• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Do the British have an aversion to building new alignments?

Status
Not open for further replies.

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
With the railway continuing to grow - outside the London commuter services - and the network running out of space for more services, one way of achieving more capacity is to build new routes or realign existing railways. The benefits of a new alignment is to break out of the straitjacket of victorian infrastructure in terms of loading gauge and curvature limitations. We also suffer from linkages in sub-optimal places, as demonstrated in Mark casson’s book “[The World’s first Railway System]” ; a problem that a programme of newbuild can slowly address over time. With the UK’s crowded network, building new has the benefit of avoiding disruption that is unavoidable when making interventions on legacy routes.

Like with new trains, the massive upfront costs might be amortised over time by reduced running costs (particularly as many of our legacy lines are maintenance intensive), and more income from a commercially competitive product attracting (and with the capacity to serve) more customers. In Switzerland, for instance, improvements to railway alignment for shorter journeys is usually driven by the needs of the Taktfahrplan timetable.

It's just that, whilst Britain’s railway has thankfully long since moved on from the days of retrenchment and "rationalisation", we don't yet seem comfortable in publicly discussing new railway construction that falls between two extremes of either ultra high speed or of re-opening old lines. The language used is itself telling. Speculate on a better alignment on this forum and you are infantilised as a "crayonista". When the railway itself builds a better alignment it is not called an "improvement", as a straightened road would be, but a word loaded with negative connotations: a "deviation".

So is the UK really adverse to a long term improvement of our railway’s topography as is done with highways, or can it just seem that way?

Whilst a fan of high speed rail, I feel HS2 in particular goes out its way (literally) to avoid setting a precedent for improved alignments for the ordinary railway. It achieves this with a self contained topography (terminal stations at London, Birmingham and Manchester) and extremely high speed which makes it irrelevant as a model for general purpose line improvements.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
What is Crossrail, if not a new alignment ?

In this case the old alingnment isn't necessarily in the wrong place, its just overcrowded.

I think it comes down to what the public actually want from a railway system, which tends to boil down to either:

1) extra capacity, in which case you're duplicating, rather than replacing, or

2) new destinations, in which case if you're talking about a town off the railway network, its likely to be a reopening, due to the extent of the closure programme.

There's not much call for direct replacements of routes if people can already get from A to B comfortably.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
And yes, planning law in the UK means that anyone who wants to build a new line will have to spend at least two years (and millions of pounds) justifying their proposals to the public, placating vicarious landowners and looking for voles. Unless the project takes the Bill route and effectively get a law passed that enables their new line, then all and sundry can wade in and frustrate the plan (vide Ordsall Chord). Network Rail has to battle with the NIMBYs just to close hazardous level crossings ...
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
And yes, planning law in the UK means that anyone who wants to build a new line will have to spend at least two years (and millions of pounds) justifying their proposals to the public, placating vicarious landowners and looking for voles. Unless the project takes the Bill route and effectively get a law passed that enables their new line, then all and sundry can wade in and frustrate the plan (vide Ordsall Chord). Network Rail has to battle with the NIMBYs just to close hazardous level crossings ...
It isn't just in the UK. Look how much more difficult planning the newest LGVs in France has been in comparison with the early ones, and think of all the problems under German planning law that have so slowed down the construction of new lines. (I don't know what the longest example of NIMBY delay might be, but the reconstruction of the Dresdener Bahn in Berlin must rank pretty high on the list, where the inhabitants of Lichtenrade have managed to inflict a quarter-century delay on works.) The NIMBYs are everywhere, I fear.
But squizzler also asked about the re-alingment of existing lines for reasons like easing curves, and this is something where we do seem remarkably reluctant to act. There are good examples, like the major re-alignment some 40 years ago at Wigston Jn just south of Leicester on the Midland, or the Offord Curves on the ECML, or Thingley Jn on the Great Western. But look at the EML electrification of the 60s when absolutely nothing was done to ease slightly any of the curves on the North Staffs line and then right through to the recent decision, we are told, not to re-align the curve north of Market Harborough even though the land needed is railway-owned and already levelled. And then compare that with the small but significant re-alignements, often of just a few metres laterally, you see undertaken during modernisation programmes on German lines.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,903
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
What is Crossrail, if not a new alignment ?

