Campaign for Better Transport - The Case for Expanding the Rail Network

[Bald Rick]

Having now read the CBT report in more detail, here follows the completely unofficial Bald Rick view of the likelihood of each proposal actually getting through the second gateway (decision to design) in the Governement funding pipeline before 2025 (the year).

Further disclaimer for avoidance of all doubt: I’m not involved, in any way, in any of these schemes or their assessment. This is purely my personal view of their chances, scored out of 10.

Cowley: 1/10. Already dismissed by Chiltern. (Further extension to Thame / beyond: 0)

Totton - Fawley: 5/10. Needs strong local support and developer cash.

Brentford - Southall: 0.

Henbury Loop: 7/10. Funding gap needs to be resolved.

Oakhampton - Tavistock - Bere Alston: 0 (Tavistock - Bere Alston only: 2, but needs local funding)

Portishead - Bristol: 7. As per Henbury.

Stratford - Honeybourne: 4, likely to need much more developer funding

March - Wisbech: 3. Costs too much, and service would be unattractive.

Bedford - Cambridge: 7. Likely to depend on housing volumes / new town

Haverhill - Cambridge: 0.

Leicester - Burton: 4. Likely to need local funding.

Shirebrook - Ollerton: 3. Likely to need local funding.

Matlock - Buxton: 0. Too many vested interests.

Walsall - Water Orton: 2. (Walsall - Aldridge: 5)

Camp Hill Chords: 9, it has everything going for it

Walsall - Wolverhampton: 7, infrastructure work minimal.

Stoke - Leek: 1

Low Moor - Thornhill: 0

Harrogate - Ripon - Northallerton: 0

Ashington, Blyth and Tyne: 8.

Stockton - Ferryhill: 0

Pelaw - Ferryhill: 4 (as part of the Metro)

Skelmersdale: 5. Decent proposal; will need local funding

Fleetwood: 0. The CBT report explains why!

Skipton - Colne: 1. See other threads passim ad nauseam. No case.

Hirwaun: 3

Abertillery: 5. Tragically depressed town.

Caernarfon - Bangor: 4 (as part of WHL); 2 (as part of national network)

Beddau - Ponty Clun: 4

Alloa - Dunfermerline: 2

St Andrews: 3

Leven: 5

 

[yorksrob]

Well, they want ""programme of rail expansion... As part of this, a national programme of reopenings should be adopted", i.e. re-openings are only part of the overall programme of rail expansion.

We already have the other aspects of rail expansion. When are we going to get our rail reopenings as well, such as some of those listed in the report.

But if you are obsessed with re-opening lines that previously failed then of course you'll see things differently

If that's the case, then I'm as obsessed with re-opening lines as you are with not re-opening them. You turn up on these threads just as often as I do.

I believe that (given a finite number of crayons) we should target heavy rail spending where it brings about the best results (and consider other tools to tackle problems that heavy rail is too inflexible/ expensive to solve).

If you think that's "nonsense" then fair enough - we're all entitled to opinions - I just can't get behind your idea that mass transportation like heavy rail shouldn't be used to improve journeys in certain parts of the UK because their transport is too good already - that seems like a strange way to tackle problems - imagine if we said that West Yorkshire already has some of the best Provincial train services so there's no point in spending money in Bradford?

It's not me thinking that the "horses for courses" argument is nonsense - sixty years of railway history have proved it. By your logic, there would be very little regional railway left because many of the routes we rely on today could have been more cheaply run with a bus. It just so happens that such methods were tried in the past and found not to work, because people prefer a train, and towns with a train service prosper more than those that don't have one.

You're also deliberately misrepresenting my argument. Nowhere have I said that there shouldn't be railway improvements in London, Scotland, non-reopening related improvements elsewhere - I'm just pointing out that the fact that those happen, doesn't disprove my point that the towns across England aren't being reconnected. Schemes such as Tavistock and Portishead are close to shovel ready, yet the money isn't there

In an ideal world, starting from scratch, sure. The suburb I live in probably has a larger population than some of the rural villages that people on here are fixated with - e.g. if there are six thousand people in Okehampton then how many stations does Sheffield get? Fifty stations in Sheffield? One hundred stations in Sheffield?

But we are where we are so I'd rather deal with realities.

"Dealing with realities" is a rather grandiose way of describing posting on an internet forum, but whatever you say....

There's the difference.

You want to randomly distribute railways around the UK regardless of need/demand/costs.

I want to focus investment on places where railways will be busiest.

So rather than building a new bit of railway through Devon just for the sake of ticking a box in each region, I'd rather that we used that money on a line that the most people would use (even if that means, shudder, something ghastly and "urban")

But you could make such an argument about any service. We have 'rural' by-passes, 'rural' hospitals, 'rural' secondary schools, just as we need urban ones. Places such as Tavistock and Wisbech need 'rural' (even though they're not that 'rural') railway stations as well. People live in and around rural towns, and some will need public transport, and the best form of middle to long distance public transport in this country is still the railway network.

 

[A0wen]

Ok,

1) Aylesbury to Aylesbury Vale Parkway - I'll give you that one as it does serve somewhere new.
2) Whitechapel to Dalston - I said regional - we all know London's had it's fair amount of investment
3) Todmorden Curve - doesn't serve anywhere that wasn't already open
4) Halton Curve - as above

So you dismiss Whitechapel to Dalston as "not regional" but reckon Luton to Dunstable was?..... Right...... Could you let me have some of what you've been smoking?

Dunstable was and is a complete dump. That reinstatement would have served no useful purpose, not least because capacity wise you'd have struggled to run a service every 30 mins. Which given Leagrave station is 4 miles from Dunstable town centre and has a 4tph service to London and Bedford, suggests Dunstable would have struggled.

 

[yorksrob]

Henbury Loop: 7/10. Funding gap needs to be resolved.

*****
Portishead - Bristol: 7. As per Henbury.

*****
Skelmersdale: 5. Decent proposal; will need local funding

You said it. Why can't a Government (any Government) get its finger out it's arse and resolve the funding - even if it just starts with these.

 

[yorksrob]

So you dismiss Whitechapel to Dalston as "not regional" but reckon Luton to Dunstable was?..... Right...... Could you let me have some of what you've been smoking?

Dunstable was and is a complete dump. That reinstatement would have served no useful purpose, not least because capacity wise you'd have struggled to run a service every 30 mins. Which given Leagrave station is 4 miles from Dunstable town centre and has a 4tph service to London and Bedford, suggests Dunstable would have struggled.

That's because Whitechapel and Dalston are both in the middle of the London conurbation, whilst Luton isn't.

On your other point, 4 miles is a long way to walk.

 

[A0wen]

That's because Whitechapel and Dalston are both in the middle of the London conurbation, whilst Luton isn't.

On your other point, 4 miles is a long way to walk.

Most of Dunstable's residential areas are east of the centre heading back towards Luton, so for many it's less than 4 miles.

That said if you look at many larger towns you'll often be that distance from the station, look at places like Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, Northampton, Peterboro for example.

 

[Bald Rick]

You said it. Why can't a Government (any Government) get its finger out it's arse and resolve the funding - even if it just starts with these.

But it has done! Repeatedly! For other new lines, which have made a good case based on evidence, fact and analysis. But we are back on old ground.

 

[JamesT]

Cowley: 1/10. Already dismissed by Chiltern. (Further extension to Thame / beyond: 0)

When did that happen? Last I saw they seemed quite keen, taking the local MP for a ride along the route and talking of the possibility of reopening in 2019 or 2020.

 

[Tobbes]

Further disclaimer for avoidance of all doubt: I’m not involved, in any way, in any of these schemes or their assessment. This is purely my personal view of their chances, scored out of 10.

Haverhill - Cambridge: 0.

I'm a bit surprised by this, @Bald Rick - thought this one had a lot going for it.

 

[The Planner]

Walsall - Wolverhampton: 7, infrastructure work minimal.

My sauces tell me that could be higher still apparently, Willenhall and Darlaston are pretty likely.

When did that happen? Last I saw they seemed quite keen, taking the local MP for a ride along the route and talking of the possibility of reopening in 2019 or 2020.

Not a chance, there is no funding for it. Even if there was it wouldn't be within that timescale.

 

[yorksrob]

But it has done! Repeatedly! For other new lines, which have made a good case based on evidence, fact and analysis. But we are back on old ground.

As explained before, the other new lines aren't what I'm looking for for new reopenings. But fortunately these ones are, so lets see if the Government puts its money where its mouth is.

 

[yorksrob]

Most of Dunstable's residential areas are east of the centre heading back towards Luton, so for many it's less than 4 miles.

That said if you look at many larger towns you'll often be that distance from the station, look at places like Stevenage, Hemel Hempstead, Northampton, Peterboro for example.

That may be the case for some, and some commuters will drive to the station of course. But for a town to be properly served by the railway, I think the majority has to be within walking distance. 4 miles is too far.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

I tend to lean to Yorksrob's position here. The lack of political will for some of these schemes is a problem. One of the schemes on the longlist has been looked at for years and found to be very viable, has full plans drawn up by the TOC (as obligated in their bid), support from local politicians, would be a brilliant regeneration project, ties in with major road improvements and housing developments, and would be relatively easy to reinstate as it's reopening a mothballed line. It's about as much of an open-and-shut reopening case as you can get. However the ultimate decision lies with government and they're sitting on their hands, as they have for at least the last 15 years

I get that opening lines and stations is expensive. Some of those CBT schemes are ludicrous. But it comes down to politics and policy, and it's a political decision not to go ahead with these. If the political will is there, the funding appears - we've seen this time and again. But there are no votes in building railways through safe seats

 

[squizzler]

Having now read the CBT report in more detail, here follows the completely unofficial Bald Rick view of the likelihood of each proposal actually getting through the second gateway (decision to design) in the Governement funding pipeline before 2025 (the year).

That seems quite positive, there are several schemes whose chances you rate as above even, and many of those that are not in your list are apparently open to discussion.

If the industry took a "can-do" attitude and resolved to get as many of those schemes built as possible, what could be done with the lighter-than-light rail options becoming available now? There is the Ultra Light Rail Partners who are developing Parry People Mover technology, and the Very Light Rail Innovation Centre which is the established industry and academia developing a similar system. Tram-Train technology allows the proposed extension to be built and operated as light rail whilst still running into the heavy rail network. None of these technologies are mentioned in the report. Modern technology offers potential to resolve the conflict between communities desire to regain their connections by rail and wider economic concern that any expenditure justify itself with an attractive and cost effective service.

The advantage of these lighter-than-light rail options is that the track can actually be relatively portable. Even if the scheme is built and it proves a wash, it can be removed and redeployed elsewhere.

 

[Captain Bigwig]

Not a chance, there is no funding for it. Even if there was it wouldn't be within that timescale.

Not on that timescale certainly, and I appreciate that no-one's put forward any funding for it, but the last I heard an engineering study was going to be done on the line this year. Oxford City Council seem quite keen to campaign for it (albeit, less keen to stump up the money for it).

Source: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1...rains-will-run-on-cowley-branch-line-in-2019/

But Liberal Democrat county councillor John Howson said this 'schedule' would be impossible to meet, according to guidance from the council's transport supremo Yvonne Constance.

She told him earlier this month that an initial engineering assessment of the line would be carried out later this year, together with a strategic study and initial findings would be available in the autumn

 

[A0wen]

That may be the case for some, and some commuters will drive to the station of course. But for a town to be properly served by the railway, I think the majority has to be within walking distance. 4 miles is too far.

I think you're living in la-la land. Within the major cities / conurbations you might have a point, for the vast majority of the country outside of those, that's simply not practical.

Take Stevenage or Hemel as examples and Milton Keynes to an extent, those towns have developed so that the railway line is along the western boundary of them - mainly for geographic reasons - what you seem to be suggesting is either towns can should only develop circa 2 miles either side of a railway line OR they have to find a way to put another link in - quite frankly, that's barking.

Going back to Dunstable - the busway was a *far* better solution. Most people travelling were heading to Luton - the busway means there are circa 10 buses an hour running to / from Luton. At *best* the line could have taken 2 trains per hour - which with another, much better served station locally meant it would never have lived up to expectations.

Frankly the only thing more absurd than reinstating it was the mad campaigning by Alfred Roberts that it would have somehow made a good heritage line...... a couple of miles going around the back of Dunstable and being dumped out by the retail park in a tatty Mk2 hauled by a diesel shunter hardly sounded appealing, particularly when not too far away there is the Leighton Buzzard railway which anyone wanting a heritage ride should make a beeline for.

 

[A0wen]

If the industry took a "can-do" attitude and resolved to get as many of those schemes built as possible, what could be done with the lighter-than-light rail options becoming available now? There is the Ultra Light Rail Partners who are developing Parry People Mover technology, and the Very Light Rail Innovation Centre which is the established industry and academia developing a similar system. Tram-Train technology allows the proposed extension to be built and operated as light rail whilst still running into the heavy rail network. None of these technologies are mentioned in the report. Modern technology offers potential to resolve the conflict between communities desire to regain their connections by rail and wider economic concern that any expenditure justify itself with an attractive and cost effective service.

