Should money spent upgrading main lines be spent on reopening disused rural lines instead?

[Clip]

I've been using the line through Market Harborough fairly regularly for the past ten years, occasionally for the ten before that. Will the time saving affect my propensity to use the line ? Probably not.

It is an improvement, but in terms of getting people on public transport, the real improvements on the main line come if you have one that's at or close to capacity, and you get to release an additional path or two. Of course you'd usually need a few Market Harborough type projects to release a path.

You, yet again, fail to see the bigger picture - quicker times on a mainline means the intercity trains can improve their times over any particular junctions and clear them quicker, or, maybe be routed into easier platforms in cities on its routes - thus it creates extra time and space for better journeys for the local services that may need them.

So 30 seconds quicker into Sheffield could reap far bigger rewards to far more people than a line opening to Ripon

 

[HSTEd]

East Midlands Parkway? Featherstone, Streethouse and Potefract Tanshelf? Edinburgh Gateway? Gorebridge? Aylesbury Vale Parkway? Creswell and Whitwell? The criteria isn't 'catastrophic failure'. There are loads of things which wouldn't be a 'catastrophic failure'.

If it's not a catastrophic failure, then was it really that big of a waste of money?
The waste of "tens of millions" becomes the waste of "millions" because some benefits were accrued.

Unless its a literal railway to nowhere, the amount of money actually wasted in any of these schemes is truly negligible.

The criteria is - was this the best possible use of the money? @Bald Rick probably has better examples to hand (and I may be unfairly judging some of the above).

Projecting what is the best possible use of money in advance is rather hard, verging on impossible.

A more realistic criteria is "not likely to be a horrendous waste".


It's like people decrying the Humber bridge as a white elephant.... I very much doubt the UK is worse off for having built it. It might not have been the best use of money but is certainly not a terrible use of money.

EDIT:

On the Skegness line..... there is a 22km dead straight section between Boston and Firsby, with a 50mph speed limit according to the sectional appendix.....

Even 60mph would significantly reduce journey times......

 

[cle]

Funding isn't allocated in an "either A or B" way in regards to line speed improvements versus line reopenings.
Why must we be so divisive and combative about two things with their own very different merits? England 2019 at its core.

And as to the thread title, upping a 60 to 90, or similar, is much more beneficial to the network than 95 to 125, for instance. The MML works at Derby, Leicester and other spots have been about removing these lower speed limitations, which all trains can benefit from - and provide better proportional benefits (e.g. 60 to 90mph gives you 50% more distance over a set period of time!)

 

[yorksrob]

Funding isn't allocated in an "either A or B" way in regards to line speed improvements versus line reopenings.
Why must we be so divisive and combative about two things with their own very different merits? England 2019 at its core.

Perhaps because one of those two things has been systematically neglected (in England at least) for twenty years.

 

[cle]

Irrelevant to Market Harborough though, is my point. I agree reopenings have been neglected, but they are not related in terms of funding.

 

[yorksrob]

Irrelevant to Market Harborough though, is my point. I agree reopenings have been neglected, but they are not related in terms of funding.

But isn't that the problem. Reopenings need specific funding set aside for them. All the while they're not, people will say "why is that improvement being funded, but not mine".

 

[Adsy125]

But isn't that the problem. Reopenings need specific funding set aside for them. All the while they're not, people will say "why is that improvement being funded, but not mine".

But why set money aside for a specific thing, which has a bad return for the taxpayer, compared to other projects?

 

[Killingworth]

The MML is a busy line, and the increase in speed helps to speed up journey times, also increases the capacity as trains no longer need to brake and accelerate through Market Harborough, which saves more than 30 seconds.

An essential job prior to delayed electrification. At least that bill can now be avoided. Sorting out Leicester is probably the next very expensive priority.

 

[yorksrob]

But why set money aside for a specific thing, which has a bad return for the taxpayer, compared to other projects?

What's supposedly a "bad return" for the taxpayer, isn't necessarily a bad thing for the general public.