In this case the old alingnment isn't necessarily in the wrong place, its just overcrowded.

I think it comes down to what the public actually want from a railway system, which tends to boil down to either:

1) extra capacity, in which case you're duplicating, rather than replacing, or

2) new destinations, in which case if you're talking about a town off the railway network, its likely to be a reopening, due to the extent of the closure programme.

There's not much call for direct replacements of routes if people can already get from A to B comfortably.

Whilst I used HS2 you use Crossrail. Again it illustrates my point of there being a somewhat schizophrenic attitude as to what proposals get the most airtime: it either has to be a world-beater of some description, or we are back to talking about "reversing the Beeching cuts".

The exception that proves the rule is East West Rail. But even here - outside the technical press - we prefer to revert to the comfort blanket of "Varsity line reopening" rather than talk about it in terms of a new railway.

With regard to your point 1; a new connection between two points on a network can reduce the pressure on existing lines without being a direct duplication, this new connection can also open up new markets missed by the legacy route. New alignments need not necessarily just be about more trains or faster trains than an existing route, but would naturally include gauge clearance for future GC gauge passenger trains and road-railer freight. They would be future proofed for when network effects allow such traffic. Highways are often built on new alignments partly to avoid low bridges or weight limits of their legacy routes, and are invariably designed to accept the biggest lorries.

I also disagree that Point 2) requires formerly connected places to be linked back to the network over the former route. In the case of a literal branch line - a spur from a mainline - the town might be better connected to the network with a through line or loop linking more than one community and giving local travellers a choice of direction in which to start their trip.

It isn't just in the UK. Look how much more difficult planning the newest LGVs in France has been in comparison with the early ones, and think of all the problems under German planning law that have so slowed down the construction of new lines. (I don't know what the longest example of NIMBY delay might be, but the reconstruction of the Dresdener Bahn in Berlin must rank pretty high on the list, where the inhabitants of Lichtenrade have managed to inflict a quarter-century delay on works.) The NIMBYs are everywhere, I fear.
But squizzler also asked about the re-alingment of existing lines for reasons like easing curves, and this is something where we do seem remarkably reluctant to act. There are good examples, like the major re-alignment some 40 years ago at Wigston Jn just south of Leicester on the Midland, or the Offord Curves on the ECML, or Thingley Jn on the Great Western. But look at the EML electrification of the 60s when absolutely nothing was done to ease slightly any of the curves on the North Staffs line and then right through to the recent decision, we are told, not to re-align the curve north of Market Harborough even though the land needed is railway-owned and already levelled. And then compare that with the small but significant re-alignements, often of just a few metres laterally, you see undertaken during modernisation programmes on German lines.

High Speed Rail is invariably contentious. This is not necessarily due to greater environmental damage due to the faster trains producing more noise, or impact on land requirements of their ostentatious curve radii, but I suspect due to the elitist implications of benefiting fast travellers over local needs. The (very Federal and environmentally aware) Swiss manage to incrementally improve their network as you describe the latter part of your post.
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
High Speed Rail is invariably contentious. This is not necessarily due to greater environmental damage due to the faster trains producing more noise, or impact on land requirements of their ostentatious curve radii, but I suspect due to the elitist implications of benefiting fast travellers over local needs. The (very Federal and environmentally aware) Swiss manage to incrementally improve their network as you describe the latter part of your post.
The Swiss way is to start with the desired timetable, work out what the implications of that are for the network, do the necessary work, and then introduce the timetable—the Taktfahrplan, of course. The last really big review was Bahn-2000, and there's a superb book all about it: Mehr Zug für die Schweiz - Die Bahn-2000-Story, Christian Kräuchli & Ueli Stöckli, AS Verlag 2004 (including a large folding sheet giving the whole of that Taktfahrplan).
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Whilst I used HS2 you use Crossrail. Again it illustrates my point of there being a somewhat schizophrenic attitude as to what proposals get the most airtime: it either has to be a world-beater of some description, or we are back to talking about "reversing the Beeching cuts".

