• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Do the British have an aversion to building new alignments?

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
31,364
Location
Fenny Stratford
No, I respond to everyone. I usually disagree with you for your negativity. Thank heavens everyone is not like you.
This has the wrong quote. I was responding to Darlorich and can' change it.

For negativity I read rationality/pragmatism. That is what happens when you live in the real world ;) Find me a way to fund these ideas and i will support you. However, don't say central government because they will not pay for them.

Personally I think some kind of mixed funding approach should be explored which shares the costs and rewards fairly.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
31,364
Location
Fenny Stratford
The A1 north of the Tyne does down to a single carriageway road.

And the A66 is similar for parts of its journey across the top of Durham and Cumbria - that is a main trunk route for road freight linking east and west. Shame the largesse for road building hasn't fixed these issues!
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
4,894
The Market Harborough works, including the separation of the Midland and LNW routes were still being finished off in 1885, as you've noted from the map. And the old Midland running lines and some other sidings remained accessible from the north only. This is the third time a project to get rid of the flyover alignment and revert to the old Midland route has been de-specced from a project. The first was during the Leicester re-signalling and the second was some fifteen to twenty years ago. Now we have the third. So much for Grayling's announcement that it was only the electrification that was being cancelled and the other route-improvements were all staying! From what has been published it looks as if the approach round the curve to Market Harborough will go to 90 as planned, but that north of the new station there will be the present 85 limit instead of the planned 110.
Thanks for the extra info'.
Sounds similar to Grendon Underwood, where I think the Chiltern up line still follows a curve that once took it over the Great Central link line. IIRC it was eventually reduced to ground level though (it's a long time since I've been that way).
It's all the fault of those pesky Victorian engineers carrying out the grade separations, for giving the better alignment to the wrong line!
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
6,072
Which slew of road projects?
You could start with these:
https://www.transport-britain.co.uk/300-million-road-upgrade-merseyside-cheshire/
Work on the A5036 to the Port of Liverpool needs attention because the parts of the route near residential areas has been identified as the 10th most congested road in the whole country.
The option for construction will see a new three-mile dual carriageway constructed between the motorway and the port. This should take any freight trucks away from the residential areas.
and
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/regions/all-regions/?postcode=&keywords=&roads=&status= which says
Highways England will deliver the £15billion of investment in England’s motorways and major A roads as described in the Government’s Road Investment Strategy
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/road-investment-strategy
Have they built the M62 by-pass so that traffic can get around in Northern England to avoid the worst motorway in the UK?
Have they removed the problems of lorries on the motorway to channel ports?
Have they resolved the jams on the M25?
That's not possible, as I suspect you well know. In fact the M62 has been widened substantialy over the last decade or so, around Manchester and across Yorkshire, and I believe the M25 has had substantial upgrades too.
Almost all capacity upgrades get filled very quickly as an "open road" attracts traffic to it because it looks like a good option for individual drivers (initially anyway.)
 

Old Yard Dog

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2011
Messages
1,682
Other major rail construction projects over the last 50 years include the Liverpool Loop, the Windsor link (in Salford), and the realignment of the ECML to allow the ECB to exploit the Selby coalfield. The line through Welshpool was of course realigned so a bypass could be built cutting off the station from the town centre.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
8,111
Location
Leeds
The line through Welshpool was of course realigned so a bypass could be built cutting off the station from the town centre.
Another place where a line was realigned to accommodate a road project was between Colwyn Bay and Mochdre for the A55.

This discussion seems to have taken place in another thread recently.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,900
I wonder if we would have been in a better economic space if Roads for Prosperity had actualy been built
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,960
Location
Yorks
Hey - you could be onto something there :lol:

Give that chap £50bn (and a shovel)!



True



I'm not intending to single you out - just making a broader point about how the people who seem to want to re-open every old line seem less likely to support the current HS2 plans (possibly as it does the ugly thing of linking the biggest cities in the UK on a new alignment rather than linking villages in Cumbria/ North Yorkshire/ Borders/ Devon/ Cornwall/ Lincolnshire etc).

As I say, not a personal dig, just a general point about enthusiasts.



Shame no private companies are biting your hand off, given these reports that come up with such supposedly high figures for rebuilding old lines... funny that.



