If an above ground heavy railway ran from Central Station to Circular Quay with a single level crossing in the middle carrying trains with only 10 passengers on them, do you think that would be good for Sydney? That's what you have in Newcastle.

C'mon NF, really???. Even you, in reflection, must agree that the above is not a reasonable analogy.

If an above ground heavy railway ran from Central Station to Circular Quay with a single level crossing in the middle carrying trains with only 10 passengers on them, do you think that would be good for Sydney? That's what you have in Newcastle.

C'mon NF, really???. Even you, in reflection, must agree that the above is not a reasonable analogy.

Your statement was " I did present my thoughts based on decades of noting the development that railways promote. The Newcastle experience is apparently different to that of the developed world. I do wonder what it is that makes Newcastle the exception?"

The difference is that the last 2km of the Newcastle branch line cut the city in half with a crossing in the middle and very few passengers.

My analogy is perfectly accurate. This is what you would have in Sydney with a 2km railway cutting the city in half with a crossing in the middle and very few passengers.

CBD = Central Business District, the place where traditional offices exist. The area around the Transport Interchange is where offices are now establishing. It is where the NURS 2012 plans for them. It is where there are larger blocks and higher buildings possible. It is also where the money is going. Before the rail was truncated, there were more passengers using Wickham in the morning peak than Newcastle Station.

The Eastend, as described in the NURS, and by reality on the ground, is tourism, residential and niche retailing. An area that does not need a heavy railway through the middle of it.

Access, in town planning terms, means level easily navigated access. No one wants to go up three flights of stairs and down three flights to get from one side to the other. Why would you build larger buildings on what will be parkland? One minute you decry developers and next you advocate for very large buildings in the wrong place. Nobody is carrying on about building on the railway line except Save Our Rail and their supporters. More than half of the corridor, the valuable eastern end, will be public open space. The tiny 0.8 hectares that will get released for private development is behind or in front of existing buildings, hardly prime real estate.

You make like to demonise developers, but they did not make the decision, it was the NSW Government which based it's decision on public opinion and input from stakeholder groups. The only thing that developers get out of it is a more vibrant city that is good for everybody including the value of properties within the city.

It could not be easily fixed. If that was the case, why didn't someone do it in the last 30 years including the 16 years of Labor Government.

I have heard Wickham called many things by locals. A tourist hotspot is not one of them. I have heard cesspit, black spot and many other things to describe Wickham. None of which was kind.

According to Sydney trains numbers in 2013. Newcastle had a daily patronage number of 1150 and Wickham only had 580. Even Hamilton had 1060 passengers which just goes to show what a hole Wickham is. Wickham did have a higher morning peak hour out number but only by 10 people. During the rest of the day Newcastle station clearly had more patronage.

I have no problem with good developers. I have a problem with corrupt developers and politicians and miss information about patronage numbers. I also have a problem when something so much better could have been provided to the people of Newcastle.

If an above ground heavy railway ran from Central Station to Circular Quay with a single level crossing in the middle carrying trains with only 10 passengers on them, do you think that would be good for Sydney? That's what you have in Newcastle.

C'mon NF, really???. Even you, in reflection, must agree that the above is not a reasonable analogy.

It's not even accurate. Especially for the hunter line services which are popular.

The difference is that the last 2km of the Newcastle branch line cut the city in half with a crossing in the middle and very few passengers.

My analogy is perfectly accurate.

2km / 2 = 1km

I give up, it's like trying to reason with a zealot.

...with only 10 passengers on them, do you think that would be good for Sydney? That's what you have in Newcastle.

It's not even accurate. Especially for the Hunter line services which are popular

This was taken on a normal day: http://tinyurl.com/hbup6fj
And that is NOT the only train that had a similar amount of passengers.

Oh & by the way to Richmond - on an event day of 100 years of rail to Richmond, you'd think that their would be a lot more than just three or so passengers on 8-car trainS to a major event. (Edit: Make that two large events, one at Claredon & the other at Richmond!)

with only 10 passengers on them, do you think that would be good for Sydney?

But it's good for both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines, with no more than say three or four for each train on each line.

The trainS from Hamilton to Central had about 75% or so full load of passengers.

This was taken just before Wynyard Station on SATURDAY 22 Dec 2012 at approx 08:22am (remembering what time of year it was). Most of the train was like that, with only a handful or less of passengers each carriage. You'd expect a full train load around that time. That carriage had a total of 4 passengers.

And on Sun 13 Dec 2015, their was a lack of road vehicles in the CBD -- of Sydney.

So if "Northern Flyer" believes they were low numbers, then why build light rail at all in Newcastle???

New terminus is in the west of the city where the new CBD is now growing. It thus removes the barrier from the rest of the city.

By "barrier" I assume you refer to the railway. The railway was never a divide between the city and it's estuarine foreshore, there were sufficient means of accessing the riverside. It was only a barrier to those with avaricious eyes. The current multi-storey developments along Honeysuckle Drv, Workshop Way and Wharf Rd are a far significant barrier and view block than the railway ever was.

