Burton-Leicester line.

HOOVER29 · 24 May 2019

Has the lines condition deteriorated rapidly just recently or is there another reason why the Tinsley to Bardon empty stone hoppers now go via the Erewash valley line & Toton before turning right just after Leicester?
We had a test train down the line the other day. Was the first thing I’ve heard for probably a month.
First the tube stock went & now the lines only other freight has seemingly disappeared. On the main straight where I live at Ashby the weeds are growing already on the track bed and yet I noticed the other day that the trees have been cut back opening up the previously tight Upper Packington road bridge shot.
The talk about ASDA moving onto the old Lounge open cast site & building a Daventry style terminal seems to have hit the buffers so I was wondering if there are any other plans for the line?

RailUK Forums

John Webb · 24 May 2019

Can't specifically answer your questions, but there is a two-page article (pp34/35) in RAIL 878 (May 8-21st) which speaks about the potential for reinstatement of this line for passenger use. It doesn't mention any existing problems, other than the loss of the West-North chord near Leicester some while ago preventing a direct connection to Leicester.

DPWH · 24 May 2019

I think we've been through this quite recently. It's not a priority, for very sound reasons.

mallard · 24 May 2019

Nothing in the East Midlands is a priority. Unfortunately the whole area falls into the "not deprived enough to get development funding, not affluent enough to fund/warrant significant improvements in itself" category which means no investment whatsoever.

Freightmaster · 24 May 2019

DPWH said:
I think we've been through this quite recently...

here you go:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ashby-de-la-zouch-anything-use-the-line.180301/

MARK

HOOVER29 · 24 May 2019

DPWH said:
I think we've been through this quite recently. It's not a priority, for very sound reasons.

Spoken like an member of parliament!
I spent 45 mins driving from Ashby to Coalville this morning.
Then 30 mins back.
I went to Leicester on May 20th. Took 80 mins to do less than 20 miles.
The roads are gridlocked.
More housing being built locally yet the road infrastructure stays the same.
Plus noticing people from the Tamworth Burton Lichfield & as far afield as London are moving into the area as the housing offers better value for money.

geoffk · 24 May 2019

mallard said:
Nothing in the East Midlands is a priority. Unfortunately the whole area falls into the "not deprived enough to get development funding, not affluent enough to fund/warrant significant improvements in itself" category which means no investment whatsoever.

The Robin Hood Line "happened" of course, also Kettering - Corby. I thought that Leicester - Burton reopening was one of the casualties of privatisation.

WesternLancer · 24 May 2019

geoffk said:
The Robin Hood Line "happened" of course, also Kettering - Corby. I thought that Leicester - Burton reopening was one of the casualties of privatisation.

It was - costs went up massively when railtrack started quoting, and that meant that the councils funding it had second thoughts. plus I think Leicestershire county withdrew support soon after - due to change in political control - also taking the city out of ther couty responsibility would have impacted -eg from wiki
County council: Elections in 1985, 1989, 1993 and 1997 continued No Overall Control. The Conservatives took control in 2001, helped in part by the removal of the strongly Labour-voting Leicester from the county.

Of course it would be a quick win opening and relatively cheap project. I think the council's are most concerned about an ongoing subsidy liability - that's usually the other problem, if the fares can't cover operating costs.

CockneySparrow · 15 Jul 2019

A lot of the track needs lifting and relaying, the land it sits on needs work as well, there is a picture on one of the other threads at the Moira end where its like a ski slope

WesternLancer said:
It was - costs went up massively when railtrack started quoting, and that meant that the councils funding it had second thoughts. plus I think Leicestershire county withdrew support soon after - due to change in political control - also taking the city out of ther couty responsibility would have impacted -eg from wiki
County council: Elections in 1985, 1989, 1993 and 1997 continued No Overall Control. The Conservatives took control in 2001, helped in part by the removal of the strongly Labour-voting Leicester from the county.

Of course it would be a quick win opening and relatively cheap project. I think the council's are most concerned about an ongoing subsidy liability - that's usually the other problem, if the fares can't cover operating costs.

SilentGrade · 15 Jul 2019

The total lack of traffic at the moment is actually due to a cable theft between Moira and Mantle Lane SB’s. Means diversions are in place as pilot working has to be introduced for any trains using that section. Should be reinstated at the end of this month.

WesternLancer · 15 Jul 2019

CockneySparrow said:
A lot of the track needs lifting and relaying, the land it sits on needs work as well, there is a picture on one of the other threads at the Moira end where its like a ski slope

No doubt you are correct, a shame to hear it - but whether that was the case and part of the costs in mid 1990s etc I can't say. I do recall decision makers at Notts County Council more or less saying that they could never have got the Robin Hood line re-opening under way if they had not go the ball rolling before BR ceased to exist as costs would have ballooned.

