Power supply for the NLR? The video flythrough website animation shows panto collection.

Apropos of almost no connection to the topic - the columns supporting the awning along the Scott St frontage of NCL station are embossed with "Dorman Long and  Co, Middlesborough, England"

Sound familiar?

Power supply for the NLR? The video flythrough website animation shows panto collection.

Apropos of almost no connection to the topic - the columns supporting the awning along the Scott St frontage of NCL station are embossed with "Dorman Long and  Co, Middlesborough, England"

Sound familiar?

SHB?

Why else would they spend $650 million to do the work?

Yes, why else indeed?

Well the official explanation is to connect the city to the harbour and revitalise the city. To date that has worked. Care to offer an alternative explanation?

NF,
I wish you many years of happiness living in your urban planning paradise.

I will as will those Novocastrians who are grateful for the explosion of confidence and investment in the city. What is even better is watching all the conspiracy theories fall away as it becomes obvious they are all BS.

"Suits the government" is a classic cop out when you don't what to acknowledge the reason for why they did it. For decades, the public has realised that the CBD of Newcastle was in terminal decay. A sizable part of that public believed that removing the heavy railway would be the trigger to revitalise the city. Both sides of politics have agreed with that at certain times. The fact that there has been a massive boom in Newcastle since truncation would support that theory. What other reason would you suggest the government did it for? Why else would they spend $650 million to do the work?

Pull the other leg.  I seriously doubt that the "massive boom" in Newcastle has anything to do with the rail line truncation.  More likely it's owing to rezoning and the changes in planning controls.  Development would have happened whether the truncation took place or not. Anyone with half a brain knows it's all about developers getting their hands on the rail corridor.  I come from the property industry.  The citizens of Newcastle have been conned and one day they'll wake up and realise it. Alas, it will be too late.  You reap what you sow.

"Suits the government" is a classic cop out when you don't what to acknowledge the reason for why they did it. For decades, the public has realised that the CBD of Newcastle was in terminal decay. A sizable part of that public believed that removing the heavy railway would be the trigger to revitalise the city. Both sides of politics have agreed with that at certain times. The fact that there has been a massive boom in Newcastle since truncation would support that theory. What other reason would you suggest the government did it for? Why else would they spend $650 million to do the work?

Pull the other leg.  I seriously doubt that the "massive boom" in Newcastle has anything to do with the rail line truncation.  More likely it's owing to rezoning and the changes in planning controls.  Development would have happened whether the truncation took place or not. Anyone with half a brain knows it's all about developers getting their hands on the rail corridor.  I come from the property industry.  The citizens of Newcastle have been conned and one day they'll wake up and realise it. Alas, it will be too late.  You reap what you sow.

Wow, that is not within a country mile of the truth. All of the current large developments are on land that was not effected by the 2013 rezoning or are within the restrictions in place before that. Is it just a coincidence that for 30 years there has been steady decay in Newcastle and all of a sudden there is over $2 billion of development since truncation was announced? Save Our Rail claimed that truncation would kill off all investment. They seem to have got it grossly wrong.

As for "Anyone with half a brain knows it's all about developers getting their hands on the rail corridor. " you really need to be careful with accusing people of having less than half a brain, particularity when your claim makes no sense. Have you look at the rezoning proposal? All of the high value land at the eastern end is open space. There are some small residual blocks proposed for low rise development that add up to less than 1 hectare. That's right, only $15 million of land. Are you saying that the NSW Government has spent over $500 million to sell $15 million of low value land, mostly behind other buildings? Can you see that your claim looks silly?

I was just up at the Gold Coast for a few days and used the light rail there quite a few times.
But unlike Newcastle's folly, the Gold Coast light rail actually goes somewhere, and is mainly on it's own corridor.
It is even being extended again.
What Newcastle is getting is just a waste of money - something that buses could have covered, and have covered for the past 70 years -
just a short stretch of road from the west end to the east end of town, something that I have walked heaps of times as a lad.

Only a small part of GCLR is on a corridor. Most of it is in the middle of the road as separated running exactly as it will be in Newcastle.

That is not correct
There are only a very few sections where it shares the road with vehicular traffic, unlike Newcastle which will share most of it's route with vehicles, even though there WAS a perfectly good separate corridor right next to the road.
What a crock of smeg this plan is

Why else would they spend $650 million to do the work?

Yes, why else indeed?

Well the official explanation is to connect the city to the harbour and revitalise the city. To date that has worked. Care to offer an alternative explanation?

They didn't need to run the Light Rail down Hunter Street to connect the harbour and Hunter Street.
The light rail could have stayed on the corridor and the supposadly hordes of public craving access could have just walked over the light rail lines to "look at the water"
What they have done is raped and pillaged Newcastle and you have done nothing but support them from the start. You too are a city rapist

Anyone that has to resort to terms like "city rapist" has absolutely no credibility. Change is not rape. If you don't comprehend that then you are one sick puppy. Disagree with the change by all means, but use of offensive terms like that is totally inappropriate.