There was no way of getting over the barrier between Civic and Wickham Station, a distance of 1km. Aside from the level crossing at Civic, there was no accessible crossing between Civic Station and Watt Street, another 1km. Now there are eight level crossings with more to come. Sorry, but those that live and work in the city know that it was a barrier. Have you ever been to Honeysuckle when it is packed on one side of the railway and empty on the other? That is now gone. Have you been to Steel Street and Kuwumi Place since the railway was removed? There are hundreds of office workers moving from their offices to Hunter Street and Marketown for lunch. Those people never set foot in Hunter Street as it was over 1km walk to get there. We now have a city connected seamlessly to the waterfront, something that cities around the world would kill to have.

Of course, the high rise blocking the harbour smeg. There is not one new building blocking an existing crossing point. At the prized eastern end, there will be continuous open space from Newcastle Station to Perkins Street. Going west, there will be buildings built where there are already buildings blocking access.

Inaccurate and emotive claims don't help your argument.

The "barriers" were created by Newcastle Council, State Rail and the RTA at the time
There were plenty of rail crossing along the route until these were removed and closed off.
What a stupid thing to say that there were too many barriers when it was the statutory authorities that put the barriers there in the first place.
Why wont they stop wasting good money on this fiasco and spend it where it is needed and warranted - Glendale

How can who put the barriers in matter? They are there are were not going to be removed. There is no way Railcorp or any other authority for that matter was going to reinstate level crossings in the middle of a city.

Why spend money in Newcastle? The dramatic increase in private investment has paid for the cost many times over already. Glendale would be lucky to recoup the capital outlay in 50 years.

Why would you say Glendale would not be financially viable?
As well as opening up rail and road traffic to the shopping centre, it will also allow direct access into the Cardiff Industrial estates, and land has been opening up fast in anticipation of the extension to Munibung Road.
It will create an even bigger super centre where industry and retail can easily be accessed.
And just down the road the old Sulphide land is close to being available at Boolaroo for housing and retail as well
How can the corpse of Newcastle match that?

Council have rezoned the Newcastle corridor so you can say goodbye to it.
Trams to clog Hunter street.

Not yet it hasn't. It has to go through some gateway process.

CBD = Central Business District, the place where traditional offices exist. The area around the Transport Interchange is where offices are now establishing. It is where the NURS 2012 plans for them. It is where there are larger blocks and higher buildings possible. It is also where the money is going. Before the rail was truncated, there were more passengers using Wickham in the morning peak than Newcastle Station.

The Eastend, as described in the NURS, and by reality on the ground, is tourism, residential and niche retailing. An area that does not need a heavy railway through the middle of it.

Access, in town planning terms, means level easily navigated access. No one wants to go up three flights of stairs and down three flights to get from one side to the other. Why would you build larger buildings on what will be parkland? One minute you decry developers and next you advocate for very large buildings in the wrong place. Nobody is carrying on about building on the railway line except Save Our Rail and their supporters. More than half of the corridor, the valuable eastern end, will be public open space. The tiny 0.8 hectares that will get released for private development is behind or in front of existing buildings, hardly prime real estate.

You make like to demonise developers, but they did not make the decision, it was the NSW Government which based it's decision on public opinion and input from stakeholder groups. The only thing that developers get out of it is a more vibrant city that is good for everybody including the value of properties within the city.

It could not be easily fixed. If that was the case, why didn't someone do it in the last 30 years including the 16 years of Labor Government.

I have heard Wickham called many things by locals. A tourist hotspot is not one of them. I have heard cesspit, black spot and many other things to describe Wickham. None of which was kind.

According to Sydney trains numbers in 2013. Newcastle had a daily patronage number of 1150 and Wickham only had 580. Even Hamilton had 1060 passengers which just goes to show what a hole Wickham is. Wickham did have a higher morning peak hour out number but only by 10 people. During the rest of the day Newcastle station clearly had more patronage.

I have no problem with good developers. I have a problem with corrupt developers and politicians and miss information about patronage numbers. I also have a problem when something so much better could have been provided to the people of Newcastle.

Since when does the CBD need to be a tourist hub. Wickham is exactly where businesses are moving. I don't think those making multi-million decisions on where to situate their business care as much for tourist potential or the personal opinion of a train enthusiast. If you don't believe me try, http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3992360/west-ends-boom-as-construction-hits-2bn/ and http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4090551/why-west-end-is-booming/ and http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4088858/boom-town-citys-huge-leap-in-das/

As for passenger numbers, in 2014 Newcastle Station was down to 970 (only an average of 11 per train). Wickham had risen to 670. Newcastle numbers have been on a steady decline whilst Wickham is rising. The more buildings around Wickham the more pronounced the increase. The Eastend is rapidly becoming a destination precinct, it has not been the CBD for years now.

As for corrupt developers, care to name some examples. I certainly am not aware of any shady deals being done in the Newcastle CBD, After exhaustive investigation, ICAC could not find any either. Care to name some names and explain what advantage they have received and how?

New terminus is in the west of the city where the new CBD is now growing. It thus removes the barrier from the rest of the city.