By traditional measures, the Waverley route reopening would have provided a supposedly "bad return" for the taxpayer, yet it has proved to be very useful and popular amongst local residents. In fact, the more rural stations further out on the route - the type that, according to railway orthodoxy, should have been a dead loss, have turned out to do better than expected.

Is it not right to ask why the convenience and wellbeing of these residents, who have previously not had the benefit of a railway, is held to be so insignificant by whoever it is that judges these things on behalf of us taxpayers, when a slightly quicker/easier journey for those who already have a superb train service, is judged to be so much more worthy of investment ?

 

[HSTEd]

But why set money aside for a specific thing, which has a bad return for the taxpayer, compared to other projects?

Why is money set aside for the specific task of propping up numerous uneconomic railway services, compared to other projects?

Our society does not use purely economic criteria to make decisions.

 

[Adsy125]

What's supposedly a "bad return" for the taxpayer, isn't necessarily a bad thing for the general public.

By traditional measures, the Waverley route reopening would have provided a supposedly "bad return" for the taxpayer, yet it has proved to be very useful and popular amongst local residents. In fact, the more rural stations further out on the route - the type that, according to railway orthodoxy, should have been a dead loss, have turned out to do better than expected.

Is it not right to ask why the convenience and wellbeing of these residents, who have previously not had the benefit of a railway, is held to be so insignificant by whoever it is that judges these things on behalf of us taxpayers, when a slightly quicker/easier journey for those who already have a superb train service, is judged to be so much more worthy of investment ?

But, playing devils advocate, that money could still have gone to a project with a higher BCR, benefitting more people more effectively.

The question is (for new infrastructure), why spend money on a new line, when it could be better spent on upgrades to existing infrastructure?

Why is money set aside for the specific task of propping up numerous uneconomic railway services, compared to other projects?

Our society does not use purely economic criteria to make decisions.

Politics, and subsidising existing infrastructure is usually viewed differently to new projects. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you.

 

[cactustwirly]

What's supposedly a "bad return" for the taxpayer, isn't necessarily a bad thing for the general public.

By traditional measures, the Waverley route reopening would have provided a supposedly "bad return" for the taxpayer, yet it has proved to be very useful and popular amongst local residents. In fact, the more rural stations further out on the route - the type that, according to railway orthodoxy, should have been a dead loss, have turned out to do better than expected.

Is it not right to ask why the convenience and wellbeing of these residents, who have previously not had the benefit of a railway, is held to be so insignificant by whoever it is that judges these things on behalf of us taxpayers, when a slightly quicker/easier journey for those who already have a superb train service, is judged to be so much more worthy of investment ?

If there's a limited pot of money, shouldn't it go to the scheme that has the most benefit?
Not opening a random country branch line that will never make a return on the investment?

 

[Starmill]

If it's not a catastrophic failure, then was it really that big of a waste of money?

Well yes. That's how cost:benefit analysis works. If you spend the money on something that brings benefits, but benefits that are lower than what would have otherwise been were it not for irrational or overly political decision making, you are poorer as a result. You might not be poorer than if you'd just kept the money, but that doesn't mean you got a good deal. It isn't a case of anything being a bonus, because resources fundamentally are scarce. There is always an opportunity cost. This is your money that's being spent, after all.

Look at it another way, I think the taxpayer should pay me £100,000 a year just for doing exactly the same work I already do. The work I do has benefits, and if I had all that money I am sure I could think of a few things to do with it that are good for other people, so not all of it would be wasted... Would you support using government money on that?

 

[yorksrob]

But, playing devils advocate, that money could still have gone to a project with a higher BCR, benefitting more people more effectively.

The question is (for new infrastructure), why spend money on a new line, when it could be better spent on upgrades to existing infrastructure?

Politics, and subsidising existing infrastructure is usually viewed differently to new projects. Whether that's a good thing or not is up to you.

It depends how you define "better". We talk a lot about access to the railway these days, but we're not doing anything about the biggest access issue of the lot. The access of towns which are currently cut off of the railway system to that system. There is a clear double standard in how investments in the railway are prioritised between those who already benefit from a train service and those who don't.

