New Lines needed

[DarloRich]

Once again quoting a figure off the top of your head and passing it off as correct. I have said a million times, the population of Ripon is 17,500 NOT 12,000 and is planned to increase to 25,000 by 2025. A new town of 25,000 is planned 5 miles north of Ripon on the Ripon-Northallerton original trackbed and adjacent to the A1.

At Flaxby? With respect it isn't planned. It is proposed:

http://www.northyorkshirenews.com/news/does-district-need-a-whole-new-town-1-6631700

I note this is another example of you taking suggestions, proposals, ideas or such like and presenting them as firm plans

Thirsk is no nearer than Harrogate and has a worse service. It was the wrong railhead to choose. There are no trains north of Northallerton from Thirsk after the morning peak except two in the evening peak.

Apart form the Grand Central ones? What about the hourly service between the two? Last time I went home there seemed to be an hourly service between Thirsk and Northallerton with none of them terminating there!

Laugh till your sides split if you like, the reason only TPEx services to Middlesbrough stop at Thirsk and not the Newcastles is the fact that there isn't capacity on the quad track section to stop more than one train an hour each way and the few Grand Central trains and that is a Network Rail fact. things have altered a little recently with the rundown of steel and coal traffic but 4 years ago when the Ripon line was re-appraised, this was the situation just stop scoffing.

So you now accept a "run down" of freight traffic even though earlier posts suggested otherwise?

Apologies for being an Hyena.

 

[deltic08]

So why then were you described as just that on the link which JohnB57 provided? .

I have not claimed at any time to be a rail expert. You will have to ask whoever wrote that as I do not recognise it.

I speak to many groups each year, mainly to raise donations to fund my voluntary work in Africa treating Noma but occasionally on railways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ripon was closed in 1967, after both Beeching and the Tories were long gone.

Since BR lost money overall, and most similar routes required a grant under the post 1968 regime, it's also unlikely the Ripon route was profitable (certainly after through trains were diverted via York). Unless you have stats to back up your point of view.

Had Ripon survived until 1970 it's very likely it would still be open today - but reopening is another issue.

There you go again misquoting when you are ignorant of the facts just regurgitating assumptions. There were 3 or 4 through trains each way on the last day of services. They were only diverted via York because the Ripon line closed to through traffic.

Yes I do have stats. Ripon WAS making a profit overall but taking annual operating costs and annual ticket sales at Ripon booking office alone the line was making a loss. What Beeching ignored, like posters on here, was that the income from army traffic from Ripon was paid by MOD to York HQ direct and not through Ripon station. This made the line profitable.

Had Beeching not loaded operating costs of non stopping passenger and freight trains trains onto the line, such as the Queen of Scots Pullman and the Heysham-Teesside tanks, then the line would have made a profit without army traffic income.

Now has that gone in?

 

[jayah]

I would imagine a Parkway station with ample car parking on the mainline would be a better solution than a rebuilt branch line. Lower cost and a greater catchment area, with most people having to travel by car to a new station on the outskirts of Devizes.

But who would use it, and where would they go?

You already have a sparsely used station up at Pewsey, with very little off peak usage. Being on the mainline isn't good enough unless you are also going where people want to travel.

 

[deltic08]

At Flaxby? With respect it isn't planned. It is proposed:

http://www.northyorkshirenews.com/news/does-district-need-a-whole-new-town-1-6631700

Apologies for being an Hyena.

There you go again as expected. You open your gob and put your size 10 straight in.

Did I mention Flaxby. No. I said 5 miles north of Ripon on the Ripon-Northallerton railway route adjacent to the A1. Flaxby is 12 miles south of Ripon on the Harrogate-York line adjacent to the A1. I thought you were familiar with the area. I am beginning to suspect you need lessons in reading or you have difficulty concentrating.

OK, I accept I should have used the word proposed and not planned. What I meant was had been discussed and put forward as a plan to solve a housing shortage.

