Do the British have an aversion to building new alignments?

[yorksrob]

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.

I believe the railway industry itself developed a proposal called "connecting communities" a few years back, which provides just such a list.

 

[DarloRich]

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.

Those suggested here often are. There is also no understanding how difficult obtaining funding really is. Posters have no idea, don't care, cant see beyond trains and don't want to listen to those of us who do have experience of this environment

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...

They may be good ideas but there has to be money to pay for them. In the real world decisions have to be made about priorities or potential returns on investment. The benefit on investment is weighed against other, equally deserving projects (some of which may be for evil road schemes) and those decisions made. Rail wont win every time. In the real world there has to be a vision that looks wider than rail. Posters here cant seem to grasp that concept. In spotter world those decisions never have to be made.

After all our money is used to pay for these schemes. Surely we should only spend on those schemes that use that take as little of our money as possible and spends that money in the most efficient way possible?

 

[FQTV]

I believe the railway industry itself developed a proposal called "connecting communities" a few years back, which provides just such a list.

It did, and it's archived here for anyone who'd like to read it:

https://web.archive.org/web/2013072...documents/ConnectingCommunitiesReport_S10.pdf

It's clearly rubbish to suggest that new road building and the upgrading of existing highways has not outstripped the development of the rail network in the last fifty years, and that it does not continue to do so.

A huge amount of the road building that we see is actually relatively small-scale, although its effect on traffic and development of the built environment can be very significant. These might be projects which are only a couple of hundred metres in length, but even at several miles they may not cross a parish boundary.

Rail projects, generally, are linearly longer and involve more 'stakeholders', many of whom are as parochial as some of the Victorian landowners were. Probably the only reason that (for example) Chinese investors could be encouraged to back HS2 by George Osborne was because the government effectively assured them that the planning would be passed and that the long term investment returns would be assured.

There's plenty of money in the global investment markets for long-term infrastructure investments (especially when sovereign wealth funds also see a political angle in it), but as long as you have even just multiple local authorities bickering between themselves about the minutiae and trying to prevent each other benefiting more than themselves, there's no way of going to the capital markets. Similarly, it's not even possible to lobby The Treasury if there's no cohesive plan.

Funding is not an insurmountable problem - it is only a problem in the context of the way that railways are viewed.

Since, apparently, we don't currently know who's in charge of the railway, it's perhaps unsurprising that no-one knows how to build much more of it.

 

[yorksrob]

It did, and it's archived here for anyone who'd like to read it:

https://web.archive.org/web/2013072...documents/ConnectingCommunitiesReport_S10.pdf

It's clearly rubbish to suggest that new road building and the upgrading of existing highways has not outstripped the development of the rail network in the last fifty years, and that it does not continue to do so.

A huge amount of the road building that we see is actually relatively small-scale, although its effect on traffic and development of the built environment can be very significant. These might be projects which are only a couple of hundred metres in length, but even at several miles they may not cross a parish boundary.

Rail projects, generally, are linearly longer and involve more 'stakeholders', many of whom are as parochial as some of the Victorian landowners were. Probably the only reason that (for example) Chinese investors could be encouraged to back HS2 by George Osborne was because the government effectively assured them that the planning would be passed and that the long term investment returns would be assured.

There's plenty of money in the global investment markets for long-term infrastructure investments (especially when sovereign wealth funds also see a political angle in it), but as long as you have even just multiple local authorities bickering between themselves about the minutiae and trying to prevent each other benefiting more than themselves, there's no way of going to the capital markets. Similarly, it's not even possible to lobby The Treasury if there's no cohesive plan.

Funding is not an insurmountable problem - it is only a problem in the context of the way that railways are viewed.

Since, apparently, we don't currently know who's in charge of the railway, it's perhaps unsurprising that no-one knows how to build much more of it.

We've had a lot of this bickering from South Devon councillors and MP's who seem determined to stand in the way of opening the route from Okehampton to Bere Alston.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

We've had a lot of this bickering from South Devon councillors and MP's who seem determined to stand in the way of opening the route from Okehampton to Bere Alston.

As I said previously campaigners need to be politically savvy. This includes anticipating the parochialism which is so often characteristic of our elected representatives, particularly councillors, and finding a way of getting all concerned to pull in the same direction. It also helps to overcome the issue of persuading a single authority to take "ownership" of a scheme and see it through. Nottinghamshire did so with the Robin Hood Line but so far there is little sign of Devon doing so with the Dartmoor Line. Likewise North Yorkshire with Ripon. Things are even worse if a route is an obvious boundary crosser. I have on here done a certain amount of "bigging-up" of the Skelmersdale scheme but that only has a chance because Merseytravel have bought into the idea despite the town being in Lancashire. OTOH GMPTE/TfgM/GMCA seem to have lost interest in Rawtenstall.

If TfN ever gets financial teeth then maybe some northern schemes may progress. It's a shame we don't have the sort of devolution that allows French Regions and German Laender to have a significant effect on rail service provision over quite a wide area though even they still have to live within their means.