Pre-Hatfield, there was a lot of optimism, a lot of "thinking outside the box". I could get quite nostalgic for it!



True, but it's a clear bottleneck on the nation's roads, yet nothing seems to be done about it - just picking examples where road building isn't quite as straightforward/ guaranteed as some rail enthusiasts would like to think.



As usual, your list of priorities are little market towns.



Thorpe Park sounds an excellent place for a station.

Getting my crayons out, I'd suggest it'd have made a great turnback station for the multitude of services from the south/west that terminate in Leeds (but appreciate that there's not the capacity to squeeze much more past Neville Hill).



I'm the one changing the goalposts?

In post 18, I mentioned Newcastle's connection to the rest of the country by continuous motorway.

I've since been corrected, in that the missing section in North Yorkshire was completed earlier this year.

But the section of Motorway from the fringes of Gateshead was not continuously connected to the rest of the UK's motorway network until 2018.

The A1 north of the Tyne does down to a single carriageway road.

Yet some rail enthusiasts think that roads are built willy-nilly.



Part of the problem is that we are lumbered with our legacy infrastructure that requires high subsidies. The Chinese probably aren't spending the kind of money to keep a parliamentary service open that we are - they have the advantage of starting with a fresh sheet of paper so don't need to maintain old branch lines.

If we were building rail from scratch, we could use our existing budget much more efficiently and spend much more of the existing pot on infrastructure, but every quid spent on subsidising a rural branch line is money that could have been funding a new InterCity railway (that would be expected to run without subsidy).



Which slew of road projects?

Have they built the M62 by-pass so that traffic can get around in Northern England to avoid the worst motorway in the UK?

Have they removed the problems of lorries on the motorway to channel ports?

Have they resolved the jams on the M25?

Take a look at George Osborne's infrastructure fund a few years back. They were nearly all road projects.

And what's wrong with having little market towns on the network ? I live in a big market town called Wakefield and guess what, we're doing alright for railways. We already have two companies taking us direct to London, three if you count EMT.

We certainly shouldn't be taking priority over towns which have no railway at all.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,960
Location
Yorks
It entirely depends on what you're trying to discuss. Is the discussion meant to be about projects that would be nice if more money was available, or is it about what might be just about manageable in current or foreseeable political circumstances? The ultimate source of bad feeling is that some people drag every thread in the direction of the first question and others in the direction of the second.

The source of bad feeling is that nothing ever changes in thiss country. At the start of this thread, I've already given reasons why reopenings are going to be more important to the public than realignments - they make more of a difference to people.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
6,072
Other major rail construction projects over the last 50 years include the Liverpool Loop, the Windsor link (in Salford), and the realignment of the ECML to allow the ECB to exploit the Selby coalfield. The line through Welshpool was of course realigned so a bypass could be built cutting off the station from the town centre.
A canal was moved for the new road in the Aire valley! Colwyn Bay is almost the same (sorry, didn't see it was already mentioned above), but I note you are now having to go back half a century to find examples of new alignments! I rest my case.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,960
Location
Yorks
For negativity I read rationality/pragmatism. That is what happens when you live in the real world ;) Find me a way to fund these ideas and i will support you. However, don't say central government because they will not pay for them.

Personally I think some kind of mixed funding approach should be explored which shares the costs and rewards fairly.

If people want a by-pass what is their plan B ? Exactly, they don't have one.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,912
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands
As rail enthusiasts, we see new roads being built without appreciating how many proposed schemes are cancelled/ how long the ones that get built take to finally open - just as "road enthusiasts" will see a railway improvement and not realise how long it has been in the making/ how many other proposals never saw the light of day.

The milage of new roads being build greatly exceed that of railway network, but the considerably larger installed base of road mean it seems less. Great Britain has 246,500 miles of road and 10,072 miles of rail (Wikipedia). 1000 miles of double track railway built in the right places would transform the railway network, whereas 1000 miles of two lane (single carriageway) road would be a drop in the ocean.

It this context the blog posting by George Bathurst, Director and Founder, Windsor Link Railway, makes an interesting reading.

The road network also starts out in a more rational shape than rail (thanks to organic growth followed by rational planning - versus large capricious companies having planned the railways) that our 1000 miles of well planned new line would be even more transformative than 1000 more miles (10% more track) might seem at first glance. The Windsor link is a good example of a short link potentially having a disproportionate effect.