By "barrier" I assume you refer to the railway. The railway was never a divide between the city and it's estuarine foreshore, there were sufficient means of accessing the riverside. It was only a barrier to those with avaricious eyes. The current multi-storey developments along Honeysuckle Drv, Workshop Way and Wharf Rd are a far significant barrier and view block than the railway ever was.

There was no way of getting over the barrier between Civic and Wickham Station, a distance of 1km. Aside from the level crossing at Civic, there was no accessible crossing between Civic Station and Watt Street, another 1km. Now there are eight level crossings with more to come. Sorry, but those that live and work in the city know that it was a barrier. Have you ever been to Honeysuckle when it is packed on one side of the railway and empty on the other? That is now gone. Have you been to Steel Street and Kuwumi Place since the railway was removed? There are hundreds of office workers moving from their offices to Hunter Street and Marketown for lunch. Those people never set foot in Hunter Street as it was over 1km walk to get there. We now have a city connected seamlessly to the waterfront, something that cities around the world would kill to have.

Of course, the high rise blocking the harbour smeg. There is not one new building blocking an existing crossing point. At the prized eastern end, there will be continuous open space from Newcastle Station to Perkins Street. Going west, there will be buildings built where there are already buildings blocking access.

Inaccurate and emotive claims don't help your argument.

The "barriers" were created by Newcastle Council, State Rail and the RTA at the time
There were plenty of rail crossing along the route until these were removed and closed off.
What a stupid thing to say that there were too many barriers when it was the statutory authorities that put the barriers there in the first place.
Why wont they stop wasting good money on this fiasco and spend it where it is needed and warranted - Glendale

How can who put the barriers in matter? They are there are were not going to be removed. There is no way Railcorp or any other authority for that matter was going to reinstate level crossings in the middle of a city.

Why spend money in Newcastle? The dramatic increase in private investment has paid for the cost many times over already. Glendale would be lucky to recoup the capital outlay in 50 years.

Why would you say Glendale would not be financially viable?
As well as opening up rail and road traffic to the shopping centre, it will also allow direct access into the Cardiff Industrial estates, and land has been opening up fast in anticipation of the extension to Munibung Road.
It will create an even bigger super centre where industry and retail can easily be accessed.
And just down the road the old Sulphide land is close to being available at Boolaroo for housing and retail as well
How can the corpse of Newcastle match that?

The corpses of Newcastle? Massive growth = corpse? Then explain this http://www.theherald.com.au/story/4088858/boom-town-citys-huge-leap-in-das/ and http://www.theherald.com.au/story/3992360/west-ends-boom-as-construction-hits-2bn/ and any number of articles on the billions being invested in Newcastle post-truncation.

Look, Save Our Rail got it wrong. Truncation did not kill the city it had the complete opposite effect. By all means argue for trains, but when you claim that something is the case when it clearly is not, you don't help the credibility of your argument.

As for Glendale Interchange, most of the benefits are in the linking of roads. Even if they build thousands of houses (most of which won't be walking distance from a station) where are they going to travel to in any great numbers?

...with only 10 passengers on them, do you think that would be good for Sydney? That's what you have in Newcastle.

It's not even accurate. Especially for the Hunter line services which are popular

This was taken on a normal day: http://tinyurl.com/hbup6fj
And that is NOT the only train that had a similar amount of passengers.

Oh & by the way to Richmond - on an event day of 100 years of rail to Richmond, you'd think that their would be a lot more than just three or so passengers on 8-car trainS to a major event. (Edit: Make that two large events, one at Claredon & the other at Richmond!)

with only 10 passengers on them, do you think that would be good for Sydney?

But it's good for both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines, with no more than say three or four for each train on each line.

The trainS from Hamilton to Central had about 75% or so full load of passengers.

This was taken just before Wynyard Station on SATURDAY 22 Dec 2012 at approx 08:22am (remembering what time of year it was). Most of the train was like that, with only a handful or less of passengers each carriage. You'd expect a full train load around that time. That carriage had a total of 4 passengers.

And on Sun 13 Dec 2015, their was a lack of road vehicles in the CBD -- of Sydney.

So if "Northern Flyer" believes they were low numbers, then why build light rail at all in Newcastle???

Transport networks are not designed on one off busy loads. The official numbers have been declining year on year at Newcastle, that is a fact. In 2014 it was 970 per day or only an average of 11 per train. It is not even close to enough to justify have a heavy rail service cutting the city in half.

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

Well, the bad news is that governments make decisions based on actual document passenger surveys, not the claims of rail enthusiast. If believing you are right and the government's figures are wrong helps you out, so be it.

Your comparisons fully ignore the reason for the closure of the Newcastle Branch Line. Now listen carefully...IT WAS TO RECONNECT THE CITY WITH THE WATERFRONT. The fact that the passenger numbers were very low and decreasing year on year made it an easier decision. Now if the last two km of the Carlingford line was cutting a city in half, the comparison would have merit, sadly for you it does not.

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

Well, the bad news is that governments make decisions based on actual document passenger surveys, not the claims of rail enthusiast. If believing you are right and the government's figures are wrong helps you out, so be it.

