Government Seeking Ways to Reverse Some Beeching Cuts.

[route:oxford]

When the term "ECML" is used, are they talking Kings Cross to Berwick, Edinburgh or Aberdeen?

The Nationalists will go nuts if it's rebranded as "The Virgin Forth Bridge".

 

[Ianno87]

If lines were to re-open, is there capacity for additional trains direct to the popular destinations?

By way of a local example (albeit a highly unlikely one), if the Buntingford Branch Line returned, Liverpool Street would be the popular destination. The new trains would have to join the already busy (full?) Lea Valley line north of Broxbourne.

--
Alan

Most definitely full. Any serious branch reopening or new build route proposal is going to have to be able connect directly to a significant centre of employment via a rail route that has spare capacity (that cannot be put to a better alternate use), or with spare capacity that can be created purely with a minor infrastructure alteration (no more modest than a bay platform I would suggest).

Using your admitted unlikely example, f there were spare Lea Valley capacity, a better BCR is likely to be had serving Harlow, Stortford, Stansted and/or Cambridge, not Buntingford.

Herein lies the problem with this "let's reopen every line I have a vague nostalgic attraction to" discussion. Focus is best on a small (I mean small) number of truly credible examples.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

I reckon that half the journeys on the Manchester tram network are too long for tram-type vehicles anyway - and far too slow for conurbation communications.. Most of the outlying areas need a proper train service reinstating (including Altrincham not via Stockport.)

I agree that losing the 25kv heavy rail route via Sale was a bad move, but Altrincham to Manchester is very different from Sheffield to Manchester.

 

[Busaholic]

How many of the lines proposed to re-open will be or could end up being "basket cases"?

Word association time: hot air balloons have baskets, and they are by coincidence most prevalent in the Greater Bristol area, in particular to the west of the city in the general direction of Portishead. I'm all for Portishead reopening, by the way.

 

[Henbury Loop]

Weĺl, as I am sure you can guess by my user name, I am rather happy about this announcement.

Doesn't change the fact they are still going for a Henbury Spur, rather than loop though. A travesty.

 

[cle]

The issue with many lines, like Lewes/Uckfield - is where do you send the new services. Nothing more will fit through East Croydon for example. Extending the 1tph London Bridge-Uckfield barely seems worth the construction. So even if you divert other services down that route (e.g. Eastbourne services) the likes of Three Bridges and Haywards Heath are robbed. Perhaps more shuttles could be an option - but from where to where? New platforms at East Croydon might be worthwhile - maybe for more terminating services from the south which could increase frequencies without having everything run up to London.

So you have to look at new services which can run 'through' or be more useful in a self-contained way. Both Bristol and Cardiff could end up with Crossrail-style networks and through-running. I'd suggest another platform at Bath just to offer some options for turning, for example. Doubing the Stansted tunnel. Massive works at Oxford. Boring little things to enable more termini and better use of capacity. With the odd extension. All of this in turn helps the London-centric approach to everything.

 

[delt1c]

When the term "ECML" is used, are they talking Kings Cross to Berwick, Edinburgh or Aberdeen?

The Nationalists will go nuts if it's rebranded as "The Virgin Forth Bridge".

ECML goes from Kings Cross to Aberdeen. Not a point of going nuts by calling it "The Virgin Forth Bridge" Just laugh at the the nuts that call it that. Lets stick to proper names

 

[Grimsby town]

From what i've heard from the business case and patronage predictions for the White Rose Shopping Centre station, it will probably never happen.

I wonder if the governement will consider reopening and building new lines with high floor tram vehicles. With Metrolink being keen on tram trains and T and W Metro looking to get tram train style vehicles for their services you would think a tag on order would be relatively cheap. I know the Sheffield Tram Train trial has been a mess but removing the low floor factor and electrifying at 25 kV should solve this.

One route i think this would work on is York to Pocklington. It could follow the Scarborough line stopping at the hospital before travelling on the road at New Earswick to the Vanguarde, Monks Cross and York Community stadium before running on the old line to Stamford Bridge and Pocklington and perhaps beyond.