If there's a limited pot of money, shouldn't it go to the scheme that has the most benefit?
Not opening a random country branch line that will never make a return on the investment?

Those are two separate things. "Benefit" is not necessarily synonymous with "return on investment". A return on investment may benefit the distant treasury, whereas a railway station in my town will benefit me and my fellow residents.

 

[Starmill]

It's like people decrying the Humber bridge as a white elephant.... I very much doubt the UK is worse off for having built it.

You misunderstand. It is not a question of being worse off with or without the Humber Bridge. Obviously the country is not going to be worse off ceteris paribus with the Humber Bridge. The question is, are we richer or poorer than if the same money had been spent elsewhere? You are failing to consider the Opportunity Cost of the construction of the bridge. In the case of the Humber Bridge it is near certain that, because we built that rather than more useful roads elsewhere, we are all poorer as a country. There is very limited money available for the railway - we should spend it wisely. Not just on something that sounds good to you.

 

[30907]

Going back to the thread title, creating a smooth speed profile is hugely beneficial - the ECML has benefited hugely from the work on curves at Offord, Peterborough and south of Durham, to name but 3.
It's not just curves - high speed pointwork is in the same category.

 

[Dr Hoo]

One of the main benefits of the Market Harborough scheme was land re-arrangement to allow a much larger and easily accessed car park. The original car park was usually full and hence deterred park-and-ride from a wide area. Market Harborough is the only station in quite a few miles radius and has various advantages over Corby. In some ways the scheme was a bit like re-opening Ripon as a new cohort of users from surrounding villages have effectively been given their first reliable access to a decent rail service without a taxi or drop-off. (This is quite distinct from the 'town' walk-in catchment.)
The benefits of the realignment go far beyond the usual time, fuel, emissions, brake wear, platform interface safety, disabled access gains.

 

[Starmill]

In some ways the scheme was a bit like re-opening Ripon as a new cohort of users from surrounding villages have effectively been given their first reliable access to a decent rail service without a taxi or drop-off. (This is quite distinct from the 'town' walk-in catchment.)

Ingraining private car use into our transport infrastructure is hardly a long-term sustainable transport strategy though, is it? Larger car parks might be of benefit to the railway in the short term, but in the long term, what's called for is a high quality bus or local transport network to get people on and off intercity trains. Simply building more and more car park is not necessarily the answer.

 

[Killingworth]

You misunderstand. It is not a question of being worse off with or without the Humber Bridge. Obviously the country is not going to be worse off ceteris paribus with the Humber Bridge. The question is, are we richer or poorer than if the same money had been spent elsewhere? You are failing to consider the Opportunity Cost of the construction of the bridge. In the case of the Humber Bridge it is near certain that, because we built that rather than more useful roads elsewhere, we are all poorer as a country. There is very limited money available for the railway - we should spend it wisely. Not just on something that sounds good to you.

But building the Humber Bridge straightened out a bit more than a massive curve that took us over the Boothferry swing bridge and Goole, or across the old car carrying ferry to New Holland. It was a very political act because they built the new county of Humberside around it.

Of course it was another political act that wanted to link Humber and Mersey by a continuous motorway, dock to dock, and that called for the M62 viaduct at Boothferry that opened before the Humber Bridge. (They couldn't find a firm foundation for the south tower.) In another political act it was decided that we'd not charge tolls on motorways, but we would on roads crossing estuaries. The Humber bridge got lightly used, the Boothferry viaduct is very busy, and Humberside fell apart again. Tolls are now much reduced and the Humber bridge is used much more.

Memories, memories, but a bit of a digression. However we make similar decisions with railways. We may do the easy bits first and hope to carry on later - and don't! Or go off in a different direction. But to get the full benefits of electrification we need to do as much line improvement as possible first. Electrifying Victorian track configurations that could be simplified is false long term economy.

 

[edwin_m]

Yep, because that is how you divide and conquer the enemies of the railway.