Your comparisons fully ignore the reason for the closure of the Newcastle Branch Line. Now listen carefully...IT WAS TO RECONNECT THE CITY WITH THE WATERFRONT. The fact that the passenger numbers were very low and decreasing year on year made it an easier decision. Now if the last two km of the Carlingford line was cutting a city in half, the comparison would have merit, sadly for you it does not.

Reconnect the city with the waterfront??!! What for a hot dog or a pizza?

What a crock!

They are trying to build on every bit of waterfront land they can get their hands on.
Another big building is going in right on the waterfront at Honeysuckle now.
Give it a few more years and you wont be able to see any water because it will have been built out with office blocks.

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

Well, the bad news is that governments make decisions based on actual document passenger surveys, not the claims of rail enthusiast. If believing you are right and the government's figures are wrong helps you out, so be it.

Your comparisons fully ignore the reason for the closure of the Newcastle Branch Line. Now listen carefully...IT WAS TO RECONNECT THE CITY WITH THE WATERFRONT. The fact that the passenger numbers were very low and decreasing year on year made it an easier decision. Now if the last two km of the Carlingford line was cutting a city in half, the comparison would have merit, sadly for you it does not.

Reconnect the city with the waterfront??!! What for a hot dog or a pizza?

What a crock!

They are trying to build on every bit of waterfront land they can get their hands on.
Another big building is going in right on the waterfront at Honeysuckle now.
Give it a few more years and you wont be able to see any water because it will have been built out with office blocks.

Firstly, it is a city and you build buildings in city to give people somewhere to live, work and play.

Secondly, the block just sold requires a wide publlc plaza to built between the building and the waterfront.

Thirdly, it does not block any obvious north-south connections as is the case with all the other proposals.

Fourthly, the block is the same size as all the land from the railway corridor. It on the waterfront, which the corridor is not and is clearly worth more money, say $10 million, yet the train huggers are convinced the railway corridor land is worth hundreds of millions (in their words, the ONLY reason the railway was truncated).

Fifth, ALL of the corridor at the eastern end (nearest to the waterfront) will be PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, there will be NO (got it) NO buildings. The western end will have Light Rail. In between there will be additional plazas at Darby Street and Civic. West of Civic, there will be a university (on land already with buildings on one or both sides). Left over after all of that is a tiny 0.8ha of land, about $8 million worth, available for private development. All of which are surrounded by buildings on one or both sides.

Sixth, when completed, there will be ELEVEN level north-south connections between the city and the waterfront. That's ELEVEN. Before truncation, there was ONE.

Maybe you should take the time to look at the Urban Growth plans instead of beating up lies and hysteria that does nothing other than satisfy your own prejudices.

It's all too late

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

Well, the bad news is that governments make decisions based on actual document passenger surveys, not the claims of rail enthusiast. If believing you are right and the government's figures are wrong helps you out, so be it.

Your comparisons fully ignore the reason for the closure of the Newcastle Branch Line. Now listen carefully...IT WAS TO RECONNECT THE CITY WITH THE WATERFRONT. The fact that the passenger numbers were very low and decreasing year on year made it an easier decision. Now if the last two km of the Carlingford line was cutting a city in half, the comparison would have merit, sadly for you it does not.

Reconnect the city with the waterfront??!! What for a hot dog or a pizza?

What a crock!

They are trying to build on every bit of waterfront land they can get their hands on.
Another big building is going in right on the waterfront at Honeysuckle now.
Give it a few more years and you wont be able to see any water because it will have been built out with office blocks.

Firstly, it is a city and you build buildings in city to give people somewhere to live, work and play.

Secondly, the block just sold requires a wide publlc plaza to built between the building and the waterfront.

Thirdly, it does not block any obvious north-south connections as is the case with all the other proposals.

Fourthly, the block is the same size as all the land from the railway corridor. It on the waterfront, which the corridor is not and is clearly worth more money, say $10 million, yet the train huggers are convinced the railway corridor land is worth hundreds of millions (in their words, the ONLY reason the railway was truncated).

Fifth, ALL of the corridor at the eastern end (nearest to the waterfront) will be PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, there will be NO (got it) NO buildings. The western end will have Light Rail. In between there will be additional plazas at Darby Street and Civic. West of Civic, there will be a university (on land already with buildings on one or both sides). Left over after all of that is a tiny 0.8ha of land, about $8 million worth, available for private development. All of which are surrounded by buildings on one or both sides.

Sixth, when completed, there will be ELEVEN level north-south connections between the city and the waterfront. That's ELEVEN. Before truncation, there was ONE.

Maybe you should take the time to look at the Urban Growth plans instead of beating up lies and hysteria that does nothing other than satisfy your own prejudices.

I have asked this question of you before but you have never answered it.
Why are you here?
You are obviously a political stooge that has infiltrated a rail forum.
You show no interest in rail and only post to defend the appalling decisions of the Baird government.
Is there not a Liberal forum you could engage in rather than telling us what a great place Newcastle is going to be once the transport has been removed and the vacant land on the waterfront and rail corridor are built on.

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

Well, the bad news is that governments make decisions based on actual document passenger surveys, not the claims of rail enthusiast. If believing you are right and the government's figures are wrong helps you out, so be it.