This would make lines cheaper to renistate as the level crossings could be unguarded, track could be crossed at grade by pedestrians and tram trains would be able to use sections of on road track, have less complicated signalling and tackle higher gradients and sharper curves.

 

[Bevan Price]

It's a shame that the DfT apparently think that Blyth and Ashington are in County Durham rather than Northumberland. Do they not check their press releases?

They are north of Watford, They are likely to be just mysterious names on a piece of paper (or in a computer file) to many people working in London.

 

[Bald Rick]

Reading this thread is quite revealing. For those who haven't read the paper issued today, it is worth doing so.

In terms of reopening lines, nothing has changed. Reopening lines will be considered if they are a specific catalyst for economic growth (ie new homes and/or jobs). It is expected that funding is forthcoming from developers and other beneficiaries (para 2.45), i.e. not Government.

Government funding may be provided if (and only if) the scheme can 'demonstrate a strong business case' (para 2.43) along with 'a clear strategic focus and good evidence of the opportunities being created and benefits being delivered' (para 2.49).

It was ever thus. What Government has done is pointed out that the lines currently being proposed for reopening meet these general criteria. So the message is: it can be done, but promoters need to come up with hard evidence, and hard cash.

Projects that don't offer specific growth benefits - don't bother asking.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

The way I see it is that some of the lines which served reasonable sized settlements e.g. Louth, Cranleigh, Shepton Mallet, Wells, Queesbury, Henbury, Thornbury (Avon), Okehampton and Tavistock to name a few could be the ones that would be reopened first and even then the choice of rolling stock could well be class 139's, 230's, 399's, possibly more class 172's or if we're really desperate - class 143's / 144's or the seven class 155's.

Even then, the lines are very likley to be operated as single line working (to save money), using whatever is at hand (to save money) and its quite likley that if the line doesn't get off to a quick start then it'll be cut to a parly service (to save money).

Put it this way even if one railway line is reopened with Mr Grayling in office, then it'll be deemed as a success and quite rightly so.

 

[Starmill]

Does anyone else feel a little bit like we've been debating a press release from the Office of Minsinformation?

Nothing at all appears to have changed that I can see. I could be wrong, but there appears to be no new money, no new process and new approaches that we were not already aware of. What there has been is an apparent renegitiation of Virgin Trains East Coast's contract to terminate it early. But there has been very, very little discussion of this in those terms.

Some lines may reopen, but only the ones that were already being worked on, and this is not announcing that those lines will get any funding that was not already confirmed.

 

[DarloRich]

Does anyone else feel a little bit like we've been debating a press release from the Office of Minsinformation?

Nothing at all appears to have changed that I can see. I could be wrong, but there appears to be no new money, no new process and new approaches that we were not already aware of. What there has been is an apparent renegitiation of Virgin Trains East Coast's contract to terminate it early. But there has been very, very little discussion of this in those terms.

Some lines may reopen, but only the ones that were already being worked on, and this is not announcing that those lines will get any funding that was not already confirmed.

I agree to a point on the infrastructure investment side. The structure running the railway, is , potentially a big change. It will all depend on the terms of the agreement and the legal structures underpinning the new ECML partnership. The stuff about new lines is just fluff to distract from a widespread change in franchising structure.

 

[Starmill]

The structure running the railway, is , potentially a big change. It will all depend on the terms of the agreement and the legal structures underpinning the new ECML partnership.

Yes, I agree, this is significant - perhaps critically so. And it is what is important that has come out of this paper, which I did acknowledge in my post. We are remarkably detail-free here though aren't we, for such a potentially significant change.

But the news reports are almost all about reopening branch lines ("reversing Beeching") and so is most of the discussion in this thread. "Reversing Beeching" is a million miles away from anything in this announcement.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, I agree, this is significant - perhaps critically so. And it is what is important that has come out of this paper, which I did acknowledge in my post. We are remarkably detail-free here though aren't we, for such a potentially significant change.