I thinka real problem is that so little money gets spent on infrastructure in the UK, new alignments are almost always rejected for cost reasons.

How do you propose to pay for all of this? That is the problem. Money is always the problem.

I was intending to ask whether people thought that building new route could represent better value than spending money on the current routes, not if it was cheaper. Sometimes you must speculate to accumulate! Clearly a heck of a lot of money is going into the exiting routes anyway. It maybe less hassle to improve your existing property than try to get new lines through planning but maybe this is a PR own goal? When we consider the amount of money being spent on railways generally some taxpayers might expect to see some bulldozers out building new routes like what highways bodies seem to manage with less funding. Perhaps the price of land is not such a great part of the total cost of such projects after all?

Pre-Hatfield, there was a lot of optimism, a lot of "thinking outside the box". I could get quite nostalgic for it!

That's telling. Hatfield required everybody to concentrate a while on the nuts and bolts, not further expansion. But I think the reticence in relation to building new railways is probably a legacy of the long period of having to curate an excess of victorian infrastructure. Perhaps we are overdue a new "Reshaping plan" - one that changes the whole shape of the network by adding new connections, not taking them away!

I wonder if we would have been in a better economic space if Roads for Prosperity had actualy been built

A prosperous one, presumably.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
18,900
I was intending to ask whether people thought that building new route could represent better value than spending money on the current routes, not if it was cheaper. Sometimes you must speculate to accumulate! Clearly a heck of a lot of money is going into the exiting routes anyway. It maybe less hassle to improve your existing property than try to get new lines through planning but maybe this is a PR own goal? When we consider the amount of money being spent on railways generally some taxpayers might expect to see some bulldozers out building new routes like what highways bodies seem to manage with less funding. Perhaps the price of land is not such a great part of the total cost of such projects after all?.

A new line being better value for money is of little consequence if you cant get the money to actually pursue that option because the Treasury says no.
Or because some politicians are scared it wont deliver results before the next election.

And I am not convinced that building more railways operated in the style of the current system is a good idea.
I have become somewhat enamoured with tram trains and VAL style rubber tyred metros, especially as the latter allow fully segregated city centre metros to be built at far lower cost than conventional solutions.
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,457
So we've had a number of suggestions which can be roughly grouped into:

New chords
Bypasses
Reopenings
New connections

It's interesting to note that very few suggestions (EWR, Heathrow links, Bradford crossrail) actually fall within the last category, which was the original question posed by the thread. In other words, the existing network pattern is about right, albeit that some sections are too slow.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,522
I think the fact that you have had to go back nearly 40 years (Penmanshiel was 1980,) introduce a "new alignment" that had to be built to replace a collapsed tunnel on the ECML (Penmanshiel again) and include 2 or 3 items that were part of the same upgrade - if Offord went with Welwyn and Hitchin (it's so unimportant that I can't find out anything about it) and bring in minor realignments rather proves my point.
We do have very few new alignments on our railway lines, especially when compared with the road network, I think almost everyone could think of more completely new roads near where they live built in the last decade than new railways in the whole country in 20 or 30 years.

I think you need to check your history books, or at least have a word with your search engine. It took me a couple of seconds with google to find a few details about Offord.

Offord was a major realignment of the Offord curves on the ECML to raise the speed from 70mph to 120mph (in two goes, several years apart). This was for the HSTs in the late 70s.

Welwyn was a flyover for the suburban service, c 1976. I saw it being built.

Hitchin was the new flyover opened in 2013. Ditto.

None were part of the same upgrade.

I didn’t realise there’s was a time limit, I just went with things I can remember happening.

You might have missed my statement where I agreed that there weren’t many, and then when I explained why I think this is the case.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,522
So we've had a number of suggestions which can be roughly grouped into:

New chords
Bypasses
Reopenings
New connections

It's interesting to note that very few suggestions (EWR, Heathrow links, Bradford crossrail) actually fall within the last category, which was the original question posed by the thread. In other words, the existing network pattern is about right, albeit that some sections are too slow.