Apologies accepted but sadly once a hyena, always a hyena.

 

[HSTEd]

Are you really saying a single track siding with one point machine, one axle counter and two signal heads is going to have worse return than a double track through route with full signalling and an extra platform at Ripon?

You haven't really provided any meaningful evidence that significant through traffic would use this route - and your journey time estimations are based on filling the Harrogate line with so many non stop trains that there will be little to no capacity for the 4tph that are so desperately needed on it.

 

[exile]

I have not claimed at any time to be a rail expert. You will have to ask whoever wrote that as I do not recognise it.

I speak to many groups each year, mainly to raise donations to fund my voluntary work in Africa treating Noma but occasionally on railways.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


There you go again misquoting when you are ignorant of the facts just regurgitating assumptions. There were 3 or 4 through trains each way on the last day of services. They were only diverted via York because the Ripon line closed to through traffic.

Yes I do have stats. Ripon WAS making a profit overall but taking annual operating costs and annual ticket sales at Ripon booking office alone the line was making a loss. What Beeching ignored, like posters on here, was that the income from army traffic from Ripon was paid by MOD to York HQ direct and not through Ripon station. This made the line profitable.

Had Beeching not loaded operating costs of non stopping passenger and freight trains trains onto the line, such as the Queen of Scots Pullman and the Heysham-Teesside tanks, then the line would have made a profit without army traffic income.

Now has that gone in?

Ripon was closed in 1967, so nothing to do with Beeching.

 

[6Gman]

So where does the money go if it doesn't go to bus operators?

NYCC spends £4m per annum on bus subsidy and £4m per annum on bus passes. There were 550,000 bus pass concessions on the No. 36 Ripon-Harrogate route in 2013. Without this level of use the No. 36 bus would only be every 30 minutes instead of every 10 minutes so there must be remuneration to the operator whatever it is called. When I did a an undercover survey of the use of this route many times a service contained only bus pass users.

"The money" is spent as follows (I'm referring here to money spent by the local authority on the ENCTS - English National Concessionary Travel Scheme).

The bus operators run the bus services on a commercial basis. They charge people like me a fare to travel (I don't qualify for the ENCTS). Let's say it's £2.50 for a particular journey. I'm followed onto the bus by someone who does hold an ENCTS pass. They hand over no money, but the operator is required by law to allow them to travel. For free.

Some time later the local authority will send the operator a reimbursement which varies between different authorities. I know of cases where this reimbursement is said to be as little as 53p for a 20 mile journey!

I would suggest this points to the passenger being the recipient of the subsidy rather than the operator, who is forced to provide a service well below the market price.

A service carrying only ENCTS passholders is unlikely to be viable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The idea that the closures were all Beeching's fault, or Marples', or Castle's, is ridiculous. The whole thing was much more nuanced than that. For a large part, the lines closed were the ones that British Railways wanted rid of. Hindsight has proven some of those closures to be mistaken, but most of those railways were closed for a very good reason. And that reason has not changed in the last 50 years.

I know there's still bitterness in most communities who lost a railway line, but that doesn't mean that either the closure was unjustified or that re-opening is justified. The decision has to be economic, not emotional or political.

A very well made point AT. The only slight quibble would be that there may be some exceptional circumstances where socio-economic factors may be relevant e.g. the Ebbw Vale scheme which opened up job opportunities in Cardiff for residents from an area of high unemployment.

 

[simonw]

But who would use it, and where would they go?

You already have a sparsely used station up at Pewsey, with very little off peak usage. Being on the mainline isn't good enough unless you are also going where people want to travel.

I was offering it as an alternative to the nonstarter of a revived line to Devizes. A branch would hardly attract a significantly larger number than the 200k users of pewsey.

 

[The Ham]

I was offering it as an alternative to the nonstarter of a revived line to Devizes. A branch would hardly attract a significantly larger number than the 200k users of pewsey.