The exception that proves the rule is East West Rail. But even here - outside the technical press - we prefer to revert to the comfort blanket of "Varsity line reopening" rather than talk about it in terms of a new railway.

With regard to your point 1; a new connection between two points on a network can reduce the pressure on existing lines without being a direct duplication, this new connection can also open up new markets missed by the legacy route. New alignments need not necessarily just be about more trains or faster trains than an existing route, but would naturally include gauge clearance for future GC gauge passenger trains and road-railer freight. They would be future proofed for when network effects allow such traffic. Highways are often built on new alignments partly to avoid low bridges or weight limits of their legacy routes, and are invariably designed to accept the biggest lorries.

I also disagree that Point 2) requires formerly connected places to be linked back to the network over the former route. In the case of a literal branch line - a spur from a mainline - the town might be better connected to the network with a through line or loop linking more than one community and giving local travellers a choice of direction in which to start their trip.



High Speed Rail is invariably contentious. This is not necessarily due to greater environmental damage due to the faster trains producing more noise, or impact on land requirements of their ostentatious curve radii, but I suspect due to the elitist implications of benefiting fast travellers over local needs. The (very Federal and environmentally aware) Swiss manage to incrementally improve their network as you describe the latter part of your post.

You have a bit of a point, however an old route will often be easier to reinstate (some may be undeveloped, infrastructure may survive, there may be less resistance locally to putting in an old route).

Plus, "not directly duplicating existing routes" and taking in new settlements is exactly what the old rival railway companies used to do, so a lot of those could be thought of as reopening prospects as there will already be a closed route there.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
And yes, planning law in the UK means that anyone who wants to build a new line will have to spend at least two years (and millions of pounds) justifying their proposals to the public, placating vicarious landowners and looking for voles. Unless the project takes the Bill route and effectively get a law passed that enables their new line, then all and sundry can wade in and frustrate the plan (vide Ordsall Chord). Network Rail has to battle with the NIMBYs just to close hazardous level crossings ...

also the availability of money to design and construct
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
High Speed Rail is invariably contentious. This is not necessarily due to greater environmental damage due to the faster trains producing more noise, or impact on land requirements of their ostentatious curve radii, but I suspect due to the elitist implications of benefiting fast travellers over local needs. The (very Federal and environmentally aware) Swiss manage to incrementally improve their network as you describe the latter part of your post.

I think there's a difference between perception and reality. HS2 will have a huge number of seats available and will price accordingly. Local services can be improved due to capacity released on existing lines. However, the perception is somewhat different particularly in the media.

I'm unclear how curve radii can be ostentatious! It's not a factor I've come across in P'way design, although my experience is limited...

The Swiss have constructed some rather mammoth tunnelling projects under the Alps that certainly compare to or even exceed HS2 in scale. However the environmental implications are limited to the construction sites rather than the whole route. Where they have upgraded routes with sections of new line in non-mountainous areas the new routes tended to have a high proportion of tunnelling for environmental reasons. So I think NIMBYs are alive and well in Switzerland even for their 'non-elitist' projects.

Perhaps it would help concentrate the argument to describe what sort of conventional speed new lines you consider necessary in the UK? The only one I can think of is EWR from Bedford to Cambridge where the old alignment is unlikely to be used.
 

Joseph_Locke

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2012
Messages
1,878
Location
Within earshot of trains passing the one and half
But squizzler also asked about the re-alingment of existing lines for reasons like easing curves, and this is something where we do seem remarkably reluctant to act.