I’d say there are quite a few all new rail connections on ‘virgin territory’. In addition to EWR and the proposed Heathrow links, there are the existing airport links to Stansted, Manchester, Newcastle and Heathrow; Crossrail, HS1, the Jubilee Line from Green Park east (or Baker Street if you’re old enough), the Piccadilly line to Heathrow, then T4, then T5, Barking Riverside, most of the DLR, parts of the Newcastle Metro. The Selby diversion is unquestionably a new railway, albeit from 1983. Yes someone else paid for it, but the rail industry got a rather decent piece of improved infrastructure as a result. I happen to know one of the designers, and the alignment (but not anything else) was future proofed for 160mph+, apparently. Arguably even the Channel Tunnel (or about half of it) counts. I’m sure there’s more.
 
Last edited:

Starmill

Veteran Member
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
25,419
Location
Bolton
Robin Hood Phase 3 Dec 98
Vale of Glamorgan 2005
Ebbw Vale 2008
Aylesbury Vale 2008
Kettering Corby 2008
Stirling - Alloa 2008
Halifax - Huddersfield 2000

Just off the top of my head. There are others I’m sure.
Some light railway schemes have taken over former alignments during this time too.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,522
Some light railway schemes have taken over former alignments during this time too.
Indeed, plenty. And in most cases rather better at serving the travelling public than the ‘heavy’ railway ever was (or could be).
 

jyte

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2016
Messages
671
Location
in me shed

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,522
@Bald Rick , I'm usually blessed by strong google-fu but apart from this thread, https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4333, I can't find anything mentioned. Can you link a source?

Edit: Okay, maybe this book extract which mentions 'slowing to 70mph' for the Offord curve. https://books.google.se/books?id=c7fWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Offord+ecml+curves&source=bl&ots=wXHCiY61ZB&sig=l8dm8VR7dWsSo741r2mGzoLo1X0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj9_72hxMrdAhWB4IUKHS7hA_sQ6AEwDHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=Offord ecml curves&f=false

I presume you got the current speed from the sectional appendix?

“Offord curves realignment” in google offered the following, from some years ago. I clearly hadn’t been the first to search it as I only typed “Offord Curv” when google completed the search term for me.

http://uk.railway.narkive.com/B3ygvAMg/offord-cluny-and-offord-darcy-straightenings

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4333
(Brief mention on this one, but it does list several other ECML realignments)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id...v=onepage&q=offord curves realignment&f=false

As it happens I knew the current speed anyway, but the SA does confirm at 120.
 

jyte

Member
Joined
27 Oct 2016
Messages
671
Location
in me shed
“Offord curves realignment” in google offered the following, from some years ago. I clearly hadn’t been the first to search it as I only typed “Offord Curv” when google completed the search term for me.

http://uk.railway.narkive.com/B3ygvAMg/offord-cluny-and-offord-darcy-straightenings

https://www.lner.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4333
(Brief mention on this one, but it does list several other ECML realignments)

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=kmBtBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA390&lpg=PA390&dq=offord+curves+realignment&source=bl&ots=RfS2HlptZf&sig=tFt3FSmIY4Cw9zIT-6_MKeRVzo0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidjL6WxsrdAhVIAcAKHXhuDWoQ6AEwEHoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q=offord curves realignment&f=false

As it happens I knew the current speed anyway, but the SA does confirm at 120.
Thank you :)

A quick look at the (very blurry) 1945 RAF survey photos of the area made it look like the line had been pushed towards the river, but was also hard to tell.
 

adrock1976

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2013
Messages
4,450
Location
What's it called? It's called Cumbernauld
Regarding some previous posts in this thread relating to how some reopening or realignments could be funded, there is an easy solution:

Get the likes of Amazon, Google, Starbucks, Vodaphone, Boots the Chemist, etc to actually start paying their fair share of tax.

Also, individuals such as Charles Green (BHS, now defunct), Ian Duncan Smith (who rapidly transferred his assets into his spouse's name, with the accounts very conveniently based in the Cayman Islands), Gideon George Osbourne, Lord Ashcroft (who lobbies and conducts polls on behalf of the Conservatives, despite being a "non-dom"), and David Murray (former owner of Glasgow Rangers FC, which has been defunct since 2012 and owed HMRC a minimum of £76 million) could all be chased up to cough up some tax.
 

