for his argument that the Newcastle railway station should not be torn up to make way for redevelopment. However, the London crossrail is an extension of the London underground system and the extra capacity is needed because of the success of redevelopment at Canary Wharf, the financial district known as the city of London and the London city airport to name but a few.

To make way for all the above redevelopment much has had to be moved or destroyed in the process of creating new growth, business and employment in the capital. Yes out of commission warehouses and railways were torn up especially around Canary Wharf and were replaced by new office blocks which now employ thousands of workers drawn into employment in what was a very rundown area of the city. The consequences of that has been massive overcrowding on the London Underground central and district lines which is what the new crossrail underground will hopefully alleviate.

My point in the above is that very often you have to initially sacrifice some things in the short-term to make things far better in the long term. Nothing can stay the same forever and that is how it should be. As someone who regularly travels into London Paddington station and then transfers from an HST onto the London Underground district and then central line I cannot wait for the crossrail to open which will make the last stage of my journey much more comfortable. However, the reason I am uncomfortable on that stage of the journey is because of the success of the redevelopment in the city which means that many more thousands of workers are now travelling along that line with me more than there where only a few years ago.

If the closure of the Newcastle station and subsequent redevelopment is as successful as it has been in London and other British cities then it will be a small price to pay for success. It may well be that a railway will be needed in the future possibly an underground to meet the increased demand for public transport in that part of Newcastle. If so as a rail enthusiast you will have gained and not lost.

Bill
 
Last edited:
Let's put this this way, it is the "Central" station and the closest to the CBD. Removing is like removing the rail way from Grand Central / Union / Victoria Stations etc. Newcastle is the busiest station in the area.

Passenger numbers have actually increased. And a two car train had to be turned into a four car train, due to the overcrowding.
 
Last edited:
This reminds me a lot of what has happened in the Boston area. Land grabs by developers have precluded any future rail service into many areas that are now bus-only but once had rail. Marblehead, Woburn, and Bedford are good examples. During the 1960s, Marblehead had commuter service right to the downtown. During a cost cutting move, all service was dropped and later on, the tracks were ripped up. Today there are no trains to Boston, the roads are very crowded, and there is no room for parking anywhere. What was once a beautiful station, is now a car dealership and small stores. The ROW has become a rail-trail with NIMBYs on either side so there's little chance ever of restoring the service.

Woburn lost its service around the same time Bedford did. Woburn was on what was known as the Woburn Loop. The Loop ran off of the Boston and Maine railroad to Concord, NH and points north. The loop was first cut into bits when Route 128 (I95) was put in during the late 1940s to early 1950s. Train service continued on the stub branch to Woburn until 1981, when the MBTA announced a cost cut and ripped up the tracks. To replace the commuter trains to Woburn, the MBTA built a new transit center out in an industrial park 4 miles from the downtown. To get to the new station, people either have to struggle down backroads, or worse go on the interstate to the industrial park exits. This already crowded area is now worse thane ever with people going to the commuter station. Instead of railbanking the ROW, they sold it off to developers and rail-trail fanatics. So today there is no downtown service to Woburn.

Bedford lost its trains when the Alewife Extension was built in the early 1980s. The Red Line subway was extended out through Port Square Cambridge and ended at the Concord Street Rotary at the Alewife Expressway. Prior to the subway, this line was a freight cut-off on the Fitchburg line and also the junction of the Lexington branch which ended in Bedford. Today the traffic in Lexington and Bedford is plain awful. NIMBYs didn't want the "T" to extend a light rail line to the Bedford Airport so the only way to get there is by I95 (128) and the back road to the airport. Oh, I forgot to mention, the rail-trail became the Minuteman Bike Trail so now there's no chance ever there will be trains.

It gets better. During the 1970s and 1980s, the MBTA went through a phase where they removed the old elevated lines for their Orange Line subway. This line was elevated outside of Boston proper when it ran to Everett on the north and to Forest Hills (Hyde Park) in the south. The "T" knocked down the elevated supposedly to improve the area, but instead removed vital transit from the people that need the service the most. South Boston, Dorchester, Roxbury and even sections of Hyde Park are poor working class people. These make up a majority of the transit users. What to do they get instead of train or subway service? Buses. They were told you'll get light rail and new stores and what not as the area improved. Well taking away the downtown located elevated, removed any small business that grew up around the stations. These people had nothing to begin with, and no new developer is going to move in there because the people are poor. What used to be a direct line to downtown Boston, has become a multiple bus change for these people as they make their way to the Orange Line which is reocated outside of their downtown areas.