However, a branch to Devizes would also serve Pewsey by means of extending the Bedwyn service. Given Pewsey currently has a fairly (off peak) sporadic service such a proposals would benefit Pewsey as well as Devizes.

It was also an example of a possible type of reopening/new line which could, by increasing the use of otherwise fairly lightly used lines, reduce the overall subsidiary of the network. As a line with 2tph will cost more to maintain than one with 1tph but nowhere near as much as double but could bring in to NR a higher income through more track access charges.

 

[simonw]

However, a branch to Devizes would also serve Pewsey by means of extending the Bedwyn service. Given Pewsey currently has a fairly (off peak) sporadic service such a proposals would benefit Pewsey as well as Devizes.

It was also an example of a possible type of reopening/new line which could, by increasing the use of otherwise fairly lightly used lines, reduce the overall subsidiary of the network. As a line with 2tph will cost more to maintain than one with 1tph but nowhere near as much as double but could bring in to NR a higher income through more track access charges.

At what capital cost? Why not just extend services to Pewsey?

 

[The Ham]

Yes I do have stats. Ripon WAS making a profit overall but taking annual operating costs and annual ticket sales at Ripon booking office alone the line was making a loss. What Beeching ignored, like posters on here, was that the income from army traffic from Ripon was paid by MOD to York HQ direct and not through Ripon station. This made the line profitable.

Had Beeching not loaded operating costs of non stopping passenger and freight trains trains onto the line, such as the Queen of Scots Pullman and the Heysham-Teesside tanks, then the line would have made a profit without army traffic income.

Now has that gone in?

We've got that Beeching didn't take into account MOD payed train tickets, as such if he had it MAY have stayed open. Even if it had beyond when it closed it still may have closed anyway.

It is easy to say that it shouldn't have closed, fine, but that is not what we have to work with now. If you have support to develop the scheme, then do so. If that development leads to a proposal to reopen then good. However until such time you need to expect that not everyone will agree with you. You may even find some deliberately wind you up, especially if you don't respond in a professional manner.

 

[yorksrob]

Ripon was closed in 1967, so nothing to do with Beeching.

Not true. The line was listed for closure under the Beeching plan, along with York - Harrogate as it happens.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The idea that the closures were all Beeching's fault, or Marples', or Castle's, is ridiculous. The whole thing was much more nuanced than that. For a large part, the lines closed were the ones that British Railways wanted rid of. Hindsight has proven some of those closures to be mistaken, but most of those railways were closed for a very good reason. .

I don't think I would agree with that. There's enough within the worked example of York - Beverley to undermine the methodology. One wonders how many more routes were closed under similar highly questionable circumstances.

There's also the point mentioned by Coppercapped that some regional managers went too far in pushing lines towards closure. The Board at the time must take responsibility for allowing this ethos to gain ground.

 

[HSTEd]

I recall a story of a bus route running several full double deckers per hour that is haemmorhaging money and is likely to have to close because almost everyone on them is a pensioner.

 

[6Gman]

There you go again as expected. You open your gob and put your size 10 straight in.

Did I mention Flaxby. No. I said 5 miles north of Ripon on the Ripon-Northallerton railway route adjacent to the A1. Flaxby is 12 miles south of Ripon on the Harrogate-York line adjacent to the A1. I thought you were familiar with the area. I am beginning to suspect you need lessons in reading or you have difficulty concentrating.

OK, I accept I should have used the word proposed and not planned. What I meant was had been discussed and put forward as a plan to solve a housing shortage.

Apologies accepted but sadly once a hyena, always a hyena.

Darlorich included a question mark. He was asking if you meant Flaxby.

Your ill-tempered, nasty and - sadly - characteristic response hardly helps the discussion.

You could have said something like "No, I didn't mean Flaxby. That's somewhere else entirely".

But you didn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I recall a story of a bus route running several full double deckers per hour that is haemmorhaging money and is likely to have to close because almost everyone on them is a pensioner.