Your comparisons fully ignore the reason for the closure of the Newcastle Branch Line. Now listen carefully...IT WAS TO RECONNECT THE CITY WITH THE WATERFRONT. The fact that the passenger numbers were very low and decreasing year on year made it an easier decision. Now if the last two km of the Carlingford line was cutting a city in half, the comparison would have merit, sadly for you it does not.

Reconnect the city with the waterfront??!! What for a hot dog or a pizza?

What a crock!

They are trying to build on every bit of waterfront land they can get their hands on.
Another big building is going in right on the waterfront at Honeysuckle now.
Give it a few more years and you wont be able to see any water because it will have been built out with office blocks.

Firstly, it is a city and you build buildings in city to give people somewhere to live, work and play.

Secondly, the block just sold requires a wide publlc plaza to built between the building and the waterfront.

Thirdly, it does not block any obvious north-south connections as is the case with all the other proposals.

Fourthly, the block is the same size as all the land from the railway corridor. It on the waterfront, which the corridor is not and is clearly worth more money, say $10 million, yet the train huggers are convinced the railway corridor land is worth hundreds of millions (in their words, the ONLY reason the railway was truncated).

Fifth, ALL of the corridor at the eastern end (nearest to the waterfront) will be PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, there will be NO (got it) NO buildings. The western end will have Light Rail. In between there will be additional plazas at Darby Street and Civic. West of Civic, there will be a university (on land already with buildings on one or both sides). Left over after all of that is a tiny 0.8ha of land, about $8 million worth, available for private development. All of which are surrounded by buildings on one or both sides.

Sixth, when completed, there will be ELEVEN level north-south connections between the city and the waterfront. That's ELEVEN. Before truncation, there was ONE.

Maybe you should take the time to look at the Urban Growth plans instead of beating up lies and hysteria that does nothing other than satisfy your own prejudices.

I have asked this question of you before but you have never answered it.
Why are you here?
You are obviously a political stooge that has infiltrated a rail forum.
You show no interest in rail and only post to defend the appalling decisions of the Baird government.
Is there not a Liberal forum you could engage in rather than telling us what a great place Newcastle is going to be once the transport has been removed and the vacant land on the waterfront and rail corridor are built on.

This ridiculous statement goes to show why Save Our Rail lost this battle. They delude themselves into thinking that the only people that support the truncation of the railway are "political stooges". The reality is that over 70% of people (labor and green voters included) support the removal of heavy rail from the eastern part of Newcastle.

I am a Newcastle resident and have professional and personal experience in transport planning and urban planning. As such I, like many other residents, have a vested interest in what is happening.

This is the classic SOR tactic, when they can't argue on the real facts (such as the fact the entire eastern section of the corridor is open space, not high rise buildings) you resort to a personal attack.

You seem to like debating an issue only if the outcome goes your way. That may work in a SOR meeting where groupthink is the rule, but out in the real world people actually have differing opinions.

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

Well, the bad news is that governments make decisions based on actual document passenger surveys, not the claims of rail enthusiast. If believing you are right and the government's figures are wrong helps you out, so be it.

Your comparisons fully ignore the reason for the closure of the Newcastle Branch Line. Now listen carefully...IT WAS TO RECONNECT THE CITY WITH THE WATERFRONT. The fact that the passenger numbers were very low and decreasing year on year made it an easier decision. Now if the last two km of the Carlingford line was cutting a city in half, the comparison would have merit, sadly for you it does not.

Reconnect the city with the waterfront??!! What for a hot dog or a pizza?

What a crock!

They are trying to build on every bit of waterfront land they can get their hands on.
Another big building is going in right on the waterfront at Honeysuckle now.
Give it a few more years and you wont be able to see any water because it will have been built out with office blocks.

Firstly, it is a city and you build buildings in city to give people somewhere to live, work and play.

Secondly, the block just sold requires a wide publlc plaza to built between the building and the waterfront.

Thirdly, it does not block any obvious north-south connections as is the case with all the other proposals.

Fourthly, the block is the same size as all the land from the railway corridor. It on the waterfront, which the corridor is not and is clearly worth more money, say $10 million, yet the train huggers are convinced the railway corridor land is worth hundreds of millions (in their words, the ONLY reason the railway was truncated).

Fifth, ALL of the corridor at the eastern end (nearest to the waterfront) will be PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, there will be NO (got it) NO buildings. The western end will have Light Rail. In between there will be additional plazas at Darby Street and Civic. West of Civic, there will be a university (on land already with buildings on one or both sides). Left over after all of that is a tiny 0.8ha of land, about $8 million worth, available for private development. All of which are surrounded by buildings on one or both sides.

Sixth, when completed, there will be ELEVEN level north-south connections between the city and the waterfront. That's ELEVEN. Before truncation, there was ONE.

Maybe you should take the time to look at the Urban Growth plans instead of beating up lies and hysteria that does nothing other than satisfy your own prejudices.

I have asked this question of you before but you have never answered it.
Why are you here?
You are obviously a political stooge that has infiltrated a rail forum.
You show no interest in rail and only post to defend the appalling decisions of the Baird government.
Is there not a Liberal forum you could engage in rather than telling us what a great place Newcastle is going to be once the transport has been removed and the vacant land on the waterfront and rail corridor are built on.