From experience, this kind of thing is even harder as you have (as a designer) fewer options with routing, and numerous interfaces with existing infrastructure.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
No problem whatsoever if it's a new road alignment you want to build, of course!
 

superkev

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2015
Messages
2,682
Location
west yorkshire
I dont think theres a aversion just the huge cost before anyone get a shoval out.
I seem to remember reading in one of the railway magazines that for HS2 taking onto acount the legal costs, red tape and land purchase there was not a huge difference in cost between tunneling and surface construction.

This country seems to be crippled by bureaucracy, nimbys and other can't do that people. Any sucessful buisness person will tell you that if you aren't slick you will fail.
I fear for our future.
K
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
One way of achieving more capacity is to build new routes or realign existing railways. The benefits of a new alignment is to break out of the straitjacket of victorian infrastructure in terms of loading gauge and curvature limitations.

At the same time, there are times when reverting to a Victorian alignment would be a significant benefit.

Carstairs anyone?
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
2,912
Location
Sunny South Lancs
One thing not mentioned so far is population density. We are a relatively crowded country meaning almost any useful addition to transport infrastructure, whatever the mode, is likely to have a noticeable negative impact on a fair number of people. The countries most like us for population density are Belgium and the Netherlands. Both countries have in fact been able to carry out a lot of additional tracking to existing routes along with grade separating junctions but genuine new routes have been confined to fairly rural areas. And you can be sure there was much angst in NL about how to route HSL-Zuid through its "green heart".

Perhaps the most significant factor constraining us from adding additional tracks to exisiting routes is that we were the first country to develop any sort of network and this was done in a piecemeal fashion leading to sub-optimal alignments. As an example reference is sometimes made to the apparently wide trackbed between Marsden and Huddersfield arising from it having once been a 4-track route. But the alignment was to Victorian standards meaning a restoration of 4-tracking would push us back towards Victorian speeds! And of course railways quickly prompted urbanisation which hemmed in those alignments severely limiting opportunities for subsequent improvement. It's all a legacy of the laissez-faire attitude of Parliament throughout the period when we built our railways as compared to a greater tendency in other countries to provide at least a degree of strategic overview of such development.

As far as completely new routes are concerned, whether high-speed or otherwise, there is little undeveloped space and the most extensive such areas are often part of specially protected National Parks or SSSIs. It doesn't help that there is an under-current of conservation in public debate, exemplified by the likes of Prince Charles though he is far from alone, meaning that as a society we are reluctant to embrace change. The fact that trust in the political process is at a low-level also fuels the suspicion that "grand schemes" are just money-making vehicles for an already privileged minority. I see little prospect of any of this changing.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
we don't yet seem comfortable in publicly discussing new railway construction that falls between two extremes of either ultra high speed or of re-opening old lines. The language used is itself telling. Speculate on a better alignment on this forum and you are infantilised as a "crayonista"

On the Forum, there seems to be an obsession with re-opening old lines - for example, any mention of problems in the Hope Valley will see someone jump in on the first few responses to say that we should either re-open Woodhead or the Bakewell line as alternative routes through the hills, regardless of whether they actually solve anything.

It's easy to sell the nostalgia of re-opening some long-abandoned line to the old fashioned kind of enthusiasts, who want the cosy certainties of the past. That's why, when you see the line through Dawlish has been closed for a couple of hours due to high tides someone is guaranteed to chime up and suggest that we re-open the route from Tavistock to Okahampton - hundreds of millions of pounds to build a slow line through the middle of nowhere. There's not the same base of people going to be as vocal about the proposed "Dawlish Avoiding Line" (a tunnel that would avoid the awkward coastal section whilst also providing a significantly faster service from Cornwall/ Plymouth to Exeter/Civilisation).