That view is reflected here in this speech and John Heppell MP was senior county Councillor before he became an MP so was very familiar with the project, and as an ex railwayman IIRC - would have understood the broader issues too

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1995/feb/08/robin-hood-railway-line

Extract:

"Stage 2 of the line was commenced under an agreement between Nottinghamshire county council and Regional Railways Central in March 1994. In April 1994 the British Railways Board was split into two companies by the Government, and the problems began. I have instigated today's debate to highlight the problems for the future developments of the Robin Hood railway that have been caused by extra costs, both capital and revenue, which are all outside the county council's control. A large proportion of the problems has arisen because of rail privatisation.

To stress the urgency of the problem I shall quote from a report of this Monday, 6 February, of the Robin Hood line executive group sub-committee. Paragraph 9 states: Railtrack have informally indicated that a guarantee of additional funding to meet the capital cost shortfall of up to £2.6 million will be required from the county by April/May. Without such a guarantee, they say they would have to halt works because of the financial implications of their contractual commitments with the BR infrastructure units engaged on Stage 2 track and signalling. If the money cannot be guaranteed, the work on the line will stop."

MarkRedon · 15 Jul 2019

Please forgive a slightly off-topic question. What was the total cost of reopening the Robin Hood line? How much would that now equate to in 2019 retail prices? Why are quoted reopening costs in 2019 so very, very much higher than those that pertained at the end of the BR era, given that retail price inflation has been relatively low in the last quarter-century? (See the Tavistock thread for the latest example of this.) What can be done to reduce those costs? Are sensible reopening possibilities being lost because heavy rail seeks to maintain standards not applied or applicable to other transport modes?

Western Lord · 15 Jul 2019

MarkRedon said:
Please forgive a slightly off-topic question. What was the total cost of reopening the Robin Hood line? How much would that now equate to in 2019 retail prices? Why are quoted reopening costs in 2019 so very, very much higher than those that pertained at the end of the BR era, given that retail price inflation has been relatively low in the last quarter-century? (See the Tavistock thread for the latest example of this.) What can be done to reduce those costs? Are sensible reopening possibilities being lost because heavy rail seeks to maintain standards not applied or applicable to other transport modes?

'Elf and safety'....in one form or another, and complying with accessibility regulations.

pdeaves · 15 Jul 2019

Western Lord said:
'Elf and safety'....in one form or another, and complying with accessibility regulations.

Yes; broadly 'providing features we never used to'. Also, I suspect an amount of no one being prepared to take any form of risk any more (thinking business, financial, process, etc., risks, not safety risks).

Belperpete · 15 Jul 2019

One of the major increase in costs since BR days has been the need for projects to reimburse the TOCs for any disruption to train services.

And of course the elephant in the room: there will be layers of contractors and sub-contractors, project engineering companies, etc. who will all need to make a profit out of it, and (as pdeaves said) will each include a contingency sum to cover their financial risks.

WesternLancer · 15 Jul 2019

MarkRedon said:
Please forgive a slightly off-topic question. What was the total cost of reopening the Robin Hood line? How much would that now equate to in 2019 retail prices?

I think a bit of digging would be required to get that figure - eg Notts County council financial and approval reports from the period would no doubt list various costs - and I expect the railway press covered it at the time so back issues would tell you what was being said at the time, at least by the council's press office I assume (wikipedia entry lists an article in an old Rail magazine for example). Others have made points about causal reasons - but is it any different as to why GW electrification was more than ECML electrification + rpi, per mile, and by how much different was the project spec.

But then also, and of course you will know the point, schemes are different as they need difference starting points. RH line much in situ - but a tunnel needed sorting, is a different cost to what needs doing on say a totally lifted route eg Skipton - Colne, or projected costs of east - west rail re-opening, which might be a better comparator maybe?

But that is more akin to asking 'it cost £10k to do up my house, why did your house cost £18k to do up'? But I realise that is not the main point of your question!

WesternLancer · 15 Jul 2019

WesternLancer said:
I think a bit of digging would be required to get that figure - eg Notts County council financial and approval reports from the period would no doubt list various costs - and I expect the railway press covered it at the time so back issues would tell you what was being said at the time, at least by the council's press office I assume (wikipedia entry lists an article in an old Rail magazine for example).

This gives some figs in ball park terms (published in 2002)
https://www.railwatch.org.uk/backtrack.php?issue=093&page=rw093p04.pdf&mode=display

The story behind one of the most successful rail reopenings in Britain was explained at the conference by Nottinghamshire County Council’s Jonathan Hall. Mr Hall, a senior officer with the rail projects team, described how the council gave the go-ahead to the implementation of the £28million Robin Hood line reopening on a three-stage basis in 1991. Notts and Derbyshire county councils were responsible for rescuing and rehabilitating the closed route infrastructure while district councils took responsibility for the stations. £13million came from the Government, £6million from the European Union while British Rail and Railtrack contributed only £0.5million.

