Midland Main Line Electrification.

[HeadingNorth 11]

This list says it's taken from the 2001 census: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/population/cities.htm

 

It does have Leeds in 3rd place, and Sheffield 4th (discounting Glasgow as not an English city; I'm never sure how many cities in Scotland are big enough to interfere at the top of this list, but it seems only one.)

[Le Phantom 10]

This list says it's taken from the 2001 census: http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/customs/questions/population/cities.htm

 

It does have Leeds in 3rd place, and Sheffield 4th (discounting Glasgow as not an English city; I'm never sure how many cities in Scotland are big enough to interfere at the top of this list, but it seems only one.)

Interesting, I wonder if they get measured in different ways? I've come across the 1-4 in England (admittedly a few years ago) as London, Brum, Liverpool, Sheffield then Leeds.

 

As you say the thing is Manchester is far bigger but made up of so many small Mets, including Salford right in the central area.

[HeadingNorth 11]

Interesting, I wonder if they get measured in different ways?

 

Certainly there are different ways to measure a city's size, but the one I've always come across as "official" is the measure of population of the city council boroughs. In realistic terms, how "big" a city is usually means how many people live in it, or work in it. Sheffield , for instance, covers an awfully big number of square miles nowadays because a big chunk of empty moorland is included in its boundaries. (To take an example further afield, Jacksonville is one of the biggest cities in the entire world in terms of square mileage, but around eighty per cent of it is swamp.)

 

I don't know what criteria would move Liverpool into third and demote Leeds. I doubt that it's "general urban area" terms because that would make Manchester the 3rd, or possibly 2nd, biggest in England.

[Le Phantom 10]

Certainly there are different ways to measure a city's size, but the one I've always come across as "official" is the measure of population of the city council boroughs. In realistic terms, how "big" a city is usually means how many people live in it, or work in it. Sheffield , for instance, covers an awfully big number of square miles nowadays because a big chunk of empty moorland is included in its boundaries. (To take an example further afield, Jacksonville is one of the biggest cities in the entire world in terms of square mileage, but around eighty per cent of it is swamp.)

 

I don't know what criteria would move Liverpool into third and demote Leeds. I doubt that it's "general urban area" terms because that would make Manchester the 3rd, or possibly 2nd, biggest in England.

Well here is one http://www.lovemytown.co.uk/Populations/TownsTable1.asp getting a bit techincal here

[Thewickerman 10]

Agree with the thread bove. Sheffield actually had Britain's First All-Electric Mainline between Sheffield and Manchester via Woodhead as early as 1953. Sheffield Victoria station closed in 1970 to passenger services and by 1981 the line had closed completely save for the spur to Stockbridge Corus steelworks. All the infra-structure is still in place and it is often debated over about re-opening. Fancy that. Electrified at great expense to be ripped up less than 30 years later.

[Sova 10]

Probably a better way to measure the size of cities is the Larger Urban Zone (LUZ). It doesn't stop measuring the population at administrative boundaries, but takes in a larger area, comprising all the towns and villages from which people work/use amenities in that city. For example, Sheffield LUZ includes Rotherham and northern Derbyshire, as for people living there Sheffield is the nearest city. This is especially true if you're trying to work out how many people might use Sheffield Station in order to catch a train to London. In these terms, Sheffield is 6th in England, after Liverpool but before Newcastle.

 

As for how they choose which railway lines to electrify, I don't know. Obviously Sheffield should eventually get that kind of investment as part of a general program, but there might be other places more important. The currently proposed routes covers not only Swansea, but Cardiff, Bristol, Oxford and Reading - a sizable set of places.

Edited July 23, 2009 by Sova

[dosxuk 10]

The full report by Network Rail into which routes should be electrified can be found here: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/browse%20documents/rus%20documents/route%20utilisation%20strategies/network/working%20group%204%20%E2%80%93%20electrification%20strategy/network%20rus%20electrification.pdf

 

b) Main lines

The core strategy includes the electrification of two main line routes: the Great Western Main Line and the Midland Main Line. These are the two routes which have the strongest business cases without dependency on further electrification. In both cases, the initial capital outlay is offset by long term operational cost savings. Network Rail is discussing with government the extent to which the schemes could be funded through the Regulatory Asset Base in a way that avoids unnecessary funding requirements at the outset.

 

In both cases, the business cases are robust to a range of costs.

<snip>

The Midland Main Line scheme also has a strong business case. Although the costs per

single track kilometre are higher, reflecting the many tunnels and bridges on the route, the mileage is less (given that the route is already electrified south of Bedford) and the scheme would release of a fleet of Class 222 diesel trains and enable the replacement of High Speed Trains with electric trains when these become available.

 

The strategy recommends electrification from Bedford to Sheffield via Derby, Nottingham and Corby. It is recommended that, subject to business case, the Midland Main Line is

simultaneously gauge cleared. The Freight RUS has identified the Midland Main Line as

part of a future W12 network. The Strategic Freight Network Steering Group is examining

whether it would be feasible to clear it to European gauge. The starting point for the

electrification work would be to clear the route to European gauge if this can be achieved at an acceptable incremental cost. There are clear

advantages in minimising disruption by rebuilding structures only once.

 

The electrification of the short branch to Matlock currently has a marginal business case, and its inclusion within the scope of the Midland Main Line scheme will depend on the cost estimates as they are refined.

[HeadingNorth 11]

Well here is one http://www.lovemytown.co.uk/Populations/TownsTable1.asp getting a bit techincal here

 

 

Ha ... so my 2001 census says you're wrong, but your 2001 census says you're right.

 

I don't know if the official government website has census figures on it ... I couldn't find them. I could only find links to pages which had figures "taken from the census."

[Cyclone 10]

When I last looked Liverpool was the third biggest after London and Birmingham, has it shrunk?

 

Liverpool has never even been in the top 5.

 

London

Brum

Glasgow (Britain, not England)

Manchester

Sheffield

Leeds

Others

[sweetthing 10]

I find that when you're planning something it's better to plan it for the future than for the present or the past.

 

hee hee

[HeadingNorth 11]

London

Brum

Glasgow (Britain, not England)

Manchester

Sheffield

Leeds

Others

 

 

None of the lists I've seen has Manchester so high - unless, of course, we're discussing general urban sprawl, rather than the technical city boundaries. Manchester is fairly small, but has Salford, Stockport, and a whole mishmash of other towns welded onto it.

[steviered 12]

Anyone know if the planned Midland Main Line Electrification is still going ahead ?