Shaw S Hunter

Established Member
Joined
21 Apr 2016
Messages
3,315
Location
Over The Hill
At the risk of going a little OT I'm afraid deltic08's posts are all too typical of those who seek re-instatement of closed rail routes. They refer to unpublished reports, hardly surprising since they are a leading light of the campaign group, but do not provide evidence for their financial claims. Said campaign group's only internet presence appears to be a few blogpost pages which have not been updated for at least 4 years. The Campaign For Better Transport's site lists the line as one of its priorities but the only link is to a Wikipedia article. That article does at least link to a public document namely a feasibility study for NYCC by Ove Arup dating from 2005!

The study makes reference to a 2004 report which gave a BCR just for Harrogate-Ripon of 1.22 but points out that the capital cost estimates used were in the region of 20% too low. Perhaps more telling is that while the various local authorities are quite happy to make positive noises about the idea none of them is willing to even fund £15k for an updated feasibility study. As things stand it seems that while NYCC has included the project in its Local Transport Plan it doesn't anticipate any progress before 2030! In the meantime perhaps TfN is the project's best hope: needless to say a search for "Ripon" on the TfN site returns no results.

Bottom line is that anyone who is serious about persuading the holders of the public purse-strings to fund their preferred ideas needs to be both professional and politically savvy in their dealings. Some campaign groups in other fields clearly understand this but it would seem that few railway reopeners do.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
41,960
Location
Yorks
At the risk of going a little OT I'm afraid deltic08's posts are all too typical of those who seek re-instatement of closed rail routes. They refer to unpublished reports, hardly surprising since they are a leading light of the campaign group, but do not provide evidence for their financial claims. Said campaign group's only internet presence appears to be a few blogpost pages which have not been updated for at least 4 years. The Campaign For Better Transport's site lists the line as one of its priorities but the only link is to a Wikipedia article. That article does at least link to a public document namely a feasibility study for NYCC by Ove Arup dating from 2005!

The study makes reference to a 2004 report which gave a BCR just for Harrogate-Ripon of 1.22 but points out that the capital cost estimates used were in the region of 20% too low. Perhaps more telling is that while the various local authorities are quite happy to make positive noises about the idea none of them is willing to even fund £15k for an updated feasibility study. As things stand it seems that while NYCC has included the project in its Local Transport Plan it doesn't anticipate any progress before 2030! In the meantime perhaps TfN is the project's best hope: needless to say a search for "Ripon" on the TfN site returns no results.

Bottom line is that anyone who is serious about persuading the holders of the public purse-strings to fund their preferred ideas needs to be both professional and politically savvy in their dealings. Some campaign groups in other fields clearly understand this but it would seem that few railway reopeners do.

One wonders what was the point of twenty years of passenger growth if we can't even get a simple reopening done. What a truely depressing state of affairs.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
31,364
Location
Fenny Stratford
I live in a big market town called Wakefield

For the benefit of the tape: Wakefield is a city ;)

At the risk of going a little OT I'm afraid deltic08's posts are all too typical of those who seek re-instatement of closed rail routes. They refer to unpublished reports, hardly surprising since they are a leading light of the campaign group, but do not provide evidence for their financial claims. Said campaign group's only internet presence appears to be a few blogpost pages which have not been updated for at least 4 years. The Campaign For Better Transport's site lists the line as one of its priorities but the only link is to a Wikipedia article. That article does at least link to a public document namely a feasibility study for NYCC by Ove Arup dating from 2005!

The study makes reference to a 2004 report which gave a BCR just for Harrogate-Ripon of 1.22 but points out that the capital cost estimates used were in the region of 20% too low. Perhaps more telling is that while the various local authorities are quite happy to make positive noises about the idea none of them is willing to even fund £15k for an updated feasibility study. As things stand it seems that while NYCC has included the project in its Local Transport Plan it doesn't anticipate any progress before 2030! In the meantime perhaps TfN is the project's best hope: needless to say a search for "Ripon" on the TfN site returns no results.

Bottom line is that anyone who is serious about persuading the holders of the public purse-strings to fund their preferred ideas needs to be both professional and politically savvy in their dealings. Some campaign groups in other fields clearly understand this but it would seem that few railway reopeners do.

Very sensible, particularly the final paragraph. However it will be wasted here due to the Bull Durham/Captain Picard fantasy effect.
 

mushroomchow

Member
Joined
14 Feb 2017
Messages
455
Location
Where HSTs Still Scream. Kind of.
This country has ridiculously archaic planning laws that stop any proactive infrastructure investment taking place at anything faster than a snail's pace.

Just look at HS2 for your best example. In China, Germany, even France phase 1 at the very least would be up and running by now, but we haven't even fully secure the proposed trackbed.

Even when the government are behind a project it takes years and years to agree on the fine details and placate the NIMBYs to be found every 500 yards along the proposed route of each project.
 

squizzler

Established Member
Joined
4 Jan 2017
Messages
1,912
Location
Jersey, Channel Islands

According to the Highways England (Note the England, not GB) highways get 400 miles of "extra capacity" for £11bn. That means about 2.2bn per year between 2015 and 2020. This is for a highway network that is largely completed. Whilst there will always be "nice to haves" and the nature of Induced Demand (the phenomenon of new highways attracting new traffic that fills them up) will always create further pinch points, after 60 years of organised road building all the low hang fruit has been picked.

The only material growth of highway traffic is apparently in light vans - driven by couriers delivering our mail order products. If the delivery of such goods was consolidated (say - nationalised into a new Royal Mail :D) there would be no need for new roads at all. Milage by ordinary motorists and HGV's are apparently in decline.

The Network Rail spends £3.2bn on enhancements and it has a growing traffic - so a half again more for all GB than Highways England spend on England alone. I understand that whilst rail passenger traffic has doubled in the last 20 years, it is projected to double again by the mid 2040's. That will clearly need a lot more than mere doubling of capacity and ridership in the regions, because the biggest market - London's demand - is largely saturated and the growth will have to take place elsewhere.

It's interesting to note that very few suggestions (EWR, Heathrow links, Bradford crossrail) actually fall within the last category, which was the original question posed by the thread. In other words, the existing network pattern is about right, albeit that some sections are too slow.

An absence new lines being evidence of the current network as nearly ideal strikes me as highly dubious logic! It is a fact that the railway network is much less than ideal. Mark Casson in his book demonstrated this by designing a whole counterfactual network against which to measure the performance of the real network built by the Victorians. To accommodate a doubling usage of rail in the next 20 years will require a whole new reshaping of the network which can, if well planned with strategic links, start to approach the ideal topography.
 
Last edited:

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,457
An absence new lines being evidence of the current network as nearly ideal strikes me as highly dubious logic! It is a fact that the railway network is much less than ideal. Mark Casson in his book demonstrated this by designing a whole counterfactual network against which to measure the performance of the real network built by the Victorians. To accommodate a doubling usage of rail in the next 20 years will require a whole new reshaping of the network which can, if well planned with strategic links, start to approach the ideal topography.

Mark Casson's point was, I believe, that a smaller and more efficient network could have provided a fully connected network. I think he's probably right.

But we are where we are.

My point is, if the current network is failing to provide important connections, why don't we seem able to produce a list of the new strategic links which you claim are required. Coming up with a series of bypass proposals tends to suggest that while we need more capacity, the current network is broadly the right shape.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
6,072
My point is, if the current network is failing to provide important connections, why don't we seem able to produce a list of the new strategic links which you claim are required. Coming up with a series of bypass proposals tends to suggest that while we need more capacity, the current network is broadly the right shape.
I think that people have given up in despair. Every time a scheme is proposed (or the deficiencies in a planned official scheme are pointed out) we are immediately told that we are living in cloud-cuckoo land and that it is a hopelessly unrealistic wish-list.
The basic Inter-city network might be in place (more-or-less) but enhancements, whether increasing capacity on our trunk routes or reconnecting large or growing towns are seen as too expensive, or could be done more cheaply, e.g. by guided busways. Real "New alignments" are almost out of the question, but lots of road schemes are genuinely this. They may by-pass villages, but often don't really duplicate other roads, e.g. the A14, A4146 south from Milton Keynes/Bletchley?
Examples of trunk / core railway route upgrades that aren't justified, apparently: Piccadilly pfm 15/16, Picc - Oxford Rd double decking, HS2 Birmingham station made a through route by tunnelling...
Re-connections that are wanted: several mentioned in this thread already, of course.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top