This ridiculous statement goes to show why Save Our Rail lost this battle. They delude themselves into thinking that the only people that support the truncation of the railway are "political stooges". The reality is that over 70% of people (labor and green voters included) support the removal of heavy rail from the eastern part of Newcastle.

I am a Newcastle resident and have professional and personal experience in transport planning and urban planning. As such I, like many other residents, have a vested interest in what is happening.

This is the classic SOR tactic, when they can't argue on the real facts (such as the fact the entire eastern section of the corridor is open space, not high rise buildings) you resort to a personal attack.

You seem to like debating an issue only if the outcome goes your way. That may work in a SOR meeting where groupthink is the rule, but out in the real world people actually have differing opinions.

Why do you keep referring to Save Our Rail?
I have no affiliation with them nor have I ever attended a SOR meeting or rally
Where are the 70% of people that support this truncation
I read the letters to the editor in saturday's Herald and every week someone is questioning the sense of this folly, but no one is writing in saying what a great addition it will be.

It continually does not make sense in anyone's realm to remove a functioning and costed transport system that delivered people to the eastern perimeter of the city in one move and replace it with a disfunctional one that will cause road traffic and parking chaos and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE SO HOW CAN YOU DEFEND IT

It is stupid because politicians thought it would be a good idea to rip out trams in Sydney 50-60 years ago and now we are putting them back in. In 2017 Newcastle will have a V8supercar race but there will be no trains to get people to the track. There ain't nowhere near enough parking to cater for the amount of people that this event could bring to the city. Light rail won't be operating either and even when/if it is operating in the future it won't have the capacity to handle 100,000+ people for 3 days.

This is backwards thinking and there are many more options available that could have retained the railway and allow development to occur as well and opened up the foreshore. But both politicians and people such as yourself northern flyer are blind.

75% capacity from Hamilton. Now that is gibberish. That would be in the order of 50,000 people getting on between Hamilton and Newcastle. Time to take a pill and have a lie down.

That is not "gibberish". I saw & see it & I said the trains from Hamilton to Central for my previous post, BUT I did see large loads of passengers go to Newcastle Station.

Going by his (or her) logic, both the Carlingford & Richmond Lines should be closed & replaced with buses then?

Well, the bad news is that governments make decisions based on actual document passenger surveys, not the claims of rail enthusiast. If believing you are right and the government's figures are wrong helps you out, so be it.

Your comparisons fully ignore the reason for the closure of the Newcastle Branch Line. Now listen carefully...IT WAS TO RECONNECT THE CITY WITH THE WATERFRONT. The fact that the passenger numbers were very low and decreasing year on year made it an easier decision. Now if the last two km of the Carlingford line was cutting a city in half, the comparison would have merit, sadly for you it does not.

Reconnect the city with the waterfront??!! What for a hot dog or a pizza?

What a crock!

They are trying to build on every bit of waterfront land they can get their hands on.
Another big building is going in right on the waterfront at Honeysuckle now.
Give it a few more years and you wont be able to see any water because it will have been built out with office blocks.

Firstly, it is a city and you build buildings in city to give people somewhere to live, work and play.

Secondly, the block just sold requires a wide publlc plaza to built between the building and the waterfront.

Thirdly, it does not block any obvious north-south connections as is the case with all the other proposals.

Fourthly, the block is the same size as all the land from the railway corridor. It on the waterfront, which the corridor is not and is clearly worth more money, say $10 million, yet the train huggers are convinced the railway corridor land is worth hundreds of millions (in their words, the ONLY reason the railway was truncated).

Fifth, ALL of the corridor at the eastern end (nearest to the waterfront) will be PUBLIC OPEN SPACE, there will be NO (got it) NO buildings. The western end will have Light Rail. In between there will be additional plazas at Darby Street and Civic. West of Civic, there will be a university (on land already with buildings on one or both sides). Left over after all of that is a tiny 0.8ha of land, about $8 million worth, available for private development. All of which are surrounded by buildings on one or both sides.

Sixth, when completed, there will be ELEVEN level north-south connections between the city and the waterfront. That's ELEVEN. Before truncation, there was ONE.

Maybe you should take the time to look at the Urban Growth plans instead of beating up lies and hysteria that does nothing other than satisfy your own prejudices.

I have asked this question of you before but you have never answered it.
Why are you here?
You are obviously a political stooge that has infiltrated a rail forum.
You show no interest in rail and only post to defend the appalling decisions of the Baird government.
Is there not a Liberal forum you could engage in rather than telling us what a great place Newcastle is going to be once the transport has been removed and the vacant land on the waterfront and rail corridor are built on.

This ridiculous statement goes to show why Save Our Rail lost this battle. They delude themselves into thinking that the only people that support the truncation of the railway are "political stooges". The reality is that over 70% of people (labor and green voters included) support the removal of heavy rail from the eastern part of Newcastle.

I am a Newcastle resident and have professional and personal experience in transport planning and urban planning. As such I, like many other residents, have a vested interest in what is happening.