 

[yorksrob]

As I said previously campaigners need to be politically savvy. This includes anticipating the parochialism which is so often characteristic of our elected representatives, particularly councillors, and finding a way of getting all concerned to pull in the same direction. It also helps to overcome the issue of persuading a single authority to take "ownership" of a scheme and see it through. Nottinghamshire did so with the Robin Hood Line but so far there is little sign of Devon doing so with the Dartmoor Line. Likewise North Yorkshire with Ripon. Things are even worse if a route is an obvious boundary crosser. I have on here done a certain amount of "bigging-up" of the Skelmersdale scheme but that only has a chance because Merseytravel have bought into the idea despite the town being in Lancashire. OTOH GMPTE/TfgM/GMCA seem to have lost interest in Rawtenstall.

If TfN ever gets financial teeth then maybe some northern schemes may progress. It's a shame we don't have the sort of devolution that allows French Regions and German Laender to have a significant effect on rail service provision over quite a wide area though even they still have to live within their means.

I certainly get the impression that political Yorkshire outside of the PTE's is very luke warm on rail transport. A prominent Councillor in York got a long way towards getting that city integrated into the WYPTE until an election defeat when it all went by the wayside.

WYPTE have been good at cross border cooperation in terms of integrating Skipton and Harrogate, so there is some hope.

 

[edwin_m]

Examples of trunk / core railway route upgrades that aren't justified, apparently: ... HS2 Birmingham station made a through route by tunnelling...

This one keeps coming up in various forums, but I haven't yet seen anyone set out a good reason to do it.

There are enough passengers to justify separate London-Birmingham, London-North and Birmingham-North services so why slow the North services down by stopping them in Birmingham? And if they don't stop then they would be travelling through the Birmingham urban area at maximum speed. Going eastwards out of Birmingham may not be a long way round when heading for Scotland, but the high speed means it's still shorter in time than via the more direct classic route.

The geography of Birmingham means there's a reasonably easy alignment up the Tame Valley to the Curzon Street site, mostly on the surface and relatively free of property impacts. There is nothing similar on the other side! Continuing this line towards NW England would take it through or under the built-up areas of the Black Country, requiring a lot of tunneling or huge amounts of urban disruption. Most of the complication around Water Orton would still be needed to cater for the north-eastern leg, unless that is to do a massive U-turn under the West Midlands. The benefit would be a few minutes saving at most between Birmingham and the NW - and people keep telling us a few minutes saving isn't worth the massive disruption of a high speed line...

 

[quantinghome]

It did, and it's archived here for anyone who'd like to read it:

https://web.archive.org/web/2013072...documents/ConnectingCommunitiesReport_S10.pdf

It's clearly rubbish to suggest that new road building and the upgrading of existing highways has not outstripped the development of the rail network in the last fifty years, and that it does not continue to do so.

A huge amount of the road building that we see is actually relatively small-scale, although its effect on traffic and development of the built environment can be very significant. These might be projects which are only a couple of hundred metres in length, but even at several miles they may not cross a parish boundary.

Over the last fifty years, that's certainly true. But over the last 20, there has been more equal funding for road and rail, with some greater favouring of road since 2015. However, it's difficult to make a judgement based on this comparison as heavy rail investment would not be a viable substitute for most local road schemes.

Funding is not an insurmountable problem - it is only a problem in the context of the way that railways are viewed.

Since, apparently, we don't currently know who's in charge of the railway, it's perhaps unsurprising that no-one knows how to build much more of it.

Other developed countries manage to fund railways and public transport in a consistent manner. Politics is the problem (and therefore also the solution).

 

[FQTV]

Over the last fifty years, that's certainly true. But over the last 20, there has been more equal funding for road and rail, with some greater favouring of road since 2015. However, it's difficult to make a judgement based on this comparison as heavy rail investment would not be a viable substitute for most local road schemes.

The difficulty in analysing spend and investment, of course, is that a very significant amount of the visible (sometimes apparently constant) development of road networks is at the very local level. Highways England covers trunk routes only.

Many of the local schemes, even some quite substantial ones, are wholly local authority funded from various budgets and, of course, there are also those that are partly or entirely funded by developers until completion and ‘adoption’.

As you say, many of these schemes aren’t relevant to a heavy rail alternative, and heavy rail itself doesn’t generally engage in local projects which have such visibility to the general population.

Other developed countries manage to fund railways and public transport in a consistent manner. Politics is the problem (and therefore also the solution).

Absolutely.

Part of this undoubtedly is voter-driven. Until you can get drivers sitting in congestion to think ‘why isn’t there a railway that I could use?’ instead of ‘why isn’t there a by-pass or more lanes for more cars?,’ it’s going to be a challenge to get the politicians (at all levels) to change their mindset.