But the news reports are almost all about reopening branch lines ("reversing Beeching") and so is most of the discussion in this thread. "Reversing Beeching" is a million miles away from anything in this announcement.

Certainly. The silence on detail is deafening. I will withhold complaint till we see it.

 

[brad465]

That was an interesting route into the city coming from Bath!!
And one I find a little improbable.
Clifton Down Station is totally the wrong side of town.

I'm also a long distance cyclist by trade, if I'd been on cycle rides into Wales, I'd come back from the Severn Bridge into North Bristol, passing over Clifton Down station on the main way through into Bristol that side, then pass TM on the A4 heading SE back to Bath. The Avonmouth branch does kind of recurve back round before heading north down the Avon Valley, which is why passing both stations doesn't take terribly long.

I'm not in Bath anymore although if my work takes me to Bristol for living I'd potentially do that again, although that's another story. If I do return to Bristol the whole metro system and transit system talk would be very useful for getting around.

 

[Chester1]

I reckon that half the journeys on the Manchester tram network are too long for tram-type vehicles anyway - and far too slow for conurbation communications.. Most of the outlying areas need a proper train service reinstating (including Altrincham not via Stockport.)

I agree that losing the 25kv heavy rail route via Sale was a bad move, but Altrincham to Manchester is very different from Sheffield to Manchester.

There is simply no chance of the tram line being converted back to heavy rail. Ignoring the enormous cost there is not sufficient capacity into Oxford Road or Piccadilly. The old chesnut of reopening Central ignores the fact that it would only serve one part of the city centre and have worse metro and long distance connections. Altrincham services should be run by better trams, preferably more comfortable and 60m single sets of 4 to 5 coaches to maximise capacity compared with a 57m double sets with 4 cabs and couplers.

The best solution to mid Cheshire line capacity would be to build the proposed western approach tunnel to link Knutsford with Manchester Airport station and spur. It is not a popular idea in this site because it is not reopening a closed line! Infrastructure upgrades and better paths could provide Altrincham with a faster service to Piccadilly via Stockport.

 

[infobleep]

Other bits in this very packed announcement include (see in full here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/strategic-vision-for-rail):

• Current Great Western Franchise to be extended until 2022, providing FirstGroup can come up with a satisfactory plan: Separate article can be seen here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/the-future-of-the-great-western-franchise
• East Coast to be slowly replaced by "The East Coast Partnership"
• East Coast, South Eastern and East Midlands all to be run be joint management teams (Latter 2 at start of new franchises)
• And finally, South Eastern's ITT has been released, which includes a requirement to remove ALL First Class accommodation and piloting a "Pay As You Go" Ticketing system- more can be seen here: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-journeys-for-south-eastern-rail-passengers

Various threads will be needed for these separate stuff!

I did a search on Gatwick which came up twice in the consultation document. I did a search on North and nothing in relation to the North Downs Line showed up.

In the table of years, no mention of it either. The only mention of Redhill was on the map.

I'd have thought an extra fast train to Gatwick Airport each hour being in the current franchise agreement would have meant a mention of it in the next consultation document. The agreement of another fast train was a big thing.

Unless by not mentioning it they are hoping people forget it was ever agreed?

I appreciate it may never be possible to delver it but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of it.

 

[yorksrob]

Reading this thread is quite revealing. For those who haven't read the paper issued today, it is worth doing so.

In terms of reopening lines, nothing has changed. Reopening lines will be considered if they are a specific catalyst for economic growth (ie new homes and/or jobs). It is expected that funding is forthcoming from developers and other beneficiaries (para 2.45), i.e. not Government.

Government funding may be provided if (and only if) the scheme can 'demonstrate a strong business case' (para 2.43) along with 'a clear strategic focus and good evidence of the opportunities being created and benefits being delivered' (para 2.49).

It was ever thus. What Government has done is pointed out that the lines currently being proposed for reopening meet these general criteria. So the message is: it can be done, but promoters need to come up with hard evidence, and hard cash.