The advantage of these lighter-than-light rail options is that the track can actually be relatively portable. Even if the scheme is built and it proves a wash, it can be removed and redeployed elsewhere.

I think that's quite unfair - the industry HAS been looking at these kind of solutions, hence you've got the PPMs in use, you've train-trams being looked at and you've even got the 'D' trains. The problem is actually more on these boards where no end of posters appear bemoaning such things and insisting that anything short of loco hauled Mk2 stock or a heritage DMU is a degradation in standard and shouldn't be considered. That's before the genuine and genuinely needed things like safety cases need to passed - unless you're seriously saying that little things like crash protection, safe operation and such like should be overlooked in the interests of expediency?

 

[squizzler]

You are quite right, there is already a lot of deployment of these technologies, and for those who remember the ridicule directed at light rail on the Cardiff Metro thread prior to the unveiling of the Transport for Wales proposals, many on this forum are very conservative and only willing to recognise heavy rail. I was bemoaning that light rail is not mentioned in the CBT report - based on a word search for "light" and "tram" in the pdf.

 

[urbophile]

taking the local MP for a ride

That makes a change. It's usually the other way round.

 

[urbophile]

I'm surprised that the Merseyside schemes for re-opening at least one of the Waterloo or Wapping tunnels from Edge Hill only appear in the second category. They have been actively discussed for many years, and far from being fanciful speculation would appear to be the only way of relieving the capacity problems of Lime Street when/if HS2 arrives.

 

[PeterC]

I think you're living in la-la land. Within the major cities / conurbations you might have a point, for the vast majority of the country outside of those, that's simply not practical.

Take Stevenage or Hemel as examples and Milton Keynes to an extent, those towns have developed so that the railway line is along the western boundary of them - mainly for geographic reasons - what you seem to be suggesting is either towns can should only develop circa 2 miles either side of a railway line OR they have to find a way to put another link in - quite frankly, that's barking.

Going back to Dunstable - the busway was a *far* better solution. Most people travelling were heading to Luton - the busway means there are circa 10 buses an hour running to / from Luton. At *best* the line could have taken 2 trains per hour - which with another, much better served station locally meant it would never have lived up to expectations.

Frankly the only thing more absurd than reinstating it was the mad campaigning by Alfred Roberts that it would have somehow made a good heritage line...... a couple of miles going around the back of Dunstable and being dumped out by the retail park in a tatty Mk2 hauled by a diesel shunter hardly sounded appealing, particularly when not too far away there is the Leighton Buzzard railway which anyone wanting a heritage ride should make a beeline for.

For journey to work I would agree on two miles which is about the limit that most people would consider walking. If you need to get in the car then why bother with the train at all unless there is a restriction on use at the destination.

 

[The Planner]

Not on that timescale certainly, and I appreciate that no-one's put forward any funding for it, but the last I heard an engineering study was going to be done on the line this year. Oxford City Council seem quite keen to campaign for it (albeit, less keen to stump up the money for it).

Source: https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/1...rains-will-run-on-cowley-branch-line-in-2019/

Its just another feasability study though, it still comes down to who is going to stump up the cash.

 

[ac6000cw]

One of the schemes on the longlist has been looked at for years and found to be very viable, has full plans drawn up by the TOC (as obligated in their bid), support from local politicians, would be a brilliant regeneration project, ties in with major road improvements and housing developments, and would be relatively easy to reinstate as it's reopening a mothballed line. It's about as much of an open-and-shut reopening case as you can get

Which one is that?

 

[DarloRich]

You are right, sort of.

Strategic Case: what problem is it solving, what alternatives are there, and how does it fit with national and local policy

Economic Case: what are the costs and benefits, and how certain are they

Financial Case: who is paying, how and when, and how certain is it

Commercial Case: who is going to do the work for you, and what are the contractual arrangements and risk transfer

Management Case: who is running the show and how.

Clearly there is overlap between the 5 elements. For example cash beenfits identified in the economic case can also be used to help pay for the scheme in the financial case.


Financially positive: the project generates a net financial surplus over the assessment period of the project, allowing for the costs of borrowing.

Cash positive: the project generates a net financial surplus now, and throughout the project, and you don’t need to borrow at all.

Until 1998 BR and (the then) Railtrack could only do financially positive projects. There were certain times when BR could only do cash positive projects.

Indeed - and without a overtly political decision to weight one of the other factors more strongly the economic case is the decision maker. You can have 4 of the 5 points massively in positive but if the sums don't add up it aint gonna happen.