So I assume that is £28m at 1991 prices (tho it does not actually say that) rather than 2002 prices - when it was written - but this can be the problem with articles like this - a summary of no doubt a speech given that itself would have summarized the costs as I suspect the speech being reported was not a detailed project financial presentation.

No reason to believe that it wasn't ball park £28m cost at the time though.

But £28m in 1991 is £59m in 2018 - still a lot of money I suspect.

MarkRedon · 15 Jul 2019

WesternLancer said:
I think a bit of digging would be required to get that figure - eg Notts County council financial and approval reports from the period would no doubt list various costs - and I expect the railway press covered it at the time so back issues would tell you what was being said at the time, at least by the council's press office I assume (wikipedia entry lists an article in an old Rail magazine for example). Others have made points about causal reasons - but is it any different as to why GW electrification was more than ECML electrification + rpi, per mile, and by how much different was the project spec.

But then also, and of course you will know the point, schemes are different as they need difference starting points. RH line much in situ - but a tunnel needed sorting, is a different cost to what needs doing on say a totally lifted route eg Skipton - Colne, or projected costs of east - west rail re-opening, which might be a better comparator maybe?

But that is more akin to asking 'it cost £10k to do up my house, why did your house cost £18k to do up'? But I realise that is not the main point of your question!

Thank-you for this and other thoughtful answers. My main point is, of course, to try to push towards ways of reducing unnecessary costs. I'm not entirely convinced that the Blessed Jeremy's answer, renationalisation, would magically solve this particular issue. However, layers of contractors each taking their cut is undoubtedly a cost multiplier. Might there be some level of "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"?

I have sympathy with the notion of getting multiple quotes for the main job of reopening a route - everything but the endpoints - and then funding NR to join up the ends. In the Ivanhoe case, there is still nominal use of the current infrastructure - but equally clearly, a long closure appears easily to be absorbed by alternative transport arrangements. The TOCs are probably owed very little.

To repeat my original question: what can be done to reduce costs? Heritage or leisure railways have done a magnificent job of preserving or re-creating routes that would otherwise have been lost, in most cases very cheaply on the back of volunteer work. Is there anything the national network can learn from their practice? Such as doing a minimal job now, in the hope / faith of coming back later to do a better one?

MarkRedon · 15 Jul 2019

WesternLancer said:
This gives some figs in ball park terms (published in 2002)
https://www.railwatch.org.uk/backtrack.php?issue=093&page=rw093p04.pdf&mode=display

The story behind one of the most successful rail reopenings in Britain was explained at the conference by Nottinghamshire County Council’s Jonathan Hall. Mr Hall, a senior officer with the rail projects team, described how the council gave the go-ahead to the implementation of the £28million Robin Hood line reopening on a three-stage basis in 1991. Notts and Derbyshire county councils were responsible for rescuing and rehabilitating the closed route infrastructure while district councils took responsibility for the stations. £13million came from the Government, £6million from the European Union while British Rail and Railtrack contributed only £0.5million.

So I assume that is £28m at 1991 prices (tho it does not actually say that) rather than 2002 prices - when it was written - but this can be the problem with articles like this - a summary of no doubt a speech given that itself would have summarized the costs as I suspect the speech being reported was not a detailed project financial presentation.

No reason to believe that it wasn't ball park £28m cost at the time though.

Thanks very much, this is very much what I was looking for.

WesternLancer said:
This gives some figs in ball park terms (published in 2002)
https://www.railwatch.org.uk/backtrack.php?issue=093&page=rw093p04.pdf&mode=display

But £28m in 1991 is £59m in 2018 - still a lot of money I suspect.

£59m for a lot of (mainly) very useful railway. This compares well with a quoted £70m for a much shorter Tavistock extension.

WesternLancer · 15 Jul 2019

MarkRedon said:
Thanks very much, this is very much what I was looking for.
£59m for a lot of (mainly) very useful railway. This compares well with a quoted £70m for a much shorter Tavistock extension.

Yes, good point.

Belperpete · 15 Jul 2019

MarkRedon said:
To repeat my original question: what can be done to reduce costs? Heritage or leisure railways have done a magnificent job of preserving or re-creating routes that would otherwise have been lost, in most cases very cheaply on the back of volunteer work. Is there anything the national network can learn from their practice? Such as doing a minimal job now, in the hope / faith of coming back later to do a better one?