Projects that don't offer specific growth benefits - don't bother asking.

Except that the current proposals have been around for donkeys years with nothing happening (with the exception perhaps of Portishead). If in this does mark a willingness for the Gmt to actually find a way forward on these, it would be a big deal.

 

[yorksrob]

The best solution to mid Cheshire line capacity would be to build the proposed western approach tunnel to link Knutsford with Manchester Airport station and spur. It is not a popular idea in this site because it is not reopening a closed line! Infrastructure upgrades and better paths could provide Altrincham with a faster service to Piccadilly via Stockport.

Actually, that seems to be a better way of resolving the mid-Cheshire line capacity issue than the previous mooted proposal of turning it over to a tram-train.

 

[The Ham]

My take is that it is a government policy that designed to sound good on a few fronts.

First of it's designed to show that HS2 isn't the only rail investment that the government is considering. As one of the criticisms leveled at HS2 is we need to reverse some of the closures before building HS2. By making this announcement it should enable the government to be able to point to this and say "look we're doing both", even if the reality is that few reopenings will happen before all of HS2 is open.

Next it's likely to be aimed to show that not everything is London focused, as most of the reopening schemes are likely to mostly benefit the local areas that they serve, even if it does also improve connections to London for those that wish to go there.

It's also likely aimed to remove some of the anger against large developments and so enable more housebuilding to happen. In that if the developer provides investment to allow a rail line to go ahead there'll be many local people who will benefit from it more than they will be inconvenienced by the development. Such as, the new development increases traffic, but because it provides a rail link there's an alternative for many of the locals. Add that to be schools, new shops and other local facilities and it could be enough to divide opinion enough that the local councillor on the planning committee no longer votes against the development (even abstaining could be enough for the development to go ahead).

Finally, even if nothing gets built, the fact that they have looked at the options will enable a comprehensive response to those who suggest such lines are reopened.

There's some interesting questions I would like to find the answer to:

Once a developer has part funded the reopening and some of the first few years of services are the government going to be willing to add the ongoing costs to the franchises?

Will a developer be able use this to "reopen" commuter services on heritage lines (with the agreement of those who currently operate those heritage lines)?

I could see that the likely result from this announcement will be a few reopened lines (with significant support from development (s) and therefore significant numbers of new houses). Overall the political credit is likely to be higher than the actual benefits, however over the next 20 years it could see some reopenings that may have otherwise taken longer to have happened.

 

[Kettledrum]

Does anyone else feel a little bit like we've been debating a press release from the Office of Minsinformation?

Nothing at all appears to have changed that I can see. I could be wrong, but there appears to be no new money, no new process and new approaches that we were not already aware of. What there has been is an apparent renegitiation of Virgin Trains East Coast's contract to terminate it early. But there has been very, very little discussion of this in those terms.

Some lines may reopen, but only the ones that were already being worked on, and this is not announcing that those lines will get any funding that was not already confirmed.

Completely true. Not a single spade in the ground happens as a result of this paper.
No line is any closer to re-opening than it was yesterday. I wouldn't even say any line re-opening is a long way ahead in the future, because there's no commitment to anything in this paper.

The paper highlights that passenger numbers have doubled since privatization, but doesn't draw the obvious conclusion that action is needed now to extend the infrastructure because it can't cope with current levels of growth.

Particularly annoying that there is so little mention of specific plans for Birmingham, where that there are some great ideas on the drawing board gathering dust. Similarly the Gibb report and the BML2 campaign ideas are also still in the long grass. We need actions not more words.

 

[lyndhurst25]

How about improving the frequency and quality of trains on existing routes first? I could regularly use the Carnforth to Leeds route and the Carnforth to Cumbria Coast route, but prefer not to because of awful Northern overcrowded, filthy ancient trains, with their infrequent and slow timings. They're fine if you're a tourist or have all day, but for workers/commuters, they're pretty useless. These two lines are already double track and have enormous potential for carrying far higher passenger volumes, but until we get a more frequent service and 21st century rolling stock, anyone with a choice will use the roads instead.