I understand that has contributed to Arriva reducing the Crewe - Chester service from half-hourly to hourly.

 

[The Ham]

At what capital cost? Why not just extend services to Pewsey?

Pewsey Bedwyn is 10 minutes, the Bedwyn service is hourly, given there doesn't appear to be a siding for the train to wait in. That means the train would be waiting on the mainline for circa 40 minutes.

If you did build a siding for it to wait in then the cost would be similar to building a siding at Devizes although that would required a little more to extended it and build a platform.

 

[exile]

Not true. The line was listed for closure under the Beeching plan, along with York - Harrogate as it happens.

Many lines listed for closure remained open - and many of those not listed were closed. The final decision to close rested with the Transport Minister of the time.

 

[simonw]

Pewsey Bedwyn is 10 minutes, the Bedwyn service is hourly, given there doesn't appear to be a siding for the train to wait in. That means the train would be waiting on the mainline for circa 40 minutes.

If you did build a siding for it to wait in then the cost would be similar to building a siding at Devizes although that would required a little more to extended it and build a platform.

No, it just turns round after a reasonable time and goes back as I assume it does at Bedwyn.

Given that twice as many people use Pewsey, I guess it is already acting as a Parkway type station.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Not true. The line was listed for closure under the Beeching plan, along with York - Harrogate as it happens.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't think I would agree with that. There's enough within the worked example of York - Beverley to undermine the methodology. One wonders how many more routes were closed under similar highly questionable circumstances.

There's also the point mentioned by Coppercapped that some regional managers went too far in pushing lines towards closure. The Board at the time must take responsibility for allowing this ethos to gain ground.

You have to remember that the Minstry of Transport effectively pulled the plug on the modernisation plan in 1960. Of the 4600 DMU's BR planned they got about 3500, 99% 1st generation DMU's pre date the Reshaping Report.
Now what if you had to plan for steams withdrawal but didn't have enough replacements?
The reports figures constantly contradict themselves as there cooked to support the conclusions. How many rural iand mainline stopping services were hourly in frequency in 1960? Yet the worked example of the DMU service and the magic break even figure was based on an hourly service which hardly any of the closed lines had on them.

 

[yorksrob]

Many lines listed for closure remained open - and many of those not listed were closed. The final decision to close rested with the Transport Minister of the time.

Indeed, but the decision to select for closure, run down a route, then present it to the Minister for approval, rested with the railway management.

 

[exile]

Indeed, but the decision to select for closure, run down a route, then present it to the Minister for approval, rested with the railway management.

Railway management was obliged to reduce losses, at a time when the idea of government subsidies of loss making lines hadn't caught on.

 

[yorksrob]

You have to remember that the Minstry of Transport effectively pulled the plug on the modernisation plan in 1960. Of the 4600 DMU's BR planned they got about 3500, 99% 1st generation DMU's pre date the Reshaping Report.
Now what if you had to plan for steams withdrawal but didn't have enough replacements?
The reports figures constantly contradict themselves as there cooked to support the conclusions. How many rural iand mainline stopping services were hourly in frequency in 1960? Yet the worked example of the DMU service and the magic break even figure was based on an hourly service which hardly any of the closed lines had on them.

Some very interesting points.

The Ministry certainly had a closure agenda - right up to the 1980's according to some.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Railway management was obliged to reduce losses, at a time when the idea of government subsidies of loss making lines hadn't caught on.

It wasn't obliged to fabricate non-existant losses, as with York - Beverley.

 

[exile]

Some very interesting points.

The Ministry certainly had a closure agenda - right up to the 1980's according to some.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It wasn't obliged to fabricate non-existant losses, as with York - Beverley.

Evidence?

 

[yorksrob]

Evidence?

Why, the worked example of course. They had to assume that everyone would travel via Selby to make the numbers add up.

 

[muddythefish]

Some very interesting points.