Tens of millions of pounds to break them is nothing in a multi billion pound industry.


That's why you cook the passenger forecasts to be lowballs so they almost always reach their targets. Or set the fares to ridiculously low levels to stimulate demand so that you reach your ridership targets.

Also, when was the last outright disastrous reopening?
Some haven't done as well as projected but apart from something like Sinfin I don't think there have been many catastrophic failures.

This is a perfect example of why this forum sometimes makes me want to throw the computer out of the window.

It is simply ridiculous to suggest that the figures should be cooked to generate a "successful" reopening at a cost of tens of millions to the public purse in order to overcome opposition and justify more reopenings, for which the vociferous campaign groups will clamour for a similar bias in their favour. You've just handed a huge box of ammunition to those who would favour spending the money on something else instead.

It's reasonable to suggest that the BCR and business case process isn't perfect, though (even though part of my job is doing the studies) it would be better if costly and detailed studies weren't done unless there was an agreement in principle to fund the scheme if the study demonstrated meeting certain criteria. But to cheat the system to obtain public money is bordering on the criminal.

 

[Killingworth]

Ingraining private car use into our transport infrastructure is hardly a long-term sustainable transport strategy though, is it? Larger car parks might be of benefit to the railway in the short term, but in the long term, what's called for is a high quality bus or local transport network to get people on and off intercity trains. Simply building more and more car park is not necessarily the answer.

Parking is a massive issue, and so is bus interchanging. Trains and buses always on time every 5 minutes, easy. Every 10 minutes not so good. Either missing, be it cancelled or late, just once and it's back to the car! The further home is from the station and/or the bus stop and it swings further towards using the car.

Since 1950 we've built masses of houses (also factories and offices) away from railway lines and dispersed away from each other. The days of masses of closely packed terraced houses along arterial routes have gone. It needs a massive change in society to get folks out of cars. Many would rather walk than get a bus. If more walk and cycle it would be much better for our health.

I'l stop there as I feel a new thread, or transfer to another thread, coming on!

 

[Bald Rick]

Well this thread developed rather quickly. A few points:

The Market Harboro’ work saves a little more than 30seconds for through trains, at Market Harboro. But you don’t assess these things in isolation. You assess them on the system as a whole, and particularly how a 30second improvement helps the timetable elsewhere. I don’t know the detail, but I understand that combined with the improvements at Derby, the Market Harboro work enables changes in the timetable (Not now, but in the new Franchise) that will result in much larger reductions in journey time. This is because those half minutes here and there enable the trains to ‘jump’ another train and therefore avoid pathing time etc.

Now, value. Passengers on EMT long distance services are ‘worth’ more to the industry, and economy, than passengers on regional or rural railways. Significantly more. It’s simple economics and been proven through various studies over the years, and enshrined in the Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook.

Finally, the cost of opening new lines. I’ve lost count of the number of times I (and others) have stated this, but £10m a mile is a long way short of the mark. Yes the Borders railway was around £14m a mile, at 2015 prices, but there were reasons for that (not least how the Scottish Government accounted for it). The going rate now is £30m a mile minimum. East West Rail is rather more. The proposed Croxley Link in Watford was nearly £200m / mile - and that is largely on existing formation with little landtake (and, note, nothing to do with Network Rail).

So to pull it together, you need to work out how many people benefit, how much they benefit by, how much that benefit is ‘worth’, and then have realsitic values for costs. Then you can make a fair comparison.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Parking is a massive issue, and so is bus interchanging. Trains and buses always on time every 5 minutes, easy. Every 10 minutes not so good. Either missing, be it cancelled or late, just once and it's back to the car! The further home is from the station and/or the bus stop and it swings further towards using the car.

Since 1950 we've built masses of houses (also factories and offices) away from railway lines and dispersed away from each other. The days of masses of closely packed terraced houses along arterial routes have gone. It needs a massive change in society to get folks out of cars. Many would rather walk than get a bus. If more walk and cycle it would be much better for our health.

I'l stop there as I feel a new thread, or transfer to another thread, coming on!