Cumbrian Coast, Kirkby-Wigan, Sheffield-Cleethorpes via Brigg, Knottingly-Goole, Preston-Ormskirk, Sheffield-York via Rotherham local, Whitby branch, are all open routes that I've wanted to make use of but have been unable to because of the shoddy train service. Most of these were downgraded 1970s to 1990s, post-Beeching. How about making sure that existing lines get a 7 day, morning to evening service, before considering reopening?

 

[PR1Berske]

Of course, one easy way to find the funds to reopen many lines closed by Beeching would be to scrap HS2, as the Bow Group Think Tank suggested a couple of years ago....

http://www.51m.co.uk/use-hs2-money-to-reopen-axed-beeching-lines-says-think-tank/

Scrapping HS2 would be ideal, and any government that makes that sensible decision would be rightly championed.

 

[DelW]

I did a search on Gatwick which came up twice in the consultation document. I did a search on North and nothing in relation to the North Downs Line showed up.

In the table of years, no mention of it either. The only mention of Redhill was on the map.

I'd have thought an extra fast train to Gatwick Airport each hour being in the current franchise agreement would have meant a mention of it in the next consultation document. The agreement of another fast train was a big thing.

Unless by not mentioning it they are hoping people forget it was ever agreed?

I appreciate it may never be possible to delver it but it would be nice to see some acknowledgement of it.

It does look as though the 'franchise commitment' of 3tph on the North Downs has been abandoned at least for the time being, allegedly because of the difficulty fitting such a timetable across the level crossings at Betchworh and Reigate without bringing the A25 and A217 to a standstill for long periods. Betchworth could (relatively) easily be sorted out with a road diversion and a bridge if the several £M could be found, but Reigate is very problematic - the recent emergency gas works which closed the southbound A217 at the level crossing caused widespread traffic jams, although some traffic did seem to divert away over the course of the works.
At least (AIUI) the Sunday timetable looks like being improved.

 

[PR1Berske]

Cumbrian Coast, Kirkby-Wigan, Sheffield-Cleethorpes via Brigg, Knottingly-Goole, Preston-Ormskirk, Sheffield-York via Rotherham local, Whitby branch, are all open routes that I've wanted to make use of but have been unable to because of the shoddy train service. Most of these were downgraded 1970s to 1990s, post-Beeching. How about making sure that existing lines get a 7 day, morning to evening service, before considering reopening?

Politics, dear sir!

It's sexier for any Minister to be photographed in hiviz jackets at a rail reopening, than in a boardroom having agreed to improve the Ormskirk shuttle timetable. Cutting ribbons will always be chosen over admin.

 

[The Planner]

Scrapping HS2 would be ideal, and any government that makes that sensible decision would be rightly championed.

Good luck with that....

 

[PR1Berske]

Good luck with that....

Nothing in life or politics is guaranteed.

 

[yorksrob]

Politics, dear sir!

It's sexier for any Minister to be photographed in hiviz jackets at a rail reopening, than in a boardroom having agreed to improve the Ormskirk shuttle timetable. Cutting ribbons will always be chosen over admin.

I know that a lot of campaign groups such as Transport 2000, for example, understand the importance of improving existing services as well as reconnecting communities that are off the network. I personally am quite vocal about the need for better frequencies on the Whitby and Little North Western routes, for example.

However, too often the need to improve services on existing routes is presented as an excuse not to do anything about re-openings, and such sentiments play to the narrative of those who would rather not do anything.

Also, the majority of expenditure on a reopening would be a capital expenditure, so would almost certainly come from a different pot of money than "revenue" expenditure, such as running more trains, anyway.

 

[squizzler]

I know that a lot of campaign groups such as Transport 2000... <snip>

I presume you mean Campaign for Better Transport. Not been called Transport 2000 for years (not long after the year 2000 stopped being in the future, I think)!