The Ministry certainly had a closure agenda - right up to the 1980's according to some.
.

It certainly did. The Serpell report of 1983 (I think) would have been more devastating than Beeching. Fortunately even the Tories rejected it and the saving of the S & C proved a turning point in the railway closure agenda.

 

[Philip C]

There is bitterness since it was discovered that Beeching fixed a profitable route to look like a loss making route and as a result caused the Teacher Training College in Ripon to close.

If you are referring to the Ripon Training College, which my sister attended in around 1970, this was amalgamated with St John's College, York in 1975 (after 113 years of independence). The amalgamated college (The College of Ripon & York St John) then remained in existence until 2001/2 when the Ripon Campus was sold and training concentrated on the York Campus.

http://www.yorksj.ac.uk/PDF/Ripon Booklet.pdf refers.

I'm not familiar with the detail of what occurred after 1975, but to blame a line closure in 1967 for a college closure in 2001/2 may be a little tenuous or are you referring to some other Teacher Training College of which I am unaware?

 

[muddythefish]

Railway management was obliged to reduce losses, at a time when the idea of government subsidies of loss making lines hadn't caught on.

BR cross-subsidisies enabled profit-making lines to pay for the loss-making ones. One of the many benefits of unified joined-up railway.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Look at the worked examples in the report and look at the percentages of contributory revenue that were assumed to be kept....even though there were no arrangements made to get people from closed stations to the nearest railhead it was blithely assumed the vast majority would magically turn up. In reality the vast majority of folk from closed stations forgot rail travel.

The Gobowen to Oswestry shuttle had 4000 passengers a week according to the closure hearing in 66 but Gobowens footfall today is just on 200,000. If 200K were using the shuttle to Oswestry in addition to the mainline passengers it's clear that folk didn't walk up the road even if only 2.5 miles away. Gobowen in its own right was a higher earning green dot station in the report.

 

[DarloRich]

There you go again as expected. You open your gob and put your size 10 straight in.

Did I mention Flaxby. No. I said 5 miles north of Ripon on the Ripon-Northallerton railway route adjacent to the A1. Flaxby is 12 miles south of Ripon on the Harrogate-York line adjacent to the A1. I thought you were familiar with the area. I am beginning to suspect you need lessons in reading or you have difficulty concentrating.

OK, I accept I should have used the word proposed and not planned. What I meant was had been discussed and put forward as a plan to solve a housing shortage.

Apologies accepted but sadly once a hyena, always a hyena.

Size 12 actually - could you point me to anything about this proposed development I have looked at local authority and council web sites but can't find anything detailed. It is more for personal interest than anything else


BTW - I think I might get a sign made up for work: hyaena department. Although that might detract from the serious job of finding funding for railway investment projects

Christ the things we could do with £60m in our department could make a real difference to railway operations although in ways not readily apparent to the general public

Ps unlike some posters I am happy to admit I only human and sadly I am not omnipotent - I wonder if everyone could say that?

 

[The Ham]

No, it just turns round after a reasonable time and goes back as I assume it does at Bedwyn.

Given that twice as many people use Pewsey, I guess it is already acting as a Parkway type station.

I was assuming that it had a set path into Paddington which could be difficult to move.

Even if Pewsey is acting as a parkway station, which isn't likely for off peak travel, by moving passengers to a station further away they pay the TOC more and free up parking at the existing station for other passengers.

 

[exile]

It certainly did. The Serpell report of 1983 (I think) would have been more devastating than Beeching. Fortunately even the Tories rejected it and the saving of the S & C proved a turning point in the railway closure agenda.

The turning point came in 1970 or thereabouts, no major closures happened after this date. And the real change in government attitude dates from the 1968 Transport Act which accepted the idea of subsidy for "socially necessary" routes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

BR cross-subsidisies enabled profit-making lines to pay for the loss-making ones. One of the many benefits of unified joined-up railway.

Except that BR as a whole never made a profit after 1955.