To be honest, neither South Leicestershire/North Northamptonshire nor the Peak District have ever had a settlement pattern of nuclear villages handily placed for railway stations or easily linked by feeder bus services. Assuming that people are going to travel (rather than limiting lifestyles to working on the local farm) large numbers are going to have to use cars. At least the distances are suitable for electric vehicles and 'park-and-ride' potentially halves mileage otherwise incurred on taxi/escort/ferry return trips. I know that there are still issues to crack around particulate emissions from tyres and brakes but there really is very little alternative to independent private vehicles in rural areas unless people are going to be forced to stay at home and undertake virtually all interactions for education, employment, retail and entertainment through a computer screen.

 

[Belperpete]

The MML works at Derby, Leicester and other spots have been about removing these lower speed limitations, which all trains can benefit from - and provide better proportional benefits (e.g. 60 to 90mph gives you 50% more distance over a set period of time!)

Exactly, the works at Market Harborough were part of a much larger package of works to increase linespeeds and decrease journey times on the MML. For example, a lot of footpath crossings have been replaced by bridges. I suspect that if you consider any of these projects in isolation then most of them would have questionable cost-benefit ratios. The important thing is the cumulative effect. If you don't improve, then you slowly decay. And the MML has the M1 running parallel with it in competition.

 

[TheBigD]

On the Skegness line..... there is a 22km dead straight section between Boston and Firsby, with a 50mph speed limit according to the sectional appendix.....

Even 60mph would significantly reduce journey times......

I suspect that the abundance of level crossings is the main reason for the 50mph limit.

 

[deltic08]

I would point out that the money spent in the case of Market Harborough has achieved rather a lot more than 'saving 20 seconds' for passing trains. Market Harborough station is now fully accessible, which previously it was not, and both platforms will be more than 260 metres long on completion of work - eliminating the need for passengers to use only part of the train to board or alight at Market Harborough. The station now has straight platforms, reducing the step for passengers and thus the risk of accidents. According to Network Rail, the speed has been increased from 60 to 85 miles/hour (not 65), and that this is predicted to save 30 seconds for passing trains (not 20). I do not know if the new layout will permit trains which are calling at Market Harborough to approach or leave the station more quickly than previously or not - perhaps someone would like to comment?

Admittedly, it does seem that the main reason for the works was to eliminate the curve, and that the rebuild of the station was a coincidental benefit. However, 30 seconds is rather more significant than it might seem when combined with permissible speed increases elsewhere on the route, new tracks and faster electric rolling stock. Overall, I think it probably is reasonable however to question the value for money achieved by this £53 million project - but only in the sense that all rail projects seem to cost too much.

I thought this would stir you up a bit. 50 posts in one day.
I am so sorry. A whole 30 seconds will be saved. Still £50m spent for little benefit over what was there already. MH already had a station and a rail service. What have they now...…………………..a station and rail service...….but a bigger car park. Wow.
I feel my taxes have been well spent on something for the benefit of someone who lives 150 miles from me and what's more lives in the southern half of the country. I would not be impressed as a traveller from Sheffield that my journey was 30 seconds faster but would be impressed by a bigger car park!
I could have mentioned £2.3billion being spent on GWML electrification to save only a matter of a few minutes on end to end journey times and £5billion on new Hitachi trains that have not performed to expectations. We still have a GWML with trains operating on diesel. I have yet to be on electric when travelling on an IET even after a £7billion spend. Do I complain about the way my taxes are spent on this project? No. I support it even though it is in the south but would like the same amount spending up here on reinstating some closed lines.

A lot more passengers will use the Market Harborough curve than will ever use a railway to a small town like Ripon.

And who would want to travel from Ripon to the equally small town of Northallerton?
And doubt you would get a railway all the way through for £100m or anything close to it, the alignment through Ripon has been pretty completely obliterated by development.
And if you really wanted direct trains with no reversals from Harrogate to points north, you would just build a cutoff near Poppleton to allow trains to head north from the Harrogate loop line. It would cost a fraction as much.

