CP5 - what next for the railways

[daccer]

With the massive investments taking place in CP4 over the next five years i was was wondering what will happen in CP5 when the major projects destined to be completed in CP4 are done and dusted what will the be the objectives for the period immediately after.

CP4 has some jumbo projects such as Thameslink and BNS. With Crossrail also done and the Olympics been and gone it will maybe be an opportunity to tackle all those smaller projects which have been pushed to one side during CP4.

I think it is pretty certain to say that the London-centric view in CP4 wont be repeated in CP5. Obviously it is in doubt whether funding levels will remain at the same levels (35 billion or so). However the network in the South East will not require the major investments of CP4 in CP5 and so much more money can be found for the 'regions'.

One direction i would like to see taken is a major re-opening programme set up. CP4 is pre-occupied with increasing capacity. With target punctuality due for 93% or so by 2014 there will be less need for further capacity enhancements during CP5. I would expect any High Speed work to be done outside the normal railway funding and treated in much the same way as HS1
Although it is five years ahead it will be with us very quickly. Five years in a railway sense is a blink. For me CP5 is a time for massive reopenings (we must assume that the case for reopenings will only get better with time as the outside factors become more critical - oil prices and green concerns etc) and for bringing standards in the rest of England and Wales up to scratch. i would assume that Scotland will find it very hard to stop the development of the railways continuing after starting that ball rolling in the last few years.

 

[Z12XE]

I think it'll be a frugal 5 years in CP5 - just a maintain what we have got, plus the odd token scheme.
The government and country are broke thanks to greed and mismanagement which will probably have got worse by then.

 

[Aictos]

How about having the following done to improve the local areas:

Run the WSR into Taunton itself and make that the regular southern terminus of the line instead of Bishops Lydeard.

See the The Norfolk Orbital Railway come true - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norfolk_Orbital_Railway

For more routes to be reopened, there's this page:

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/public_transport/rail/lines_that_should_reopen

 

[Proud Salopian]

Electrification of the Midland Mainline.
Other electrifications here and there.
Manchester Victoria to be done up? (Not likely..)
I guess various signalling rationalisations.

 

[The Planner]

For more routes to be reopened, there's this page:

http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/public_transport/rail/lines_that_should_reopen

Basically any line thats closed they want re-opened. No thought of how it would be done or what's now in the way or whether it would actually be of any use and what it would cost. Most of the suggestions are nonsense and are just closed branch lines which would never be viable.

 

[chappers]

Basically any line thats closed they want re-opened. No thought of how it would be done or what's now in the way or whether it would actually be of any use and what it would cost. Most of the suggestions are nonsense and are just closed branch lines which would never be viable.

Agreed. Was staggered to see the "Newton Abbot - Moretenhampstead" line on a list of re-openings. Granted, half the track remains in situ, and north of Bovey Tracey much of the trackbed is intact and undeveloped, but exactly what business case would there be for a reopening?

However, Heathfield to Exeter built to generous clearances......................

 

[Aictos]

The only other line other then the two above in my post would be to relink Colne and Skipton as it's just 11 miles of track/signalling that needs to be reinstated - only NXEC HSTs serve Skipton and Northern DMUs serve Colne so no need for expensive OHL - just use it as a though route which would certainly be welcome news for the locals plus bring in much needed investment in the area.

Not to mention reinstating the Lincoln avoiding line which when the line does get upgraded to handle more trains such as diversions, the diverted services don't have to go though Lincoln Central.

With that, they could reinstate the old track from Spalding to March if it's possible to send more freight that way from East Anglia to the North instead of via the more direct route of though Grantham.

Bedford to St Neots/Sandy would again bring more benefits to the locals then some rowing course which can be located anywhere.

MML to have OHL to Leeds via Sheffield/Derby.
York to Leeds to have OHL not via Doncaster.
Ely to Peterborough via March to have OHL.

Reinstatement of 4 tracking from Peterborough to Holme Fen becoming 2 tracks up to Connington then back to 4 tracking again.

It can be done, just look at the Trent Valley - that had OHL and only 2 tracks, now it's 4 tracks and still has OHL.

Of course, line improvements to my own line which need it seeing as it's the only diversionary route available to NR from London until Hitchin.

 

[will1337]

CP4 has some jumbo projects such as Thameslink and BNS.

That massive gateway project at Barnes station? :P

 

[asylumxl]

I think it is pretty certain to say that the London-centric view in CP4 wont be repeated in CP5. Obviously it is in doubt whether funding levels will remain at the same levels (35 billion or so). However the network in the South East will not require the major investments of CP4 in CP5 and so much more money can be found for the 'regions'.

London-centric? Have you seen the state of the MML? Some of the stations look appalling, appear disused, and are relatively close to London.

While alot of other TOCs are using old rolling stock, the Thameslink route has been using the same rolling stock for over 20 years now, and I think it's only fair it gets updated, being as it gets extremely heavy use. As far as I'm aware, FCCs sister company FTPE has more modern rolling stock and investment, and obviously is nowhere near London. FCC have many more customers than FTPE.

Perhaps a large amount of money needs to be placed in and around London because it's needed?

 

[daccer]

i dont think that there is much argument that the division of investment during CP4 heavily favours the South. Thameslink and Crossrail (although only a small percentage of this is part of the CP4 budget) come to 20 billion on their own. CP4 doesnt also include the large scale investment being made by Tfl. The MML is indeed shabby but i think to argue about station conditions near London when Wakefield Kirkgate is still waiting for redevelopment not to mention Man.Victoria being given just 9m is being fairly one-eyed. When all is said and done Crossrail and Thameslink will bring 2-3000 new carriages to the South East - Northern I believe are looking at a couple of hundred if they are lucky.

Sure we can argue about the merits of the spending in CP4 but the point of the thread was that the major jumbo projects will be done in CP4 and these are concentrated in London and the South. CP5 will therefore be an opportunity to do something dramatic further out in the sticks.

Business cases are for me a misnomer. the argument that a railway has to fulfil a 'business' criteria when in some areas it is patently a social service is slightly strange. Also the benefit to the country of an extensive and growing railway goes beyond just pounds and pence. Short-sightedness caused the problems that we have today in capacity and in large towns sitting with no rail links. CP5 may be an opportunity to redress some of those issues. To prune investment when the rail network finally has some momentum would be foolish in the extreme and I hope CP5 will build on recent successes and we will see an expanding network. When you are winning the Premiership you go shopping at Real Madrid for new players not at Accrington Stanley (my apologies to Accies fans).

I think a major new gateway at Barnes is needed!! straight after Birmingham gets theirs.

 

[tbtc]

The only other line other then the two above in my post would be to relink Colne and Skipton

As I've said before, if you're going to reopen a railway though the hills from east to west, then Matlock - Buxton or the Woodhead route have the advantage of serving a large population at both ends.

York to Leeds to have OHL not via Doncaster

It wouldn't mean any DMUs replaced by EMUs, so would be a lot of cost for diversions only (plus allowing NXEC to run placing journeys that way). Only worth doing if you're going to tackle Transpennine etc too.

There's plenty potential electrifications out there that would replace a number of DMUs with EMUs, but it seems very expensive to do Leeds - Garforth - York alone.

 

[Aictos]

To prune investment when the rail network finally has some momentum would be foolish in the extreme and I hope CP5 will build on recent successes and we will see an expanding network. When you are winning the Premiership you go shopping at Real Madrid for new players not at Accrington Stanley (my apologies to Accies fans).

Apology accepted,

 

[will1337]

I doubt that Woodhead/ Matlock - Buxton would be reopened, fantastically useful as they would be. Barnes really does need a gateway though, that 1850s infrastructure is outdated. :P

 

[Andrew]

The Matlock-Buxton link has been talked about seriously in the relatively recent past (ie has cropped up now and again in the last 10 years). I wouldn't put it as 'definitely not going to happen'.

 

[tbtc]

The Matlock-Buxton link has been talked about seriously in the relatively recent past (ie has cropped up now and again in the last 10 years). I wouldn't put it as 'definitely not going to happen'.

I think one advantage the scheme has is that you could do it without any major disruption to existing services (e.g. no work would be needed at any big staions).

Woodhead, on the other hand, would need Sheffield Victoria reopening, which would be a major cost.

The Matlock line would take pressure off the Hope Valley line, and give a faster service for the existing Nottingham - Manchester demand (rather than reversing at Sheffield).

Plus, there's no way you could significantly improve the roads through the Peak District, given lack of land, so rail is the only option.

 

[thelem]

Basically any line thats closed they want re-opened. No thought of how it would be done or what's now in the way or whether it would actually be of any use and what it would cost. Most of the suggestions are nonsense and are just closed branch lines which would never be viable.

The link given was a bit unfair, it appears to be just a list of lines that people have suggested would be worth reopening.

They also have a 'Top 36' at http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/campaigns/public_transport/rail/lines_that_should_reopen/top_36 which is more realistic.

 

[yorkie]

'A cross-city rail link for Bradford between Interchange and Forster Square stations' - would have to be underground with both stations being rebuilt. What would the cost be, I wonder? Presumably trains from Halifax would go to Leeds via Shipley, and trains from Skipton would go to Leeds via New Pudsey. Sounds nice, but the cost would be extortionate.

 

[clagmonster]

It wouldn't mean any DMUs replaced by EMUs, so would be a lot of cost for diversions only (plus allowing NXEC to run placing journeys that way). Only worth doing if you're going to tackle Transpennine etc too.

