Are any "bring back old lines" campaigns likely to succeed?

[geoffk]

Agreed, but add a route to Mildenhall to it (presumably from Newmarket rather than the old branch) to support the housing growth when the base closes.

Haverhill has a population of 27,000 - I think the largest town in East Anglia without a rail service.

 

[Tobbes]

Haverhill has a population of 27,000 - I think the largest town in East Anglia without a rail service.

Also true - and RailHaverhill are all over it - but short of moving Tescos, where would they put a station?

 

[Bald Rick]

The local authority already own the route, so they have clearly put their money where their mouth is.

Put some money. But if there’s no business case, it’s rather a waste.

 

[yorksrob]

Put some money. But if there’s no business case, it’s rather a waste.

There clearly is a case for the route, based on:

• The congestion experienced by people travelling by road between Tavistock and Plymouth
• The investment that the local authority has already made in purchasing the route and;
  
• The funding secured from local developers.

What is clear, is that the case will be evaluated according to a different set of values from a similar case in Scotland.

What is also increasingly clear is that Scotland are using the correct values to assess such cases, whereas Westminster/Whitehall aren't.

 

[Bald Rick]

There clearly is a case for the route, based on:

• The congestion experienced by people travelling by road between Tavistock and Plymouth
• The investment that the local authority has already made in purchasing the route and;
  
• The funding secured from local developers.

What is clear, is that the case will be evaluated according to a different set of values from a similar case in Scotland.

What is also increasingly clear is that Scotland are using the correct values to assess such cases, whereas Westminster/Whitehall aren't.

This is absolute tosh.

The methodology for assessing business cases in Scotland is the same as in England & Wales. It’s called Transport Assessment Guidance. If you think otherwise, please provide evidence.

And please don’t say (again) ‘there is clearly a case for the route, based on’ ... and then throw in a couple of sentences that contribute to only part of the criteria for assessment. Yes there’s congestion, yes the LA have bought the route, yes funding has been secured from developers (if the route is built), but what about all the rest? Costs? Benefits? Alternatives? Without it then there still isn’t a case.

For there to be ‘clearly a case’, there must be an evidence based assessment using the standard methodology.

Of course I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, if someone can point me to a recent business case for that line (or indeed any other) But until then, there isn’t a case, clear or otherwise.

 

[yorksrob]

This is absolute tosh.

The methodology for assessing business cases in Scotland is the same as in England & Wales. It’s called Transport Assessment Guidance. If you think otherwise, please provide evidence.

And please don’t say (again) ‘there is clearly a case for the route, based on’ ... and then throw in a couple of sentences that contribute to only part of the criteria for assessment. Yes there’s congestion, yes the LA have bought the route, yes funding has been secured from developers (if the route is built), but what about all the rest? Costs? Benefits? Alternatives? Without it then there still isn’t a case.

For there to be ‘clearly a case’, there must be an evidence based assessment using the standard methodology.

Of course I’ll be happy to be proved wrong, if someone can point me to a recent business case for that line (or indeed any other) But until then, there isn’t a case, clear or otherwise.

You've said so yourself that the case for the Borders line was "political" (your description), which clearly suggests that it wasn't adjudged using the same values as would be a similar scheme in England, Transport Assessment Guidance or not. Yet that reopening scheme has been so successful, they are having to double it.

The only tosh is the Transport Assessment Guidance.

 

[Ianno87]

You've said so yourself that the case for the Borders line was "political" (your description), which clearly suggests that it wasn't adjudged using the same values as would be a similar scheme in England, Transport Assessment Guidance or not. Yet that reopening scheme has been so successful, they are having to double it.

The only tosh is the Transport Assessment Guidance.

Define "successful" please? You presumably refer to passenger numbers being higher than forecast and access to the Borders area substantially improved (which no doubt it is).

Is Scotland as a whole economically net better off for having built it? Possibly not.

 

[yorksrob]

Define "successful" please? You presumably refer to passenger numbers being higher than forecast and access to the Borders area substantially improved (which no doubt it is).

Is Scotland as a whole economically net better off for having built it? Possibly not.

People who require public transport to get about, are better off.

 

[Ianno87]

People who require public transport to get about, are better off.

That is not in any doubt. And no doubt modal shift to rail has been achieved too. But that is but a small minority of overall public transport (indeed rail) use in Scotland, for a very large investment.