A third of commuters from Ripon commute to Teesside. Northallerton is on the way. Ripon is not a small town. It is a city and the only Cathedral City in North Yorkshire and as such is the Civic hub of North Yorkshire with Northallerton being the County town. Harrogate is the biggest centre of population in NY with Ripon between the two.
It is not just local to Ripon users. Looking at the bigger picture, and that is what TfN is doing, another route is needed from West Yorkshire to Teesside/Tyneside/Scotland avoiding York. York is at capacity around Skelton and Skelton Bridge Junctions and Ripon would provide this and resilience if/when the ECML is closed between York and Northallerton and Leeds and Micklefield.
Read #1 again. I said £100m Harrogate to Ripon and £150m Ripon-Northallerton.
The alignment has not been obliterated. The trackbed is route protected all the way from Harrogate to Northallerton.
A cut-off at Poppleton is not feasible and a ridiculous idea.

I thought you had been a bit quiet about Ripon reopening lately but will you always use an upgrade somewhere else to try and justify your Ripon scheme as some sort of rational thinking ?

I only used Ripon as an example because I knew the facts and figures. It could have been anywhere else in the country and is still a valid argument.

 

[deltic08]

Well this thread developed rather quickly. A few points:
Finally, the cost of opening new lines. I’ve lost count of the number of times I (and others) have stated this, but £10m a mile is a long way short of the mark. Yes the Borders railway was around £14m a mile, at 2015 prices, but there were reasons for that (not least how the Scottish Government accounted for it). The going rate now is £30m a mile minimum. East West Rail is rather more. The proposed Croxley Link in Watford was nearly £200m / mile - and that is largely on existing formation with little landtake (and, note, nothing to do with Network Rail.

How can costs go from £3.6 million per mile in 2006 to £300 million per mile just 13 years later and £14m/mile in 2015 only four years ago?
My pension is index linked but hasn't increased that much in the last 12 years. Should I complain to the Treasury?

 

[HSTEd]

You misunderstand. It is not a question of being worse off with or without the Humber Bridge. Obviously the country is not going to be worse off ceteris paribus with the Humber Bridge. The question is, are we richer or poorer than if the same money had been spent elsewhere? You are failing to consider the Opportunity Cost of the construction of the bridge. In the case of the Humber Bridge it is near certain that, because we built that rather than more useful roads elsewhere, we are all poorer as a country. There is very limited money available for the railway - we should spend it wisely. Not just on something that sounds good to you.

This implies that there is actually a limit on industrial capacity available for road and bridge construction.
Since we are not at full employment, and are not raw material constrained, there is not.

The opportunity cost of the bridge being suboptimal is tiny compared to the opportunity cost of vast amounts of wasted labour.

 

[HSTEd]

Well yes. That's how cost:benefit analysis works. If you spend the money on something that brings benefits, but benefits that are lower than what would have otherwise been were it not for irrational or overly political decision making, you are poorer as a result. You might not be poorer than if you'd just kept the money, but that doesn't mean you got a good deal. It isn't a case of anything being a bonus, because resources fundamentally are scarce. There is always an opportunity cost. This is your money that's being spent, after all.

I am far poorer as a result of money being poured down the drain to prop up services that are maintained for political reasons even though capital expenditure would likely render them less of a money pit.
The Whitby Branch, or the Barton on Humber branch being obvious examples.

Or the Newquay branch.

None of these services are worth maintaining in their current joke of a form, but the BCR is then used as a reason why we shouldn't spend any capital to try and make any of those railways worthwhile.

The real terms interest rate on government debt is negative.
The government throws away huge amounts of public good every year by not borrowing additional money.

What happens to the BCR calculations if debt is assumed to be paid back over 60 years with a real interest rate of -1.6%?

A third of commuters from Ripon commute to Teesside. Northallerton is on the way. Ripon is not a small town. It is a city and the only Cathedral City in North Yorkshire and as such is the Civic hub of North Yorkshire with Northallerton being the County town. Harrogate is the biggest centre of population in NY with Ripon between the two.