Personally, I'm all for sensible improvements regardless of what they were built upon (any re-opening of an old line would have to be treated as a new-build for planning purposes). Crossrail, HS2, bring it on. But it's a lot harder to get backing for a brand new scheme because you don't have the misty-eyed nostalgists automatically supporting it. Hence why Northern Powerhouse Rail/HS3 has fewer backers than Skipton - Colne, when it comes to a plan to increase capacity from Leeds to Manchester.

As for "Crayonista", I see it as a term to describe any unrealistic scheme - whether a re-opening or new alignment - so Carmerthen - Aberystwyth is "Crayonista" and Bradford Crossrail is too.

No problem whatsoever if it's a new road alignment you want to build, of course!

As rail enthusiasts, we see new roads being built without appreciating how many proposed schemes are cancelled/ how long the ones that get built take to finally open - just as "road enthusiasts" will see a railway improvement and not realise how long it has been in the making/ how many other proposals never saw the light of day.

Look at a site like Pathetic Motorways and you appreciate all of the ambitious road-based proposals that were never built (or never completed, with half-finished roads and abandoned plans).
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
^
Really enjoyed looking at that site. Bad transport planning is not limited to railways!

I'm not a "road" person, but I find it really interesting to see what might have been - e.g. the idea of the M606 running (from the M62) north of Bradford and up into the Dales to connect with an extended M65 from Burnley would have transformed/ruined the Aire Valley - there but by the grace etc!

So many aborted (road) schemes, half-finished stubs, roundabouts that we can't get rid of, wild ambitions that end up being nothing more than an unused spur off a motorway.

Sure, the rail lobby doesn't always get its way, but neither does the road lobby - which is why Newcastle still isn't connected to Civilisation by continuous motorway - and Newcastle to Edinburgh goes down to a single carriageway road - whilst we have a 125mph railway on the same corridor.

"If this were a road scheme, it'd have been built by now" should be filed with "if this half-baked proposal were in Scotland then the funding would have been found by now" - it sounds nice/easy but things are generally more complicated than that.

To get back to the OP's comments, it'd be interesting to debate some of the "new" alignments that we could have. For example, the Virgin plan (fifteen years ago?) for a Morpeth bypass - straightening out the kink in the ECML (you know things are bad when there's a separate Wiki page for accidents on a particular stretch of line - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_accidents_at_Morpeth) - speeding up long distance journeys, leaving the line through Cramlington to be filled with local services (maybe even a Metro extension) - that would have been a brand new alignment AIUI - seemed a sensible plan to deal with a problem stretch of line - shame it came to nothing. (now I'm getting nostalgic for the days when franchise bidders came up with things way above and beyond the minimum specifications!)
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,542
Location
Redcar
which is why Newcastle still isn't connected to Civilisation by continuous motorway

Indeed the lack of a motorway link to the centre of civilisation that is Teesside truly is a blight on the good people of Tyneside that we can only hope will someday be rectified.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
As rail enthusiasts, we see new roads being built without appreciating how many proposed schemes are cancelled/ how long the ones that get built take to finally open - just as "road enthusiasts" will see a railway improvement and not realise how long it has been in the making/ how many other proposals never saw the light of day.

Look at a site like Pathetic Motorways and you appreciate all of the ambitious road-based proposals that were never built (or never completed, with half-finished roads and abandoned plans).
That doesn't alter the fact that new rail alignments are almost as rare as hen's teeth in the UK, whereas new roads are everywhere.
I can think of the new Norton Bridge grade separation, the Ordsall chord (but no platform 15/16 to make use of it) and the big diveunder in S London, then the freight chord near Doncaster and the grade separation (Hitchin?) on the ECML. Before that, not a lot. Airdrie to Bathgate - hardly a new alignment! P.s. a bridge and a bit of new track to complete the TfL outer circle.
In contrast I could name more new main roads built in the last 10 years within 10 miles of my house.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
That doesn't alter the fact that new rail alignments are almost as rare as hen's teeth in the UK, whereas new roads are everywhere.
I can think of the new Norton Bridge grade separation, the Ordsall chord (but no platform 15/16 to make use of it) and the big diveunder in S London, then the freight chord near Doncaster and the grade separation (Hitchin?) on the ECML. Before that, not a lot. Airdrie to Bathgate - hardly a new alignment! P.s. a bridge and a bit of new track to complete the TfL outer circle.
In contrast I could name more new main roads built in the last 10 years within 10 miles of my house.
We’ve had this discussion before. There’s lots of new rail alignments in the last 20-30 years. Indeed if you go back far enough, all of them are ‘new’.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Indeed the lack of a motorway link to the centre of civilisation that is Teesside truly is a blight on the good people of Tyneside that we can only hope will someday be rectified.
:D