But that doesn't in itself make it an economically rational thing to do, in a world of finite money. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the majority of the catchment currently served by the Borders Rail largely was covered by buses, such as the X95.

So how much money is it *worth* Scotland paying per passenger who benefits from it? What are the journey time benefits to tose passengers "worth"? It's not sn unlimited value. Would the spending have got a better return somewhere else in Scotland?

 

[yorksrob]

That is not in any doubt. And no doubt modal shift to rail has been achieved too. But that is but a small minority of overall public transport (indeed rail) use in Scotland, for a very large investment.

But that doesn't in itself make it an economically rational thing to do, in a world of finite money. Correct me if i'm wrong, but the majority of the catchment currently served by the Borders Rail largely was covered by buses, such as the X95.

So how much money is it *worth* Scotland paying per passenger who benefits from it? What are the journey time benefits to tose passengers "worth"? It's not sn unlimited value. Would the spending have got a better return somewhere else in Scotland?

I hear all of these arguments again and again on this forum, and the outlook achieves precisely nothing in terms of improvements.

People in the Borders area wanted a rail link, probably due to it being faster and less prone to congestion than buses and they got a rail link.

They got results, which the Transport Assessment Guidance probably wouldn't have.

 

[Ianno87]

I hear all of these arguments again and again on this forum, and the outlook achieves precisely nothing in terms of improvements.

People in the Borders area wanted a rail link, probably due to it being faster and less prone to congestion than buses and they got a rail link.

They got results, which the Transport Assessment Guidance probably wouldn't have.

They got results....to the cost of the rest of Scotland. As the Transport Assessment Guidance would demonstrate.

For as long as there is a finite pot of money for these things, that is the reality to be able to compare the relative merits of different schemes.

 

[yorksrob]

They got results....to the cost of the rest of Scotland. As the Transport Assessment Guidance would demonstrate.

For as long as there is a finite pot of money for these things, that is the reality to be able to compare the relative merits of different schemes.

The alternatives would have been more spending on road schemes, or on rail schemes in areas that already have a decent rail service.

For that reason, the spend will have been well worth it.

 

[Ianno87]

The alternatives would have been more spending on road schemes, or on rail schemes in areas that already have a decent rail service.

For that reason, the spend will have been well worth it.

Again, a subjective rather than evidence based judgement.

You may, for example, get more benefits relative to cost from infrastructure to lengthening existing crowded 4 car trains to a 6 car trains into urban Glasgow say (a lot of people benefitting a little bit) than infrastructure to reinstste rail services to the Borders (relatively few people benefitting a lot).

Transport Appraisals are how such possibilities are compared, like-for-like.

 

[yorksrob]

Again, a subjective rather than evidence based judgement.

You may, for example, get more benefits relative to cost from infrastructure to lengthening existing crowded 4 car trains to a 6 car trains into urban Glasgow say (a lot of people benefitting a little bit) than infrastructure to reinstste rail services to the Borders (relatively few people benefitting a lot).

Transport Appraisals are how such possibilities are compared, like-for-like.

You may well get more benefits from lengthening 4 carriage trains in Glasgow to six.

You may get more aggregate "benefit" from shaving five minutes off of all journeys on the M6, rather than spending anything at all on rail improvements.

That doesn't necessarily make it desirable to spend all of that money on something with a higher aggregate benefit, if it means that a smaller number of people are denied a potentially more substantial benefit, particularly if they are starting from a situation of greater disadvantage (such as those who do not already have an adequate public transport link).

 

[tbtc]

What is clear, is that the case will be evaluated according to a different set of values from a similar case in Scotland.

What is also increasingly clear is that Scotland are using the correct values to assess such cases, whereas Westminster/Whitehall aren't.

I really think that, to try to make a point, you over-egg the Scottish situation.

Since privatisation there's been...

• the Larkhall branch (a short stub)
• the Alloa branch (a short stub)
• the Newcraighall branch (a short stub)
• stations on the short section of line from Queen Street to Anniesland (effectively a short stub, given that the DMUs operate independently of the EMUs at Anniesland)
• the extension from Newcraighall to Tweedband (which only happened due to horse trading at Holyrood - the price that the LibDems wanted for going into coalition with Labour - a line built after significant delays and significant cost increases that has met expected passenger numbers on some stations and failed to meet expected passenger numbers at other stations)
• money is being found for the Levenmouth branch (a short stub)

...there seems to be this idea from enthusiasts south of the border that Scotland is a land of milk and honey when it comes to re-openings. Instead, things are pretty modest, and the circumstances of the Borders re-opening are never going to be repeated any time soon (younger readers may be scratching their head about the idea of a Labour-LibDem coalition at Holyrood...)

The alternatives would have been more spending on road schemes, or on rail schemes in areas that already have a decent rail service.

For that reason, the spend will have been well worth it.

You may well get more benefits from lengthening 4 carriage trains in Glasgow to six.

You may get more aggregate "benefit" from shaving five minutes off of all journeys on the M6, rather than spending anything at all on rail improvements.

That doesn't necessarily make it desirable to spend all of that money on something with a higher aggregate benefit, if it means that a smaller number of people are denied a potentially more substantial benefit, particularly if they are starting from a situation of greater disadvantage (such as those who do not already have an adequate public transport link).

So, your argument is that spending the money on longer trains would be a better benefit (than reopening an old line) and that spending the money on road improvements would be a better benefit (than reopening an old line)... but that we should spend the money on reopening an old line anyway because it's better to benefit a handful of people who don't have a train service, rather than bring about quantifiable benefits to a much larger number of people?

It's almost like you start from a position of "we need to reopen some old line" and then work backwards to try to find a justification.

 

[cosmo]

I'm hopeful of the Northumberland Line project (Newcastle-Blyth via Bedlington) succeeding - the news I've heard is promising at least. I would hope there'd be potential for an extension to Morpeth, with perhaps a Newcastle-Morpeth circular service going up from Newcastle to Morpeth via either line (diverging if on the N'land line) and returning to Newcastle with the other.

 

[yorksrob]

I really think that, to try to make a point, you over-egg the Scottish situation.

Since privatisation there's been...

• the Larkhall branch (a short stub)
• the Alloa branch (a short stub)
• the Newcraighall branch (a short stub)
• stations on the short section of line from Queen Street to Anniesland (effectively a short stub, given that the DMUs operate independently of the EMUs at Anniesland)
• the extension from Newcraighall to Tweedband (which only happened due to horse trading at Holyrood - the price that the LibDems wanted for going into coalition with Labour - a line built after significant delays and significant cost increases that has met expected passenger numbers on some stations and failed to meet expected passenger numbers at other stations)
• money is being found for the Levenmouth branch (a short stub)

...there seems to be this idea from enthusiasts south of the border that Scotland is a land of milk and honey when it comes to re-openings. Instead, things are pretty modest, and the circumstances of the Borders re-opening are never going to be repeated any time soon (younger readers may be scratching their head about the idea of a Labour-LibDem coalition at Holyrood...)





So, your argument is that spending the money on longer trains would be a better benefit (than reopening an old line) and that spending the money on road improvements would be a better benefit (than reopening an old line)... but that we should spend the money on reopening an old line anyway because it's better to benefit a handful of people who don't have a train service, rather than bring about quantifiable benefits to a much larger number of people?

It's almost like you start from a position of "we need to reopen some old line" and then work backwards to try to find a justification.

I must admit, its always interesting to see those trying to defend the indefensible, attempting a new tack. The "short stub" argument argument however, falls down because Tavistock, Portishead, Wisbech, Skelmersdale etc are also short stubs, yet whereas Scotland's short stubs represent ample good practice, England's short stubs (or lack of them) represent only a littany of failure.

Newcraighall beginning as a short stub then being extended, represents a particular success, which I would like to see as a possible blueprint for routes such as the mid-Devon line. Unlike you, I do not find the fact that this was brought about by the presence of a functioning political system, as something to be ashamed or distainful of. Infact it seems a lot better than our staid and moribund system where the provision of railway facilities has depended on how many marginal constituencies it serves.

In terms of aggregate benefits, yes of course in some cases it would be better to spend more money in areas that are already highly disadvantaged in terms of public transport, even if more motorists miss out on a five minute journey improvement.

 

[higthomas]

I really think that, to try to make a point, you over-egg the Scottish situation.

Since privatisation there's been...

• the Larkhall branch (a short stub)
• the Alloa branch (a short stub)
• the Newcraighall branch (a short stub)
• stations on the short section of line from Queen Street to Anniesland (effectively a short stub, given that the DMUs operate independently of the EMUs at Anniesland)
• the extension from Newcraighall to Tweedband (which only happened due to horse trading at Holyrood - the price that the LibDems wanted for going into coalition with Labour - a line built after significant delays and significant cost increases that has met expected passenger numbers on some stations and failed to meet expected passenger numbers at other stations)
• money is being found for the Levenmouth branch (a short stub)

...there seems to be this idea from enthusiasts south of the border that Scotland is a land of milk and honey when it comes to re-openings. Instead, things are pretty modest, and the circumstances of the Borders re-opening are never going to be repeated any time soon (younger readers may be scratching their head about the idea of a Labour-LibDem coalition at Holyrood...)





So, your argument is that spending the money on longer trains would be a better benefit (than reopening an old line) and that spending the money on road improvements would be a better benefit (than reopening an old line)... but that we should spend the money on reopening an old line anyway because it's better to benefit a handful of people who don't have a train service, rather than bring about quantifiable benefits to a much larger number of people?

It's almost like you start from a position of "we need to reopen some old line" and then work backwards to try to find a justification.

Also Airdrie-Bathgate

And whilst it might not be that long a list that compares to the England (much much larger population) which has had:

• HS1
• East London Line
• Bicester Curve
• Eastleigh-Romsey (not sure quite when this was)
• Sinfin (stub, briefly)
• I'm sure there are a couple of other stubs that I can't think of

But proportionately not much relatively.

 

[yorksrob]

Also Airdrie-Bathgate

And whilst it might not be that long a list that compares to the England (much much larger population) which has had:

• HS1
• East London Line
• Bicester Curve
• Eastleigh-Romsey (not sure quite when this was)
• Sinfin (stub, briefly)
• I'm sure there are a couple of other stubs that I can't think of

But proportionately not much relatively.

High Speed One and the Bicester Curve are serving existing markets, rather than providing new travel opportunities.

Chandlers Ford was in the immediate post privatisation era, so a very long time ago.

 

[Tobbes]

High Speed One and the Bicester Curve are serving existing markets, rather than providing new travel opportunities.

Chandlers Ford was in the immediate post privatisation era, so a very long time ago.

Of those that are underway, E-WR should probably be added to the list. And Western Rail Access to Heathrow will present substantially improved travel opportunities.

But yes, I support Tavistock-Okehampton, Haverhill and Lynn-Swaffham-Dereham-Norwich.

 

[JKF]

How would providing a link to Peebles work out on Altnabreac’s formula? There doesn’t seem to be anyone pushing this case very strongly so I suspect there are obstacles or lack of demand, but it’s a sizeable place (about 8,500 population according to 2011 census) with presumably some demand for travel to Edinburgh, which could be reached in under an hour.

 

[DanTrain]

Altnabreac's 5 golden rules of a successful rail reopening:

• Population of 10,000+
• 60 minutes (75 at a push) journey time of a major employment centre.
• Extant or mainly unobstructed trackbed
• Ability to extend an existing service so more terminal capacity is not required.
  
• Regeneration Potential of a deprived area

Let's test the Sheffield - Stocksbridge line against this (possibly for tram-train):

• Stocksbridge itself has a population of circa 10,000, plus the significant population along the line in Oughtibridge, Shirecliffe etc.
• Probably less than 60 mins from Stocksbridge to Sheffield
• Trackbed still exists so only upgrades would be required
• This is easiest with a tram-train which could run past Kelham Island and up Broad Lane (ex-A57) to the Cathedral (and then maybe down to Midland) as access to Sheffield Midland is tricky from this line via existing railways
• Much of this line is fairly deprived and a fixed rail connection to Sheffield and beyond could be a significan boost to the area

In other words, a solid 4.5/5, the same as what @Altnabreac gave the Leven line. I'd have thought this is one of the easier schemes to carry out, only require major works in Sheffield linking this line to the city centre. Also, now we have tram-trains it's less of a jump to extend the system (hopefully with less of the spiralling costs of course!).

 

[Thebaz]

Also Airdrie-Bathgate

And whilst it might not be that long a list that compares to the England (much much larger population) which has had:

• HS1
• East London Line
• Bicester Curve
• Eastleigh-Romsey (not sure quite when this was)
• Sinfin (stub, briefly)
• I'm sure there are a couple of other stubs that I can't think of

But proportionately not much relatively.

The Robin Hood Line

 

[steamybrian]

Also Airdrie-Bathgate

And whilst it might not be that long a list that compares to the England (much much larger population) which has had:

• HS1
• East London Line
• Bicester Curve
• Eastleigh-Romsey (not sure quite when this was)
• Sinfin (stub, briefly)
• I'm sure there are a couple of other stubs that I can't think of

But proportionately not much relatively.

In addition to the East London line (Dalston Jn- Whitechapel and reopening Old Kent Road Jn-Surrey Quays spur)
Stratford-Lea Bridge- Tottenham
Aylesbury- Aylesbury Vale Parkway
Nottingham-Mansfield-Worksop
Kettering- Corby-Manton Jn

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Have there been any examples of a former or heritage line being brought back into regular passenger service? Not just for Norfolk, but anywhere?

I am just suddenly wondering if there has ever been a case made for Bo'ness?

It's a short stub, the population is 14000+, it is close to major populations centres....

...or is the presence of a heritage railway a barrier?

And... what would be the junction arrangements? Yet another stop on the Ed-Gla mainline??

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Continuing the theme of stubs or spurs

• Ashington, Blyth, Washington?
• Southwell, spur into Nottingham?
• Saffron Walden? (15k+)
• Canvey Island? (38k+) (I see there is an old thread on this, https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/railways-in-canvey-island.65050/)

 

[Tobbes]

Continuing the theme of stubs or spurs

• Ashington, Blyth, Washington?
• Southwell, spur into Nottingham?
• Saffron Walden? (15k+)
• Canvey Island? (38k+) (I see there is an old thread on this, https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/railways-in-canvey-island.65050/)

If we're getting into Saffron Walden, then Aldeburgh? Eye? If Haverhill is built, Haverhill - Sudbury? Can't see the business case (short of a lot houses) but anyway....

 

[CaledonianBlue]

If we're getting into Saffron Walden, then Aldeburgh? Eye? If Haverhill is built, Haverhill - Sudbury? Can't see the business case (short of a lot houses) but anyway....

I suppose it depends on which route to Haverhill. If it's Haverhill via SW then of course it's included. If there is no case to go all the way to Haverhill, then what about a stub to SW?

Of course I have not thought it through. But. What about a shuttle to Stansted Airport being part of the mix, that would help increase connectivity from Stansted Airport to the north? A few additional trains from the Airport to Audley End, that instead of having to terminate at AE, run on to serve SW and layover there? And vice versa. etc. Just a thought.

 

[Tobbes]

I suppose it depends on which route to Haverhill. If it's Haverhill via SW then of course it's included. If there is no case to go all the way to Haverhill, then what about a stub to SW?

Of course I have not thought it through. But. What about a shuttle to Stansted Airport being part of the mix, that would help increase connectivity from Stansted Airport to the north? A few additional trains from the Airport to Audley End, that instead of having to terminate at AE, run on to serve SW and layover there? And vice versa. etc. Just a thought.

SW was its own branch to Audley End on the Cambs - Liverpool St line; there was a northerly connection to the Haverhill-Cambridge line at Bartlow (http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/s/saffron_walden/), but the branch through SW has been completely lost under some (very expensive) housing. You could probably get a line to the southwest edge of SW, but it's really hard to see what the point would be given that Audley End station is really quite close. A tram-train with on-street running from Cambridge via Bartlow could be a different matter, of course - but you need to build a ginormous number of houses between Cambs/Haverhill and SW to make that work, I suspect.

And @Bald Rick will correct me (I hope) when I get this wrong, but IIRC there's not any/not much capacity going into Stansted because of the "economical" single tunnel that connects the airport with the mainline.

 

[Bald Rick]

The only tosh is the Transport Assessment Guidance.

Do you know? You’re right. The guidance that has resulted in the approval of every single railway upgrade project for 20 years is tosh. All those reopenings in England, Wales and Scotland, tosh. All the new stations, tosh. The west coast upgrade, Thameslink, NW electrification, replacing the pacers, improved frequencies, the east coast upgrade, Todmorden curve, Halton curve, All tosh.

In future the decision makers should just listen to people who think they know best.