This is the classic SOR tactic, when they can't argue on the real facts (such as the fact the entire eastern section of the corridor is open space, not high rise buildings) you resort to a personal attack.

You seem to like debating an issue only if the outcome goes your way. That may work in a SOR meeting where groupthink is the rule, but out in the real world people actually have differing opinions.

Why do you keep referring to Save Our Rail?
I have no affiliation with them nor have I ever attended a SOR meeting or rally
Where are the 70% of people that support this truncation
I read the letters to the editor in saturday's Herald and every week someone is questioning the sense of this folly, but no one is writing in saying what a great addition it will be.

It continually does not make sense in anyone's realm to remove a functioning and costed transport system that delivered people to the eastern perimeter of the city in one move and replace it with a disfunctional one that will cause road traffic and parking chaos and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE SO HOW CAN YOU DEFEND IT

Where are the 70% of people that support this truncation -     Two surveys completed by the Hunter Valley Research Foundation in 2008 and 2009. Both were conducted as random phone surveys (nearly all other surveys have been "opt in" which can not be considered scientific particuarly when SOR mass email people to repsond. In the case of the survey commissioned by the Labour MP and Minister for the Hunter Jodi McKay, when questioned on truncation "Not supportive at all was chosen by 31% of the respondents.", the remiander, 69% supported truncation.


I read the letters to the editor in saturday's Herald and every week someone is questioning the sense of this folly, but no one is writing in saying what a great addition it will be.-    Yes, the same five SOR members on a continuous roster. Same names week after week. Hardly a scientific survey. People don't write in to support what the government is doing, they are happy with it and get on with life. Those that have spoken out, get phone threats and in the case of Frontline Hobbies, get a crude petrol bomb thrown at the front door.

It continually does not make sense in anyone's realm to remove a functioning and costed transport system that delivered people to the eastern perimeter of the city in one move and replace it with a disfunctional one that will cause road traffic and parking chaos and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. - Again, you cannot speak for "anyone", you can speak for yourself, someone who is passionate about trains. For others who live in the city, are professional town planners, or just understand how much better the city is when it is seamlessly connected to the harbour, it makes perfect sense. Even 50% of people who use trains (according to the survey referenced above) support truncation.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE SO HOW CAN YOU DEFEND IT  -  Yelling doesn't change reality.

It is stupid because politicians thought it would be a good idea to rip out trams in Sydney 50-60 years ago and now we are putting them back in. In 2017 Newcastle will have a V8supercar race but there will be no trains to get people to the track. There ain't nowhere near enough parking to cater for the amount of people that this event could bring to the city. Light rail won't be operating either and even when/if it is operating in the future it won't have the capacity to handle 100,000+ people for 3 days.

This is backwards thinking and there are many more options available that could have retained the railway and allow development to occur as well and opened up the foreshore. But both politicians and people such as yourself northern flyer are blind.

No V8 Supercar venue has a railway station any closer than in Newcastle which will only be 2km away. The Gold Coast is acknowledged as one of the most successful venues and is heavily reliant on light rail with no problems at all. Newcastle gets 50,000 people into and out of the east end for ANZAC Day every year without a hitch. It won't be a problem.

Who said they wanted development on the corridor? People wanted the heavy rail barrier removed so that the city is reconnected to the waterfront as it was in 1850. The biggest benefit will be all the public space between the old station and Perkins Street. It will transform the city and could not be done with heavy rail in place.

There is no solution that would retain heavy rail and given good access. If it was that easy it would have been done by now. What would you suggest.

It is stupid because politicians thought it would be a good idea to rip out trams in Sydney 50-60 years ago and now we are putting them back in. In 2017 Newcastle will have a V8supercar race but there will be no trains to get people to the track. There ain't nowhere near enough parking to cater for the amount of people that this event could bring to the city. Light rail won't be operating either and even when/if it is operating in the future it won't have the capacity to handle 100,000+ people for 3 days.

This is backwards thinking and there are many more options available that could have retained the railway and allow development to occur as well and opened up the foreshore. But both politicians and people such as yourself northern flyer are blind.

No V8 Supercar venue has a railway station any closer than in Newcastle which will only be 2km away. The Gold Coast is acknowledged as one of the most successful venues and is heavily reliant on light rail with no problems at all. Newcastle gets 50,000 people into and out of the east end for ANZAC Day every year without a hitch. It won't be a problem.

Who said they wanted development on the corridor? People wanted the heavy rail barrier removed so that the city is reconnected to the waterfront as it was in 1850. The biggest benefit will be all the public space between the old station and Perkins Street. It will transform the city and could not be done with heavy rail in place.

There is no solution that would retain heavy rail and given good access. If it was that easy it would have been done by now. What would you suggest.

Quoting 7 and 8 year old surveys does not mean 70% of people still want the truncation and trams
Back then no one had any idea that the terminal would be Wickham and that Hunter Street would be used instead of the corridor

There were plenty of options to retain the heavy rail but they were all ignored in favour of allowing development on the corridor.

