[bailey65]

I was reading this article earlier today

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...re-opened.html

I think it would go a little way to reversing the then tory governments thoughtless obliteration of half the rail network.
The only trouble is most wrongly closed routes are built on for most of their length and have had infrastructure like bridges and embankments removed interesting thought though.

[Squaddie]

Originally Posted by bailey65

I think it would go a little way to reversing the then tory governments thoughtless obliteration of half the rail network.

I'm no Tory, but I think it's only to fair to point out that although Labour opposed the Beeching cuts while in opposition they did nothing to halt them when they came to power in 1964. At the time they gained office many of the lines that had been closed were still intact and could have been re-opened quite easily and cheaply had they so wished: instead, they continued to close railways throughout their entire term in office, closing far more route miles than the Conservatives had done.

[SS4]

I'm confused, the Tories say there is no money for infrastructure yet their party paper suggests reopening lines?

It won't surprise you to learn that none of the potential lines to reopen are near the midlands, let alone the north or Scotland

[Nym]

And Anti-HS2 meterials linked from that Article, Hmmm....

[tbtc]

I'd support some of these re-openings

* - The East-West line will happen, bit by bit, although running all the way to Cambridge won't happen for some time
* - Lewes to Uckfield ought to work, especially if electrified
* - Bourne End to High Wycombe may depend on Crossrail/ electrification of Thames Valley branches (too many unknowns to say how this would work)

However I suspect that this is really just a diversion ahead of the Tory Spring Conference I presume they are having one - the LibDems are having theirs at the moment) - it ought to go down well with the Middle England voters (investing in the Home Counties - good for both commuters/ business and environmental credentials). There are enough problems with existing lines before we try reopening everything that Beeching cut.

(the cynic in me wonders whether opening routes like Bourne End to High Wycombe would be a way of keeping 165/166s in the South East - which wouldn't allow any planned cascade to the south west or the north of England)

[LE Greys]

Originally Posted by tbtc

I'd support some of these re-openings

* - The East-West line will happen, bit by bit, although running all the way to Cambridge won't happen for some time
* - Lewes to Uckfield ought to work, especially if electrified
* - Bourne End to High Wycombe may depend on Crossrail/ electrification of Thames Valley branches (too many unknowns to say how this would work)

However I suspect that this is really just a diversion ahead of the Tory Spring Conference I presume they are having one - the LibDems are having theirs at the moment) - it ought to go down well with the Middle England voters (investing in the Home Counties - good for both commuters/ business and environmental credentials). There are enough problems with existing lines before we try reopening everything that Beeching cut.

(the cynic in me wonders whether opening routes like Bourne End to High Wycombe would be a way of keeping 165/166s in the South East - which wouldn't allow any planned cascade to the south west or the north of England)

Aren't they too big for anything other than GWR lines anyway?

Most of these routes link two or more other lines, so there's probably more scope for repoening than other routes. The Dunmow link makes sense, since it runs parallel with a coach link anyway. Wycombe-Bourne End might enable a Maidenhead-Aylesbury service, which might be useful. Some of the others are already announced in parts, so it's more of an extension than a new plan.

[Eagle]

Originally Posted by SS4

It won't surprise you to learn that none of the potential lines to reopen are near the midlands, let alone the north or Scotland

Not that the Conservatives get much say in Scottish (or Welsh) reopenings anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Originally Posted by The Telegraph

— The Okehampton-Bere Alstom link, which would provide a second route between Exeter and Plymouth

Is this a new branding thing? (Does it mean it'll get Adelantes or something?)

[IanXC]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

Aren't they too big for anything other than GWR lines anyway?

Someone will be along with the link to that route clearance map before too long, but didn't that show scope for 165/166/168 to operate around Newcastle?

I think the last thread concluded that 168/166 fleets should go to Bristol and the south west, and the 165 fleet to Newcastle.

[swt_passenger]

Originally Posted by LE Greys

Aren't they too big for anything other than GWR lines anyway?

No.

How do you think they get to Redhill, Gatwick, Woking, Basingstoke, East Croydon, Selhurst etc? By shaving a bit off the sides perhaps?

[Wath Yard]

Originally Posted by SS4

I'm confused, the Tories say there is no money for infrastructure yet their party paper suggests reopening lines?

I don't know where you get that from as they have said the exact opposite in that money can and should be spent on infrastructure projects that will benefit the economy. There are a large number of infrastructure projects that have been approved, HS2 being the largest.

[Eagle]

Originally Posted by swt_passenger

How do you think they get to Redhill, Gatwick, Woking, Basingstoke, East Croydon, Selhurst etc? By shaving a bit off the sides perhaps?

Woking and Croydon? Are these ECS movements?

[tbtc]

Originally Posted by IanXC

Someone will be along with the link to that route clearance map before too long, but didn't that show scope for 165/166/168 to operate around Newcastle?

I think the last thread concluded that 168/166 fleets should go to Bristol and the south west, and the 166 fleet to Newcastle.

Agreed re: the 165/166s, but I was under the impression that 168s are "normal" body size so could run anywhere that a 170/171 does (ideal for plenty of places - 3/4 coach 100mph DMUs),

166s would be decent stock for Middlesbrough - Sunderland - Newcastle - Carlisle

[Eagle]

Originally Posted by tbtc

Agreed re: the 165/166s, but I was under the impression that 168s are "normal" body size so could run anywhere that a 170/171 does (ideal for plenty of places - 3/4 coach 100mph DMUs)...

168s aren't going anywhere. At least not until Chiltern electrification (which admittedly is quite high on Network Rail's wishlist).

[swt_passenger]

Originally Posted by Eagle

Woking and Croydon? Are these ECS movements?

They have been when Reading is closed, as in the 2010/11 Christmas blockade. The route clearance was achieved in autumn 2010, it reported to have been basically a paperwork exercise, with no changes needed to any of the infrastructure. Units were stabled at Selhurst for a few days.

[IanXC]

Originally Posted by tbtc

Agreed re: the 165/166s, but I was under the impression that 168s are "normal" body size so could run anywhere that a 170/171 does (ideal for plenty of places - 3/4 coach 100mph DMUs),

166s would be decent stock for Middlesbrough - Sunderland - Newcastle - Carlisle

Ah it was from memory, but thats even better! Perfect for cascading to franchises that currently run 170s in multiple.

To try to come a bit more back on topic, I'd like to mention the case for the Minsters Line. Hull-York via Beverley, those of you who have had the misfortune to see the state of the A1079, and who have seen how many packed buses run up and down all day know why its needed!

Proposal is for a 2 track railway with 2 tph service of (Hull-Cottingham-Beverley) Market Weighton - Pocklington- Stamford Bridge - Haxby - (York), which (in 2005) it was suggested would get annual usage of around 584,000, or 622,000 if 1 tph were extended to Leeds.