I didn’t want to be the first to say that I could have sworn it was motorway from Toon to Scotch Corner when I drove it last month 8-)
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,072
We’ve had this discussion before. There’s lots of new rail alignments in the last 20-30 years. Indeed if you go back far enough, all of them are ‘new’.
We have. Maybe you live somewhere that hasn't had loads of new road schemes built almost continuously, but somehow I doubt it... Do you think rail has been over-generously provided with new alignments?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
We have. Maybe you live somewhere that hasn't had loads of new road schemes built almost continuously, but somehow I doubt it... Do you think rail has been over-generously provided with new alignments?

Until very recently I lived within listening distance of the M25, and the main construction compound for widening the northern quadrant of the same, thanks for asking.

I wouldn’t say ‘rail has been over generously provided with new alignments’. Partly because most railways that are open today were built in the right place first time round, partly because it was designed around a technology (powered wheel on rail, capable of long distances almost from the start) that has been subject to evolution rather than revolution in its 200 year history, and partly because the railway encouraged and triggered development around it over that time. The rail network simply hasn’t needed a significant number of realignments.

This is in contrast to the road network, much of which has evolved from tracks and paths dating back millennia, from when almost all transport had feet and needed regular food and rest. As the road transport industry changed to become wheeled, and then powered, it has changed how the system operates, and thus the type of infrastructure it needs. And the road system has therefore changed, usually to divert longer distance traffic away from town centres. This has only happened on a significant scale in the last 60 years, and rather less in the last 20. It has also happened everywhere in Europe, incidentally, except without the last 20 years slow down here in the U.K.

But neither has the railway been particularly deprived. Leaving aside the dozens of closed / abandoned / freight railways that have reopened to passengers in the last few decades, there are also dozens of new alignments on existing routes and (of course) all new routes, There’s scores, probably hundreds of new chords, flyovers, realignments - I can think of 10 on the ECML alone. That’s before the thousands of projects that have improved the speed, capacity, capability or safety of the existing network, something which is more difficult to do to an existing road without building a new one.
 

Simon11

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2010
Messages
1,335
No mention on this thread of the Market Harborough realignment project?
 

deltic08

On Moderation
Joined
26 Aug 2013
Messages
2,499
Location
Ripon
Leaving aside the dozens of closed / abandoned / freight railways that have reopened to passengers in the last few decades, there are also dozens of new alignments on existing routes and (of course) all new routes, There’s scores, probably hundreds of new chords, flyovers, realignments - I can think of 10 on the ECML alone. That’s before the thousands of projects that have improved the speed, capacity, capability or safety of the existing network, something which is more difficult to do to an existing road without building a new one.