Anyone that has to resort to terms like "city rapist" has absolutely no credibility. Change is not rape. If you don't comprehend that then you are one sick puppy. Disagree with the change by all means, but use of offensive terms like that is totally inappropriate.

I agree in part. Calling an individual a rapist without evidence is unreasonable (and if there is evidence then a public forum is not the place for it). However "Rape and pillage" is a compound often found in the English language, harking back to the stories of ancient Greece and Rome. It's a more classical way of speaking than just referring to vandalism and theft, which is how many describe events in Newcastle.

Rape and pillage is what developers and their politician mates and apologists do if they can. Rape is what criminals do.

As to substance of the matter, we should be patient. Over the next few years I expect one of two things to happen:

1. The toy town tramway is extended to the suburbs and to tourist attractions and so becomes a useful asset promoting development along the route. As others have pointed out this is happening on the Gold Coast. Even in Sydney in places like Victoria Avenue Chatswood the shops are still clustered around the stops of the tramway that closed 59 years ago. If a network or substantial extension does happen then the dubious start will be forgiven or forgotten; or
2. If later it becomes manifest that public transport is worse after the current "improvements" are complete than before the closure then a future government (either LNP after a couple more leadership changes or Labor) will allow an ICAC inquiry or similar. The inquiry might be into who profited by the closure but more likely into the decision-making process so that mistakes can be avoided in future.

Tom (the optimist)

I was just up at the Gold Coast for a few days and used the light rail there quite a few times.
But unlike Newcastle's folly, the Gold Coast light rail actually goes somewhere, and is mainly on it's own corridor.
It is even being extended again.
What Newcastle is getting is just a waste of money - something that buses could have covered, and have covered for the past 70 years -
just a short stretch of road from the west end to the east end of town, something that I have walked heaps of times as a lad.

Only a small part of GCLR is on a corridor. Most of it is in the middle of the road as separated running exactly as it will be in Newcastle.

That is not correct
There are only a very few sections where it shares the road with vehicular traffic, unlike Newcastle which will share most of it's route with vehicles, even though there WAS a perfectly good separate corridor right next to the road.
What a crock of smeg this plan is

That is completely wrong. Most of the GCLR is on the road as separated running. NLR has separated running from Worth Place to Necommen Street. It is mixed running for the last 300m into the terminus at Pacific Park. You seem to have your terminology all wrong. This is what most of the GCLR looks like which is separated running, exactly like most of the street running section of NLR will be.

Why else would they spend $650 million to do the work?

Yes, why else indeed?

Well the official explanation is to connect the city to the harbour and revitalise the city. To date that has worked. Care to offer an alternative explanation?

They didn't need to run the Light Rail down Hunter Street to connect the harbour and Hunter Street.
The light rail could have stayed on the corridor and the supposadly hordes of public craving access could have just walked over the light rail lines to "look at the water"
What they have done is raped and pillaged Newcastle and you have done nothing but support them from the start. You too are a city rapist

Most town planners would disagree with you. By running down the street it does several things. It puts passengers in the middle of the very street that the government is trying to activate. Secondly, it frees up the corridor for use as public space and high quality links between the city and the harbour. If you running it down the corridor, you end up with narrow strips of grass and access points over the line at designated crossings. The project is about urban improvements that trigger investment and revitalisation. It's not about how fast you can get from one end of the city to the other.

Why wouldn't I support it? Scientific surveys (including those by the ALP) show 75% support. What hasn't happened is high rise buildings on the corridor (as claimed by many on here) and the death of the city. Traffic chaos has not descended on the city either. Newcastle has truned the corner.

If you can document one single actual outcome that justifies you claim that I am a rapist, please let me know. All I can see is someone who has run out of arguments resorted to name calling and pretty disgusting ones at that.

Anyone that has to resort to terms like "city rapist" has absolutely no credibility. Change is not rape. If you don't comprehend that then you are one sick puppy. Disagree with the change by all means, but use of offensive terms like that is totally inappropriate.

I agree in part. Calling an individual a rapist without evidence is unreasonable (and if there is evidence then a public forum is not the place for it). However "Rape and pillage" is a compound often found in the English language, harking back to the stories of ancient Greece and Rome. It's a more classical way of speaking than just referring to vandalism and theft, which is how many describe events in Newcastle.

Rape and pillage is what developers and their politician mates and apologists do if they can. Rape is what criminals do.