The bridge over Stewart Avenue could have been built.
The rail line could have been sunk using cut and cover methods - the water table cannot be used as an excuse and there are hundreds of rail lines under waterways around the world with a very good example under Sydney Harbour.
They could have built pedestrian walkway underpasses at several key locations to allow foot traffic to the harbour side so they could buy a pie.
They could have reopened any number of the closed vehicular crossings.
They could have developed the air space over the lines with pedestrian access and included wheelchair access as well

BUT NO - they decided to remove the entire line instead and screw up Hunter Street to boot.
You couldn't stuff up a project more if you tried!

It is stupid because politicians thought it would be a good idea to rip out trams in Sydney 50-60 years ago and now we are putting them back in. In 2017 Newcastle will have a V8supercar race but there will be no trains to get people to the track. There ain't nowhere near enough parking to cater for the amount of people that this event could bring to the city. Light rail won't be operating either and even when/if it is operating in the future it won't have the capacity to handle 100,000+ people for 3 days.

This is backwards thinking and there are many more options available that could have retained the railway and allow development to occur as well and opened up the foreshore. But both politicians and people such as yourself northern flyer are blind.

No V8 Supercar venue has a railway station any closer than in Newcastle which will only be 2km away. The Gold Coast is acknowledged as one of the most successful venues and is heavily reliant on light rail with no problems at all. Newcastle gets 50,000 people into and out of the east end for ANZAC Day every year without a hitch. It won't be a problem.

Who said they wanted development on the corridor? People wanted the heavy rail barrier removed so that the city is reconnected to the waterfront as it was in 1850. The biggest benefit will be all the public space between the old station and Perkins Street. It will transform the city and could not be done with heavy rail in place.

There is no solution that would retain heavy rail and given good access. If it was that easy it would have been done by now. What would you suggest.

Quoting 7 and 8 year old surveys does not mean 70% of people still want the truncation and trams
Back then no one had any idea that the terminal would be Wickham and that Hunter Street would be used instead of the corridor

There were plenty of options to retain the heavy rail but they were all ignored in favour of allowing development on the corridor.

The bridge over Stewart Avenue could have been built.
The rail line could have been sunk using cut and cover methods - the water table cannot be used as an excuse and there are hundreds of rail lines under waterways around the world with a very good example under Sydney Harbour.
They could have built pedestrian walkway underpasses at several key locations to allow foot traffic to the harbour side so they could buy a pie.
They could have reopened any number of the closed vehicular crossings.
They could have developed the air space over the lines with pedestrian access and included wheelchair access as well

BUT NO - they decided to remove the entire line instead and screw up Hunter Street to boot.
You couldn't stuff up a project more if you tried!

"Quoting 7 and 8 year old surveys does not mean 70% of people still want the truncation and trams" - The surveys are the most recent public available surveys. It was widely reported that the Liberal Party also conducted similar surveys in 2011/12 that confirmed same but they are not publicly available. The lack of any scientific survey showing majority opposition to truncation flies in the face of any claims made by SOR that the majority of people oppose truncation.

"Back then no one had any idea that the terminal would be Wickham" - WRONG, the proposal offered up in the survey was for truncation at Wickham with shuttle buses running into Watt Street,

"and that Hunter Street would be used instead of the corridor" - At the time, buses were the option with trams on a long term strategy. The survey offered up the finding that even more people would support truncation if trams were used instead of buses.

"There were plenty of options to retain the heavy rail but they were all ignored in favour of allowing development on the corridor." - None of which achieve the aim of creating seamless connection between the city and the waterfront at a sensible budget.

"The bridge over Stewart Avenue could have been built". - Congestion on Stewart Avenue has never been put forward by government as a main reason for truncation. The dramatic improvements have been a positive side effect of truncation.

"The rail line could have been sunk using cut and cover methods - the water table cannot be used as an excuse and there are hundreds of rail lines under waterways around the world with a very good example under Sydney Harbour." - which would have required three underground stations, underground stabling, ventilation for DMU's all under the watertable which would probably have required the resumption and removal of adjacent buildings due to the effect of altering of dewatering during construction. Billion dollars plus which has the only advantage of saving a 30m mode change for a very small number of passengers.

"They could have built pedestrian walkway underpasses at several key locations to allow foot traffic to the harbour side so they could buy a pie." - Subways are a last resort and are hardly the seamless connection people desire. They would require long ramps to make them comply with current standards or lifts.

"They could have reopened any number of the closed vehicular crossings" - Rubbish, no railway authority would open new level crossings in the middle of a city. If it was that easy it would have happened years ago.

"They could have developed the air space over the lines with pedestrian access and included wheelchair access as well" - Tall buildings between the city and the waterfront??? Really??? So that people can walk up long stairs or escalators to get from one side to the other? Sorry, you are clearly not an urban planner.

"BUT NO - they decided to remove the entire line instead and screw up Hunter Street to boot.
You couldn't stuff up a project more if you tried!" - Sadly for you, most people are embracing the change. If the vibe in Newcastle wasn't so positive, why has the private sector gone from investing less than $100 million in the CBD pre-truncation to having well over $2 billion and growing invested post truncation. Half of the shops in the mall were vacant, no they are all full. Unfortunately for you, people are voting with their feet and their wallets.