It's a city with a population of 12000.

Should we build a railway to St David's because it is a cathedral city?

It is not just local to Ripon users. Looking at the bigger picture, and that is what TfN is doing, another route is needed from West Yorkshire to Teesside/Tyneside/Scotland avoiding York. York is at capacity around Skelton and Skelton Bridge Junctions and Ripon would provide this and resilience if/when the ECML is closed between York and Northallerton and Leeds and Micklefield.

Resilience is worth almost nothing.

Read #1 again. I said £100m Harrogate to Ripon and £150m Ripon-Northallerton.
The alignment has not been obliterated. The trackbed is route protected all the way from Harrogate to Northallerton.

Aerial photography kind of suggests otherwise.

A cut-off at Poppleton is not feasible and a ridiculous idea.

Why?
How is it less feasible than gutting half of Ripon to get the railway through the town?

A chord at Poppleton would get Harrogate-Northern ECML direct trains at far lower cost than an alignment between Ripon and Northallerton, and would likely come out comparable in journey time terms.

This is a perfect example of why this forum sometimes makes me want to throw the computer out of the window.

It is simply ridiculous to suggest that the figures should be cooked to generate a "successful" reopening at a cost of tens of millions to the public purse in order to overcome opposition and justify more reopenings, for which the vociferous campaign groups will clamour for a similar bias in their favour. You've just handed a huge box of ammunition to those who would favour spending the money on something else instead.

It's reasonable to suggest that the BCR and business case process isn't perfect, though (even though part of my job is doing the studies) it would be better if costly and detailed studies weren't done unless there was an agreement in principle to fund the scheme if the study demonstrated meeting certain criteria. But to cheat the system to obtain public money is bordering on the criminal.

When BCRs for publically funded capital projects use the financial figures for actual gilts that would be issued to fund them in their calculations rather than arbitrary rates of return from another era plucked from a Treasury document, I will actually take them far more seriously.

 

[Killingworth]

A third of commuters from Ripon commute to Teesside. Northallerton is on the way. Ripon is not a small town. It is a city and the only Cathedral City in North Yorkshire and as such is the Civic hub of North Yorkshire with Northallerton being the County town. Harrogate is the biggest centre of population in NY with Ripon between the two.
It is not just local to Ripon users. Looking at the bigger picture, and that is what TfN is doing, another route is needed from West Yorkshire to Teesside/Tyneside/Scotland avoiding York. York is at capacity around Skelton and Skelton Bridge Junctions and Ripon would provide this and resilience if/when the ECML is closed between York and Northallerton and Leeds and Micklefield.
Read #1 again. I said £100m Harrogate to Ripon and £150m Ripon-Northallerton.
The alignment has not been obliterated. The trackbed is route protected all the way from Harrogate to Northallerton.
A cut-off at Poppleton is not feasible and a ridiculous idea.

I only used Ripon as an example because I knew the facts and figures. It could have been anywhere else in the country and is still a valid argument.

Route protected? Look at the maps.

Figures clutched from the air and almost certainly way below reality. Harrogate to outskirts of Ripon not too bad but residents at Wormald Green and Littlethorpe wouldn't be too happy to see demolitions. Round the east side of Ripon from the roundabout junction with the B6265 the old trackbed is now the A61.

I'm intrigued to know how any reinstated railway gets past that and through the development at Ure Bank. A tunnel? Assuming a big diversion were possible to pick up the old trackbed north-east of Ripon, getting across the A6055 and A1(M) would be expensive, under or over at the Butcher House Bridge roundabout. There is a modern development across the trackbed at Pickhill.

The land purchase costs, the compensation, all the level crossings, the construction cost would bring it to far more than £250m. There'd be public inquiries. The benefits of the line beyond a terminal platform south of Ripon would be way below an economic return, and even that limited line would probably cost too much.

Get out those Ordnance Survey and aerial maps. It's not a practical starter. It's a scheme to put in a portfolio of 10 projects so 9 can be rejected and one agreed.