As to substance of the matter, we should be patient. Over the next few years I expect one of two things to happen:

1. The toy town tramway is extended to the suburbs and to tourist attractions and so becomes a useful asset promoting development along the route. As others have pointed out this is happening on the Gold Coast. Even in Sydney in places like Victoria Avenue Chatswood the shops are still clustered around the stops of the tramway that closed 59 years ago. If a network or substantial extension does happen then the dubious start will be forgiven or forgotten; or
2. If later it becomes manifest that public transport is worse after the current "improvements" are complete than before the closure then a future government (either LNP after a couple more leadership changes or Labor) will allow an ICAC inquiry or similar. The inquiry might be into who profited by the closure but more likely into the decision-making process so that mistakes can be avoided in future.

Tom (the optimist)

I also think option 1 will happen with KD pushing the extension.
As for 2, this has been done to death. All the conspiracy theories have been handed to ICAC and they found nothing. There was an Upper House Inquiry that found nothing. Can you even think of how somebody would financially benefit from the truncation and/or light rail project?

Interesting to see what happened last Sunday when, I believe, trains started running to what I still want to call Wickham. The PIDs in the trains showed the end of the line as "Hamilton - Newcastle" whereas the PIDs on platforms/concourses showed . . . Broadmeadow
                                                        Hamilton
                                                        Newcastle Intg

Can't make up their minds?

Edison

Interesting to see what happened last Sunday when, I believe, trains started running to what I still want to call Wickham. The PIDs in the trains showed the end of the line as "Hamilton - Newcastle" whereas the PIDs on platforms/concourses showed . . . Broadmeadow
                                                        Hamilton
                                                        Newcastle Intg

Can't make up their minds?

Edison

Buses were still showing "Hamilton Shuttle" on Monday morning. Confusing or what.

………..All the conspiracy theories have been handed to ICAC and they found nothing…..........

Two local State politicians, Andrew Cornwell and Tim Owen, resigned from Parliament as a result of their admissions (and modified admissions) to ICAC about accepting donations from developers:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/icac-findings-liberal-party-slush-fund-eight-by-five-handed-down/7796194

………..All the conspiracy theories have been handed to ICAC and they found nothing…..........

Two local State politicians, Andrew Cornwell and Tim Owen, resigned from Parliament as a result of their admissions (and modified admissions) to ICAC about accepting donations from developers:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/icac-findings-liberal-party-slush-fund-eight-by-five-handed-down/7796194

If you had not cheery picked my comments, you would see that it was related to the conspiracy theories around truncation of the railway line. Again all those conspiracy theories were handed to ICAC who, despite their huge access to emails, phones calls, SMS and other documents, found nothing whatsoever.

One of the developers was the former Mayor of Newcastle.

One of the developers was the former Mayor of Newcastle.

Which has what to do with truncation?

Rails are in the ground http://www.theherald.com.au/story/5098740/watch-as-the-track-arrives-for-newcastle-light-rail/?cs=305

We sell the port to the Chinese then buy rail from Austria.
Why can't we build rails?

We sell the port to the Chinese then buy rail from Austria.
Why can't we build rails?

Not worth cost of setting up for the small amount of flanged rail required. Cheaper to import.

Only a very small amount of grooved rail would have been needed if the entire rail corridor had been used.

PS: This thread should be re-titled and moved to the Trams and Light Rail forum. Ther's already a thread Newcastle Light Rail in that forum.

Only a very small amount of grooved rail would have been needed if the entire rail corridor had been used.

PS: This thread should be re-titled and moved to the Trams and Light Rail forum. Ther's already a thread Newcastle Light Rail in that forum.

Using the old corridor would not achieve the main objective of connecting the city to the waterfront and improve pedestrian connectivity. You have the same heavy rail corridor with smaller trains on it.

Only a very small amount of grooved rail would have been needed if the entire rail corridor had been used.

PS: This thread should be re-titled and moved to the Trams and Light Rail forum. Ther's already a thread Newcastle Light Rail in that forum.

Using the old corridor would not achieve the main objective of connecting the city to the waterfront and improve pedestrian connectivity. You have the same heavy rail corridor with smaller trains on it.

This has been a disaster, using the corridor would of been ok considering the fences would of been gone for pedestrians to walk across the lines anyway.
At least one Councillor is trying to save the corridor in case it is needed in future generations due to the eventual population increase.
The time its taking to build a tram line up the middle of Hunter street is something like five years affect on small business, we won't even see a tram until 2019.
The recent V8 Super cars event proved we need high capacity transport to the foreshore, are they going to run another forty buses on New Years eve?
Why wasn't Civic the terminal if they wanted foreshore access at Newcastle?
Damn right this is a novelty power trip, in hindsight no way this should of been done.

Using the old corridor would not achieve the main objective of connecting the city to the waterfront and improve pedestrian connectivity. You have the same heavy rail corridor with smaller trains on it.

You are wrong on this point. Have you not seen images on facebook with the light rail tracks along george street. Have you not seen the light rail near paddy's markets. There are no barriers with light rail in these areas and there would have been no barrier running light rail along the heavy rail corridor.