More recently, the MBTA ripped up the trolley line to Forest Hills. This line was mothballed in the early 1980s when the T was cutting costs. We, meaning taxpayers, even paid to have the catenery upgraded to support the LRVs along with signalling upgrades, and even track replacement. This ran through the Jamaica Plain section of Hyde Park along Centre Street, and connected to the Orange Line at Forrest Hills station. This line provided local service with a direct link to downtown Boston via Heath Street. Well developers paid off the politicians well and got the line ripped up. They rallied the NIMBYs in full force, ran adverts against the proposal to restore the service, etc., so everything remained in limbo for about 25 years. Sadly early this year, the court ruled in favor of the NIMBYs and developers so the line has been ripped up.

John
 
Hi Everybody.
Red Rattler it may be that the passenger numbers are increasing through the Newcastle station but public transport in any form is there to serve the community and not the community serve public transport. Therefore if it is judged by your local elected representatives that the removal or re-siting of the station is to the benefit of the community then undoubtedly that's the way it will be. If you disagree with their decision then just remember that the next time you go to vote.

Having said that, with the exception of it being stated on this thread that it was felt that the action of the developers was a "land grab" then little has else has been said regarding the plans for the site should station be demolished. It has been mentioned that the station is close to a harbour and it therefore comes into my mind that this could possibly be a development of very expensive executive housing rather than business or other commercial development that would enhance the employment in the area or improve the harbour front by way of retail outlets and restaurants etc.

If the above is the case I would be 100% behind you Red Rattler in resisting the demolition of the station if it is to be that a few wealthy persons will benefit at the expense of many, or to coin a phrase being used widely in Britain at present "posh boys looking after posh boys"

As I have already stated in an earlier posting on this thread the removal and reciting of the station and line would be justified if the redevelopment improved the employment prospects, wages and overall attractiveness of the area. As in other developments carried out in Britain re-citing the station and line as close as possible to its present position should be a straightforward project with the cost being borne by the developers of the old station (and perhaps you would get a better station in the process )

However, if this is another case of the wealthiest 1% of the population getting their way to the disadvantage of the other 99% of the population then the development should be resisted until plans are brought forward that benefits the whole community of Newcastle. But as we all know in these situations very powerful forces and interests can be at work.

Bill
John citron I think we must have been both preparing our posts the same time and only seen yours just that the moment that I posted on this thread but it's great to see you are still in action and keeping the old keyboard going. It's a bank holiday weekend over here in the UK so it's nice to get back and do a bit in trainz and enjoy posting on the forum. Retirement now seems further away than ever but the business is going very well at the moment and now employs 5 + me and the wife (apologies to everyone for the postscript that I have not had a chance to speak to John for several months).
 
Last edited:
Bill,

I hope you're doing well, regardless of retirement. If you need help, let me know. I have over 20-plus years in industry with 30 years of it in the computer field. I'll gladly join your business and work in the UK if necessary. I have no real ties over here except my immediate family and they can figure things out themselves. :)

Sorry Red-Rattler for highjacking your thread. --- I agree too with Bill this looks to be a case of the 1% playing Monopoly with real money and real people. I thought this was only happening over here!

John
 
Not a land grab?: See this screenshot that was on a developers website: http://www.saveourrail.org.au/images/gpt-foreshore-1b.jpg

Of course, they publicly state that Newcastle Station will be left alone - nor do I believe that (Must have rocks in your head if you believe that).
The L shaped is what a greedy developer "publicly" states they want to do with Newcastle Station. The current line runs from that L shape of 4 platform main station towards those pale yellow buildings. Those buildings are actually on the rail line. You can see why the developers want that NON-undermined rail land.

A developer has already demolished the main hospital (Royal Newcastle Hospital) a block or so away, and replaced with a monstrosity of a building, that is now apartments.

If it is not a land grab by greedy developers, then why are they interested in that OWNED-BY-THE-PEOPLE rail land & line?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
A ride on the Boston Elevated Main Line.
Replies
10
Views
3K
JCitron
J
D
Trust and the issues of online dependant simulators.
Replies
6
Views
2K
dleblanc
D
P
Vale Carlingford Line 1888-2020
2
Replies
29
Views
12K
pware
P
M
Tutorial: Getting the most from PBR and why you should be using it in TRS19
4 5 6
Replies
118
Views
33K
Cayden
C
R
Newcastle Herald: Newcastle light rail should shift to corridor say critics | poll
Replies
0
Views
811
Red_Rattler
R
Back
Top