You mean like running it at 25mph or less, to minimise the PW and infrastructure costs and maximise their life-span, and so you can use scrap material from the national network? I suspect that NR would be very reluctant to take over such a line and incurring all the "coming back later" costs.

edwin_m · 15 Jul 2019

MarkRedon said:
£59m for a lot of (mainly) very useful railway. This compares well with a quoted £70m for a much shorter Tavistock extension.

The track and most of the signalling already existed from Newstead southwards and from Kirkby northwards, so the £28m bought the digging out of the tunnel, a couple of miles of effectively new double track formation and seven stations. Much of the southern part was kept "as is" in the knowledge that it would have be totally re-built when the tram line was agreed.

thenorthern · 15 Jul 2019

The line itself sees very little traffic particularly after the Bardon Hill Quarry junction, despite talk of it reopening I can't see it happening any time soon.

mallard said:
Nothing in the East Midlands is a priority. Unfortunately the whole area falls into the "not deprived enough to get development funding, not affluent enough to fund/warrant significant improvements in itself" category which means no investment whatsoever.

The Government hates the East Midlands its a well known fact although technically Burton upon Trent is not in the East Midlands.

ag51ruk · 16 Jul 2019

The first stage of the planned Coalville line re-opening was the new local stations between Loughborough and Leicester, just after the original Robin Hood line in the mid 90s. Those stations (along with Willington at the other end) all received 'Ivanhoe Line' branding ready for the next phase between Leicester and Burton that never came. I guess the inclusion of Willington meant that a (Nottingham?) - Loughborough - Leicester - Burton - Derby service was planned.

WesternLancer · 16 Jul 2019

ag51ruk said:
The first stage of the planned Coalville line re-opening was the new local stations between Loughborough and Leicester, just after the original Robin Hood line in the mid 90s. Those stations (along with Willington at the other end) all received 'Ivanhoe Line' branding ready for the next phase between Leicester and Burton that never came. I guess the inclusion of Willington meant that a (Nottingham?) - Loughborough - Leicester - Burton - Derby service was planned.

Yes, I recall that was indeed the idea of the route IIRC. Can't recall exactly if it had a Nottm start or Loughborough as you suggest.

jfowkes · 12 Aug 2019

On the Levenmouth re-opening thread, @Altnabreac posted their "5 golden rules of a successful rail reopening" and I note that Burton-Leicester easily meets all of them (except one which I'm not sure about):

Population of 10,000+ Coalville alone meets this, never mind adding Ashby and Swadlincote
60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre. Yep
Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed I imagine a lot of work is required to bring the track up to spec and double-tracking is required for a lot of the line, but definitely meets this criteria. Leicester North junction is the main problem I guess.
Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required. This was the original intent of the Ivanhoe project in the first place?
Regeneration Potential of a deprived area Maybe? I don't know about the area. It's ex-mining country and the towns are often the butt of jokes about chavs etc. But I don't know the actual stats.

Just interesting to note.

59CosG95 · 12 Aug 2019

The redoubling of the line from Leicester to the Cliffe Hill (Stud Farm) & Bardon Hill quarries should be simple enough; as @jfowkes says, the Leicester area (Knighton Jn IIRC) is the main obstacle. Most of the curve linking the Burton line with Leicester (London Rd) station is redeveloped now, as so:

AlastairFraser · 13 Aug 2019

59CosG95 said:
The redoubling of the line from Leicester to the Cliffe Hill (Stud Farm) & Bardon Hill quarries should be simple enough; as @jfowkes says, the Leicester area (Knighton Jn IIRC) is the main obstacle. Most of the curve linking the Burton line with Leicester (London Rd) station is redeveloped now, as so:View attachment 67092

I don't know the area but is there no room for a short tunnel or viaduct given that one of the buildings at ground level is a custody centre and I don't think that's likely to be moved anytime soon, unless anyone knows any different.

edwin_m · 13 Aug 2019

AlastairFraser said:
I don't know the area but is there no room for a short tunnel or viaduct given that one of the buildings at ground level is a custody centre and I don't think that's likely to be moved anytime soon, unless anyone knows any different.

Pretty unlikely it would be able to get far enough up or down and back to ground level in the distance available.

DPWH · 13 Aug 2019

ag51ruk said:
The first stage of the planned Coalville line re-opening was the new local stations between Loughborough and Leicester, just after the original Robin Hood line in the mid 90s. Those stations (along with Willington at the other end) all received 'Ivanhoe Line' branding ready for the next phase between Leicester and Burton that never came. I guess the inclusion of Willington meant that a (Nottingham?) - Loughborough - Leicester - Burton - Derby service was planned.

Derby-Burton-(and then s-l-o-w-l-y)-Ashby-Coalville-(reversal required, but now somewhat quicker)-Leicester-Loughborough-Trent-Nottingham wouldn't be exactly the fastest or most direct route between Derby and Nottingham, though, would it?

Burton-Leicester line.

Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation