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

[edwin_m]

Interestingly lots of people on the forum (and David Spaven off it) are upset that the business case for Borders Rail wasn’t destroyed by making it much more expensive with extra double track, semi fast services to use up more terminal capacity, more work on the existing network at Portobello junction, electrification and more rolling stock.

In reality these things can be addressed incrementally post opening and seeking to fix all of these in advance would have guaranteed it never happening.

I'd say yes and no to that.

In particular it seems very short-sighted to build a brand new overbridge as single track on a section that would logically be doubled if the service was enhanced. Making a new bridge big enough for either doubling or electrication costs very little more unless there is some unusual site constraint. I'd say doubling of certain sections is more likely than electrification, as a frequent enough service to justify electrification is impossible without more double track, but as far as I'm aware the clearance for electrification has been provided but that for double track hasn't.

There are other cases where it is indeed possible to add more infrastructure later if the route needs it, without huge amounts of extra cost and disruption. For example underbridges can often be built for single track and widened later if needed.

 

[NewcastleOne]

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.

It’s planned to go to Ashington with 6 stations at Northumberland Park,Seaton Deleval,
Newsham,Blyth Bebside, Bedlington And Ashington. There was a public summary access document on the north Tyneside website but is no longer accessible although did see it.(Mostly on Northumberland Park Station). So this is progressing nicely to say the least.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'd say yes and no to that.

In particular it seems very short-sighted to build a brand new overbridge as single track on a section that would logically be doubled if the service was enhanced. Making a new bridge big enough for either doubling or electrication costs very little more unless there is some unusual site constraint. I'd say doubling of certain sections is more likely than electrification, as a frequent enough service to justify electrification is impossible without more double track, but as far as I'm aware the clearance for electrification has been provided but that for double track hasn't.

There are other cases where it is indeed possible to add more infrastructure later if the route needs it, without huge amounts of extra cost and disruption. For example underbridges can often be built for single track and widened later if needed.

This complaint is usually made about the single track section over Hardengreen Roundabout but my understanding is that expensive strengthening of Newbattle Viaduct would be needed to reinstate double track there so it’s not actually a big constraint.

The most effective double tracking section would be at Portobello Junction on the existing network and the next most useful would be to extend the dynamic loops at Stow and Gorebridge. None of these are primarily constrained by structures.

 

[JKF]

A slight aside, but I remember reading once that the M5 motorway bridge over the Portishead branch (built around 1977) was constructed with clearance for overhead wires if they were ever needed. Pretty sure you could fit two tracks through too. Forward thinking that might pay off about fifty years later! Shame the town council took their eye off the ball when allowing Quays Avenue to breach the formation at the end of the line. They really won’t allow a new level crossing under any circumstances.

 

[Bald Rick]

A slight aside, but I remember reading once that the M5 motorway bridge over the Portishead branch (built around 1977) was constructed with clearance for overhead wires if they were ever needed. Pretty sure you could fit two tracks through too. Forward thinking that might pay off about fifty years later! Shame the town council took their eye off the ball when allowing Quays Avenue to breach the formation at the end of the line. They really won’t allow a new level crossing under any circumstances.

You’ll be hard pushed to find any new bridge over the railway constructed in the last 50 years that doesn’t have clearance for OLE and GB+ gauge.

 

[Osprey17]

I think Altnabreac's rules are fairly sound but I do have one question arising from it. What qualifies as a 'major employment centre'?

Major cities such as Glasgow, Manchester, Nottingham etc. are fairly obvious due to their population. Cambridge and Oxford are major employment centres due to their university research and innovation parks but have smaller populations than Norwich or Swansea. The latter two are still important employment centres for their regions but wouldn't have much of a case for any rail reopenings in their area.

Then there are smaller towns and cities that are relative big hubs for their areas like Shrewsbury or Carlisle which have no chance for any rail infrastructure project funding, yet similar-sized Inverness is currently getting a sizeable one through the I2A project (though sadly not the Lentran Loop). There seems to be no real logic or pattern to it.

In an additional side question: How does a place like... say... Shrewsbury become a 'major employment centre' if the supporting transport infrastructure project needed to facilitate it won't materialise until it already is one?

 

[edwin_m]

In respect of city employment success tends to breed success - people want to set up businesses where there are already other businesses they can work with. It's called the agglomoration effect. Part of the reason for HS2 and NPR is to try and spread it more widely, although more regional links are also important as former industrial towns tend to become dormitories for nearby cities.

Guessing here, but the likes of Shrewsbury and Norwich don't have that surrounding ring of sizeable post-industrial towns, so there isn't enough workforce nearby to justify commuter services. This also means there aren't enough workers available to allow a lot of businesses to set up in the city.

 

[CaledonianBlue]

What about the line to Kilmalcolm via Paisley Canal? It would seem simple enough to extend services that already exist as far as Paisley,...

 

[CaledonianBlue]

Matlock to Buxton?

 

[JKF]

Wonder why Clevedon doesn’t ever seem to get a mention? Population of over 21,000, would be a short journey to Bristol which would be very desirable.

Issues would be that formation is breached by M5 motorway (although enough space for a gradient either side to bridge this), also formation into town centre has been obliterated - at best it could get as far as Tesco’s with a bit of a new track. Also not really any services that could be extended, unless Severn Beach trains went out that way as well as to Portishead (could alternate the 2tph from SB with one going to each destination). Could also provide more trains at Nailsea, Bedminster etc. as intermediate stops.

 

[duffield]

Wonder why Clevedon doesn’t ever seem to get a mention? Population of over 21,000, would be a short journey to Bristol which would be very desirable.

Issues would be that formation is breached by M5 motorway (although enough space for a gradient either side to bridge this), also formation into town centre has been obliterated - at best it could get as far as Tesco’s with a bit of a new track. Also not really any services that could be extended, unless Severn Beach trains went out that way as well as to Portishead (could alternate the 2tph from SB with one going to each destination). Could also provide more trains at Nailsea, Bedminster etc. as intermediate stops.

Portishead (same population roughly) is a *lot* easier (intact formation to town outskirts, junction to mainline and freight track present most of the way) and should have happened years ago (the traffic from Bristol was a nightmare when I was driven there back in 1982!) so I don't think Clevedon stands much chance!

 

[sprunt]

4 tracking the Lea Valley provides no extra capacity on its own, which is why it hasn’t happened. To get more capacity on the WAML requires somewhere to send the extra trains south of Tottenham Hale, and that means Crossrail 2.

Wouldn't there be value in just getting people to Tottenham Hale (pending CR2) where they can connect to the underground? Certainly, whenever I've caught the Stansted Express plenty of people get of there.

(I'd also note that when I've used the Stansted Express, it doesn't seem especially heavily loaded, so I'm not convinced at this point that there's a need for extra capacity.)

 

[swt_passenger]

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

2003. But the line it’s on hadn’t closed, it had remained available as a passenger diversionary route. I reckon an unmanned single platform station could have been built for a significantly lower cost; the station building is pretty extravagant, especially given its limited opening hours.

I think in the context of a general “re-opening” discussion it was about as simple as it gets.

 

[yorksrob]

2003. But the line it’s on hadn’t closed, it had remained available as a passenger diversionary route. I reckon an unmanned single platform station could have been built for a significantly lower cost; the station building is pretty extravagant, especially given its limited opening hours.

I think in the context of a general “re-opening” discussion it was about as simple as it gets.

That doesn't really negate my point though. Would it happen today ? I doubt it.

 

[Tobbes]

Portishead (same population roughly) is a *lot* easier (intact formation to town outskirts, junction to mainline and freight track present most of the way) and should have happened years ago (the traffic from Bristol was a nightmare when I was driven there back in 1982!) so I don't think Clevedon stands much chance!

It does raise the interesting (to me, anyway) question of how large is the Bristol commuting hinterland? On this basis, how many commuters would it take from Clevedon (or along the Cheddar Valley line) to make a business case for either to be reinstated? Cheddar / Wells / Glastonbury & Street - Clevedon has a population of 21,000, and Street of 11,000; both should be comfortably under an hour to Bristol, meeting @Altnabreac 's rules.

 

[JKF]

It does raise the interesting (to me, anyway) question of how large is the Bristol commuting hinterland? On this basis, how many commuters would it take from Clevedon (or along the Cheddar Valley line) to make a business case for either to be reinstated? Cheddar / Wells / Glastonbury & Street - Clevedon has a population of 21,000, and Street of 11,000; both should be comfortably under an hour to Bristol, meeting @Altnabreac 's rules.

I think the argument against would be along the lines of Clevedon being close enough to Yatton station on the mainline that people can (and do) just park and ride there. Given that you couldn’t put a new station anywhere central in Clevedon due to housing over the formation, it’s likely many users would just drive to the new station on the outskirts of the town, which isn’t much of a difference than going the extra couple of miles to Yatton, so what’s the point? A peripheral station also wouldn’t be much good for visitors coming to the town (a problem they’ve made for themselves at Portishead too).

For the Cheddar line, this is now a popular cycle route, and unfortunately taking a railway formation back off SUSTRANS is probably more difficult than taking guns off an NRA member. I think Cheddar, Wells and Glastonbury are large and interesting enough to justify a rail link, but the historic routes from these places don’t really go directly to Bristol which is where the demand is likely to be. There’s quite a few other towns south of Bristol where the old lines just point the wrong way, when they were built people were in less of a hurry and didn’t mind going the long way round.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the argument against would be along the lines of Clevedon being close enough to Yatton station on the mainline that people can (and do) just park and ride there. Given that you couldn’t put a new station anywhere central in Clevedon due to housing over the formation, it’s likely many users would just drive to the new station on the outskirts of the town, which isn’t much of a difference than going the extra couple of miles to Yatton, so what’s the point? A peripheral station also wouldn’t be much good for visitors coming to the town (a problem they’ve made for themselves at Portishead too).

For the Cheddar line, this is now a popular cycle route, and unfortunately taking a railway formation back off SUSTRANS is probably more difficult than taking guns off an NRA member. I think Cheddar, Wells and Glastonbury are large and interesting enough to justify a rail link, but the historic routes from these places don’t really go directly to Bristol which is where the demand is likely to be. There’s quite a few other towns south of Bristol where the old lines just point the wrong way, when they were built people were in less of a hurry and didn’t mind going the long way round.

In terms of Clevedon, it should be remembered that not everyone can drive to the railhead.

 

[Tobbes]

In terms of Clevedon, it should be remembered that not everyone can drive to the railhead.

Exactly - though whether this means an enhanced bus service, or Tram-train to get into Clevedon is another question.

But an accomodation with Sustrans notwithstanding, I'd be interested to see if reviving the Cheddar Valley line stacked up.

 

[edwin_m]

In terms of Clevedon, it should be remembered that not everyone can drive to the railhead.

But if you can't put a new station in the centre, a new station on the edge would only help the proportion of those people who happened to be in walking distance (or cycling distance if willing and able).

 

[Tobbes]

But if you can't put a new station in the centre, a new station on the edge would only help the proportion of those people who happened to be in walking distance (or cycling distance if willing and able).

Hence the attraction of tram-train, with on-street running into e.g., Clevedon to get much further into town than would be feasible without large property take using heavy rail alone.

 

[Altnabreac]

I think the argument against would be along the lines of Clevedon being close enough to Yatton station on the mainline that people can (and do) just park and ride there. Given that you couldn’t put a new station anywhere central in Clevedon due to housing over the formation, it’s likely many users would just drive to the new station on the outskirts of the town, which isn’t much of a difference than going the extra couple of miles to Yatton, so what’s the point? A peripheral station also wouldn’t be much good for visitors coming to the town (a problem they’ve made for themselves at Portishead too).

For the Cheddar line, this is now a popular cycle route, and unfortunately taking a railway formation back off SUSTRANS is probably more difficult than taking guns off an NRA member. I think Cheddar, Wells and Glastonbury are large and interesting enough to justify a rail link, but the historic routes from these places don’t really go directly to Bristol which is where the demand is likely to be. There’s quite a few other towns south of Bristol where the old lines just point the wrong way, when they were built people were in less of a hurry and didn’t mind going the long way round.

I'm unconvinced by the merits of a Cheddar line reopening but if it it were viable I doubt that Sustrans would be a major problem.

They have an interest in maintaining walking and cycling routes in the event of a reopening but don't objection to the principle of such schemes. In both Airdrie - Bathgate and Borders Rail reopenings they objected to elements of the schemes to ensure enhanced provision of new off route paths but a resolution was found in both cases.

This adds some cost to reopening compared to a route with no existing cyclepath but is not usually significant as a percentage of total scheme costs and would be unlikely to make a scheme non viable unless it had a very marginal business case in the first place.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm unconvinced by the merits of a Cheddar line reopening but if it it were viable I doubt that Sustrans would be a major problem.

They have an interest in maintaining walking and cycling routes in the event of a reopening but don't objection to the principle of such schemes. In both Airdrie - Bathgate and Borders Rail reopenings they objected to elements of the schemes to ensure enhanced provision of new off route paths but a resolution was found in both cases.

This adds some cost to reopening compared to a route with no existing cyclepath but is not usually significant as a percentage of total scheme costs and would be unlikely to make a scheme non viable unless it had a very marginal business case in the first place.

I'm sure that that's right, and to the extent that cycle paths have actually kept the old route in single ownership, it probably makes life easier. WHR phase 1 on the old LNWR to Dinas made an accomodation with the cycleway, too.

 

[edwin_m]

Hence the attraction of tram-train, with on-street running into e.g., Clevedon to get much further into town than would be feasible without large property take using heavy rail alone.

Seems to be mostly two-lane roads with parked cars either side. Not conducive to reliable tramway operation.

 

[Tobbes]

Seems to be mostly two-lane roads with parked cars either side. Not conducive to reliable tramway operation.

More of an approach rather than a recommendation - i don't know the area, but I am interested in whether tram-trains can allow us to serve areas better with street running.

 

[yorksrob]

Exactly - though whether this means an enhanced bus service, or Tram-train to get into Clevedon is another question.

But an accomodation with Sustrans notwithstanding, I'd be interested to see if reviving the Cheddar Valley line stacked up.

I've not really thought about that line, however given the tourist potential nowadays, it would be interesting.

But if you can't put a new station in the centre, a new station on the edge would only help the proportion of those people who happened to be in walking distance (or cycling distance if willing and able).

It depends how far in you can get. There are a lot of branchlines where a town centre terminus was sold and the station moved further out which are doing ok.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wouldn't there be value in just getting people to Tottenham Hale (pending CR2) where they can connect to the underground? Certainly, whenever I've caught the Stansted Express plenty of people get of there.

(I'd also note that when I've used the Stansted Express, it doesn't seem especially heavily loaded, so I'm not convinced at this point that there's a need for extra capacity.)

The Victoria line station wouldn’t cope with the extra numbers. Nor would the Victoria Line, for that matter.

 

[d9009alycidon]

Today's "Scotsman" has some interesting news, https://www-scotsman-com.cdn.amppro...bmarine-base-to-be-investigated-1-4989525/amp It leads on the Faslane story, but buried down at the bottom is money for another feasability study into reopening St Andrews

A new railway station near the Faslane submarine base in Argyll will be explored to cut road traffic at Scotland’s biggest single site employer.
Funding was announced today for a feasibility study into transport improvements around the complex near Helensburgh, which is due to grow to 8,500 staff over the next five years.
One option is a rail station on the Glasgow-Mallaig West Highland Line, which runs close to HM Naval Base Clyde, home to the UK’s Trident nuclear-armed submarines.
The £85,000 study was among eight approved by transport secretary Michael Matheson under Transport Scotland’s local rail development fund.
The other schemes which will share funding of £817,000 are for possible improvements in Aberdeen, East Lothian, Leith, St Andrews, and park-and-ride sites between Perth and Montrose, including at stations.
In Leith, the South East of Scotland Transport Partnership will examine whether some freight arriving by sea could be transported by rail from nearby Seafield rather than by lorry.
Frank Roach, of the Highlands and Islands Transport Partnership, which won the Faslane funding, said: “We are already working on Fastline Faslane: The Case for Change, along with our partners Argyll and Bute Council, Strathclyde Partnership for Transport and the Royal Navy, studying connectivity to the base, which is Scotland’s largest single employer site.
“It is scheduled to grow in the coming years with new vessel deployment and headquarters functions.”
He said the funding would enable preliminary and detailed options for a multi-modal transport appraisal into transport problems and opportunities at the base.
Improving station access in Dunblane and Kirkconnel will also be explored.
The St Andrews cash is for further work on potentially re-opening the town’s rail line, which closed 50 years ago.

 

[option]

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.

& getting more paying passengers onto a train via lower-cost interventions like adding carriages may move that service from the 'subsidy' column to 'break even' or 'profit' columns, freeing up money for other schemes.

 

[option]

Hence the attraction of tram-train, with on-street running into e.g., Clevedon to get much further into town than would be feasible without large property take using heavy rail alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weston,_Clevedon_and_Portishead_Light_Railway

 

[kilonewton]

Was there not an idea to run to Glasgow to Grangemouth via Cumbernauld? Would that not solve (or help) the terminating / capacity angle?

yes there was, but it got lost in the EGIP “reimagining” and then the Waverley to Queen Street via Cumbernauld service took over.
As for Bo’ness, others have alluded to the practical difficulties, but do we really want to let the people of Bo’ness loose in the wider world?