 

[yorksrob]

I think you're living in la-la land. Within the major cities / conurbations you might have a point, for the vast majority of the country outside of those, that's simply not practical.

Take Stevenage or Hemel as examples and Milton Keynes to an extent, those towns have developed so that the railway line is along the western boundary of them - mainly for geographic reasons - what you seem to be suggesting is either towns can should only develop circa 2 miles either side of a railway line OR they have to find a way to put another link in - quite frankly, that's barking.

Going back to Dunstable - the busway was a *far* better solution. Most people travelling were heading to Luton - the busway means there are circa 10 buses an hour running to / from Luton. At *best* the line could have taken 2 trains per hour - which with another, much better served station locally meant it would never have lived up to expectations.

Frankly the only thing more absurd than reinstating it was the mad campaigning by Alfred Roberts that it would have somehow made a good heritage line...... a couple of miles going around the back of Dunstable and being dumped out by the retail park in a tatty Mk2 hauled by a diesel shunter hardly sounded appealing, particularly when not too far away there is the Leighton Buzzard railway which anyone wanting a heritage ride should make a beeline for.

Not at all.

Take the small town of Normanton in Yorkshire. The station is near the centre, and the majority of homes are within walking distance.

The station gets a good number of passengers, and the majority walk. Some from further out drive or get lifts.

If the station were four miles from the centre, it would doubtless get some passenger traffic, but nowhere near as much.

 

[yorksrob]

I think that's quite unfair - the industry HAS been looking at these kind of solutions, hence you've got the PPMs in use, you've train-trams being looked at and you've even got the 'D' trains. The problem is actually more on these boards where no end of posters appear bemoaning such things and insisting that anything short of loco hauled Mk2 stock or a heritage DMU is a degradation in standard and shouldn't be considered. That's before the genuine and genuinely needed things like safety cases need to passed - unless you're seriously saying that little things like crash protection, safe operation and such like should be overlooked in the interests of expediency?

I think a lot would be happy to see our current stock of sprinters cascaded, D-trains, flexitrains, 144's.

The problem is the lines never get built.

This doesn't seem to be an industry problem. There were plenty of reopenings in the late 80's/90's, and they have continued in Wales, Scotland and London.

The problem is very much a lack of political support by central Government in England.

 

[DarloRich]

The problem is very much a lack of political support by central Government in England.

there is plenty of political support. These sort of stories are easy column inches in any local paper. What there isn't is enough money.

 

[Bwlch y Groes]

Which one is that?

I'm sworn to secrecy, I'm afraid, but the project is based around light rail reopening. That should narrow it down for you

there is plenty of political support. These sort of stories are easy column inches in any local paper. What there isn't is enough money.

There's plenty of political support on an individual level, but not necessarily at state level. Individual MPs/AMs/MSPs/councillors will lobby for their patch, especially in deprived areas where there is a perception, if not a reality, that they aren't getting much investment. However, while they're entirely right to do so, it's easier for them to lobby for something when they don't have to take the decisions on how the pot's going to be split or the scheme is going to be developed

Our government in Westminster is deciding not to split the pot favourably for investment in new lines. We get a handful of new station projects funded each year, but otherwise most of the funding for new routes in England has been on HS2 and Crossrail (assuming that the Northern Line Extension was a TfL decision rather than a DfT decision). Scotland now seem to be prioritising electrification above all else, while Wales are prioritising the development of the South Wales Metro and an integrated public transport network that's currently based around the routes already in place, with potential scope for extensions in the future

The money's only ever going to be put up when there's a political benefit, especially when building more railway lines is politically risky. There's a good Yes Minister scene on this in the episode on transport - any politician who commits to a scheme has to take responsibility for any overruns, design failures or angst from local communities, and any benefit would be years down the line. So I can understand why the government are reluctant to invest - sadly it's the logical conclusion of our politics

 

[urbophile]

there is plenty of political support. These sort of stories are easy column inches in any local paper. What there isn't is enough money.

Contradiction there somehow. If there was political support the cash would follow. Austerity is a political decision; the cash is there when bribes to eg DUP or Leave-voting mining towns are concerned.

 

[yorksrob]

there is plenty of political support. These sort of stories are easy column inches in any local paper. What there isn't is enough money.

Contradiction there somehow. If there was political support the cash would follow. Austerity is a political decision; the cash is there when bribes to eg DUP or Leave-voting mining towns are concerned.

Quite. Real political support = dosh.