There's plenty potential electrifications out there that would replace a number of DMUs with EMUs, but it seems very expensive to do Leeds - Garforth - York alone.

In my opinion, Leeds-York would be a good starting point for northern electrification, along with Preston-Manchester. Both would be good for diversions to start, and for a small number of passenger services. Eectrification could then be extended in stages, probably with the Pennines coming Standedge early on, Preston-Blackpool, Manchester-Liverpool would seem the obvious early stages. A rolling program such as this could eventially see most of the north of England, in a similar approach to what the Scots currently appear to be doing. Obviously there would be stages where services would have to be temporarily split, but as long as decent connections are available, and the main flows aren't disrupted (eg, temporarily splitting York-Bradford at Leeds, not many passengers travel the full distance, indeed a similar number probably change at Leeds for Wakefield for example).

Elsewhere in the country, infill electrification on the South Central division would be a good idea, allowing Selhurst to lose diesel maintenance facilities, which must cost a fair bit to run. DMUs to be cascaded further north or to the Westren region. GOBLIN also would be a sensible electrification choice.

Tarting up/rebuilding stations where appropriate, as mostly mentioned above. I will add that I think the installation of live information screens, together with the help point facilities, should be introduced more widely across the country, at all but the least used stations. A lack of information can be very offputting, particularly for novice travellers.

I also echo the calls for capacity enhancements on the ECML, particularly if HS2 doesn't happen. Hitchin flyover is a priority. 4 track to Peterborough would be good, as would a flyover from the Thorne line at Doncaster, to a new island platform where the West Yard is currently sited. A flyover at Newark would also be useful. Should HS2 not happen, while expensive I feel a new bridge and tunnels at Welwyn are musts, if passenger growth on the east coast corridor is to continue. If you keep adding trains to this bottleneck, punctuality will just get worse.

 

[Aictos]

In my opinion, Leeds-York would be a good starting point for northern electrification, along with Preston-Manchester. Both would be good for diversions to start, and for a small number of passenger services. Eectrification could then be extended in stages, probably with the Pennines coming Standedge early on, Preston-Blackpool, Manchester-Liverpool would seem the obvious early stages. A rolling program such as this could eventially see most of the north of England, in a similar approach to what the Scots currently appear to be doing. Obviously there would be stages where services would have to be temporarily split, but as long as decent connections are available, and the main flows aren't disrupted (eg, temporarily splitting York-Bradford at Leeds, not many passengers travel the full distance, indeed a similar number probably change at Leeds for Wakefield for example).

Elsewhere in the country, infill electrification on the South Central division would be a good idea, allowing Selhurst to lose diesel maintenance facilities, which must cost a fair bit to run. DMUs to be cascaded further north or to the Westren region. GOBLIN also would be a sensible electrification choice.

Tarting up/rebuilding stations where appropriate, as mostly mentioned above. I will add that I think the installation of live information screens, together with the help point facilities, should be introduced more widely across the country, at all but the least used stations. A lack of information can be very offputting, particularly for novice travellers.

I also echo the calls for capacity enhancements on the ECML, particularly if HS2 doesn't happen. Hitchin flyover is a priority. 4 track to Peterborough would be good, as would a flyover from the Thorne line at Doncaster, to a new island platform where the West Yard is currently sited. A flyover at Newark would also be useful. Should HS2 not happen, while expensive I feel a new bridge and tunnels at Welwyn are musts, if passenger growth on the east coast corridor is to continue. If you keep adding trains to this bottleneck, punctuality will just get worse.

I agree which is why I don't want HS2 or HS3 to happen, we have to improve the existing railways first before spending billions on a high speed railway that could easily wait for it.

The ECML was always 4 tracks from Peterborough to Huntingdon, it's just the short section at Holme Fen where it has to be 2 tracks.

As to Welwyn North, the best thing they could do would be to remove the existing car park and platform on the Down and build a second viaduct beside the existing one and new tunnels along the existing ones so true 4 tracking from London to Grantham and further - making sure they replace the platform and car park of course.

Failing that they could demolish the viaduct and replace it with a modern day replacement with 4 tracks.

Any other ideas on how to improve the bottleneck there?

 

[clagmonster]

Demolishing the existing viaduct would never work, it would cause far too much disruption, and I'm sure it must be listed, if such work was proposed there would certainly be appempts to get it listed.

 

[scandal]

The Matlock-Buxton link has been talked about seriously in the relatively recent past (ie has cropped up now and again in the last 10 years). I wouldn't put it as 'definitely not going to happen'.

So far as I recall Central Trains comissioned a feasability study with input from the local authorities in 2004. The report signalled a resounding no - explaining that the capital cost of the project did not meet the benefits it would bring.

The full report is below.

https://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/Images/derby-mancester-rail_main_report_full_tcm9-21359.pdf