Apart from Peterborough and Offord I can't think of any ECML alignment that was electively done to raise speed.
Selby Deviation was paid for so the Coal Board could remove coal from under the old route and Prestonpans was coal subsidence and north of Berwick was geology too. It was not optional but compulsory.
Where else on the ECML were the other 5 alignments?
Where are the dozens of closed/freight lines reopened to passengers?
There are many settlements formerly too small to retain their railway connections in the 1960s that are large enough now to be rail connected. The City of Ripon and the town of Wetherby were only 7,000 and 5,000 residents respectively when Beeching put the boot in but are now 18,000 and 12,000 and rising due to a rise in commuting to employment in Leeds but the building of houses elsewhere in the Leeds City Region. These residents deserve a direct rail route to Leeds in 35 and 20 minutes respectively just as much as Harrogate or Skipton or Ilkley, instead of 80 and 60 minutes by road in the peaks.
Riponians have to commute an hour to a railhead in Harrohate, find somewhere to park as the station car park is too small, and then endure a 40 minute all stations stopper to Leeds. 90 to 100 minutes to travel only 30 miles. Transport system of a Third World country. What is needed is a 2 mile extension along the former Ripon line to a railhead at Nidd Bridge, to the north of Harrohate, for starters served by the 2 new Leeds- Harrogate services per hour not going through to Knaresborough/York.
We all pay taxes so should have the same perks of a convenient railhead.
 
Last edited:

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
Until very recently I lived within listening distance of the M25, and the main construction compound for widening the northern quadrant of the same, thanks for asking.

I wouldn’t say ‘rail has been over generously provided with new alignments’. Partly because most railways that are open today were built in the right place first time round, partly because it was designed around a technology (powered wheel on rail, capable of long distances almost from the start) that has been subject to evolution rather than revolution in its 200 year history, and partly because the railway encouraged and triggered development around it over that time. The rail network simply hasn’t needed a significant number of realignments.

This is in contrast to the road network, much of which has evolved from tracks and paths dating back millennia, from when almost all transport had feet and needed regular food and rest. As the road transport industry changed to become wheeled, and then powered, it has changed how the system operates, and thus the type of infrastructure it needs. And the road system has therefore changed, usually to divert longer distance traffic away from town centres. This has only happened on a significant scale in the last 60 years, and rather less in the last 20. It has also happened everywhere in Europe, incidentally, except without the last 20 years slow down here in the U.K.

But neither has the railway been particularly deprived. Leaving aside the dozens of closed / abandoned / freight railways that have reopened to passengers in the last few decades, there are also dozens of new alignments on existing routes and (of course) all new routes, There’s scores, probably hundreds of new chords, flyovers, realignments - I can think of 10 on the ECML alone. That’s before the thousands of projects that have improved the speed, capacity, capability or safety of the existing network, something which is more difficult to do to an existing road without building a new one.

Those freight railways which whave been reopened were over twenty years ago. The last couple came back as guided busways.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,882
Location
Reston City Centre
Indeed the lack of a motorway link to the centre of civilisation that is Teesside truly is a blight on the good people of Tyneside that we can only hope will someday be rectified.

Obviously by "Civilisation" I meant "Redcar", but you can take that as a given!

That doesn't alter the fact that new rail alignments are almost as rare as hen's teeth in the UK, whereas new roads are everywhere

New roads really aren't everywhere.

If they were then where's the relief for the TransPennineTrafficJam known as the M62?

Why are they finding it so hard to build a relief to the M4 between Cardiff and Newport, if road schemes are so easy to construct?

:D

I didn’t want to be the first to say that I could have sworn it was motorway from Toon to Scotch Corner when I drove it last month 8-)

Apologies - I thought there was still some non-motorway sections in County Durham but that's presumably been upgraded since I was last on that section of road.

Where are the dozens of closed/freight lines reopened to passengers?

Probably in the file marked "too small to justify Heavy Rail"?

We all pay taxes so should have the same perks of a convenient railhead.

Everywhere in the UK should be within a few miles of a convenient railhead?

Really?
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
So far in this thread we have the following suggestions for new conventional speed rail alignments:

Morpeth bypass
EWR central section
Dawlish avoiding line

Do we have any more?
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,834
No mention on this thread of the Market Harborough realignment project?

In post #5, Senex suggested that this is not going ahead. I must admit I thought it was already under construction though.
... then right through to the recent decision, we are told, not to re-align the curve north of Market Harborough even though the land needed is railway-owned and already levelled.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top