 

[squizzler]

On "Broadcasting House", Sunday, three people were talking about how they would fix the rail system.The space scientist Monica Grady, CBE, and Anthony Smith (CEO, Transport Focus), Pete Waterman each had a 90 second slot. Monica, who was not a rail expert, focussed on the growth of the network required to bring in more modal shift. The other two, as one might expect of people more involved in the everyday network, stuck to more operational aspects to improve the railway network.

A small segment on a radio programme, but the impression it gave is that those outside the railway are more likely to look strategically ahead than those at the coal face who are more interested in making the trains run to time that day. Perhaps that conservatism applies also to this forum? And whilst somebody billed as able to land a spacecraft on an asteroid was making a case for network expansion, it is obvious that the required modal shift to protect the climate is not possible with our currently constrained network. Excuse the obvious pun: it's not rocket science!

Link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/play/b0bkpj4m Segment starts at 41:30.

Monica Grady: We can't reverse the cuts made by Beeching ... but we have to start thinking about extending our rail network. ...Get rid of the diesels, bring in more electric trains ... Not just north-south but east - west ... not just London but focussing on other major centres of trade and business

Anthony Smith: Everybody focus on running the trains on time, more trains, fares freeze.

Pete Waterman: Keep all politicians out of any decisions and keep the media away completely.

 

[Warwick]

No problem whatsoever if it's a new road alignment you want to build, of course!

What,like the bit of the M3 around Winchester or the bit of the M40 that had to be looped around an sssi north of junction 8?

 

[quantinghome]

I disagree Squizzler. Pretty much everyone connected to the rail industry wants to see growth, modal shift, electrification, better north-south links (a.k.a. HS2), better east-west links (a.k.a. NPR, east-west rail).

The thing is, those involved in the industry are also aware of the current problems facing the railways, which are significant. They are also aware of the history of government funding of the railways, which has been variable to put it mildly. If the industry can't sort out its day to day issues then politicians (even if they carry substantial responsibility for the current problems) will not be willing to provide the significant and long term funding required for the larger investments we all want to see. That's what Monica Grady isn't seeing.

I agree that the current network is constrained. The solution will be a combination of things, some of which will be upgrading existing lines, some of which will involve new build (bypasses for the most part), and some which will involve high speed lines. But going back to your original point about needing to build new connections (rather than bypassing slow and/or congested sections of network), I've still to understand where you think these links should actually be. The only significant missing links we've come up with which are suitable for a new build line are east-west rail and various airport connections. NPR could also be considered as coming under this banner. But these are schemes which are already being developed; what other schemes do you think are necessary? Note that the "connecting communities" projects were a combination of new stations, re-establishing passenger services on existing freight-only lines, and reopening closed lines.

 

[Edders23]

One thing no one has touched on is that nearly all closed rail routes have been built on especially around the urban areas as they are convenient brown field sites for road ,industrial or housing construction so any capacity upgrades would almost certainly have to be built through green belt land as completely new routes and that in this day and age is very expensive

 

[AndrewE]

One thing no one has touched on is that nearly all closed rail routes have been built on especially around the urban areas as they are convenient brown field sites for road ,industrial or housing construction so any capacity upgrades would almost certainly have to be built through green belt land as completely new routes and that in this day and age is very expensive

I would have said the opposite: It's remarkable how many rail alignments are still visible, even in areas where you would think the land would have sold quickly if offered. Maybe the currrent owners realise that selling it some time in the future for access to a bigger estate would bring in more money than just 1 house where the railway line crosses a road.
Lots of alignments are protected in local plans, too.

 

[tbtc]

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!

True - a busy road (that seems to have got busier since people started relying on SatNavs more - maybe it's just me, but it feels like more people are choosing that way to get up country nowadays).

If money were no object for road improvements you'd surely have seen the A66 "solved" by now?

You could start with these:
https://www.transport-britain.co.uk/300-million-road-upgrade-merseyside-cheshire/
and
https://highwaysengland.co.uk/regions/all-regions/?postcode=&keywords=&roads=&status= which says

You're talking about proposals and suggestions - rather than evidence of lots of road building since the millennium.

There are similar railway wish-lists (e.g. CP5 proposals), of course.

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.

Railway investment (which is obviously finite) should be targeting improvements that will have the biggest benefit to the most people.

If you want to talk Wakefield, we could take a lot more cars off the road by increasing the minimum length and lowest speed of Wakefield - Leeds services (paths currently taken up by 75mph Pacer/Sprinters) than we would by connecting small places like Okehampton.

You have this sentimental attachment to small rural places - fair enough - but we'd be better focussing our money on urban areas where rail can compete.

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.

We have had simple re-openings done in that time.

Look at Ebbw Vale, look at Alloa - simple stubs through populated parts of the country - that's what works - that's what we should be doing elsewhere (Portishead, Washington, Ashington, Blyth).

Trouble is, you don't tend to suggest many simple reopenings (e.g. Okehampton to Bere Alston would not be "simple"!).

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.

I'm confident that the HS2 connection in Birmingham will happen - it's just that the HS2 budget is based on passing as many costs onto other projects as they can, keeping tangential things "out of scope", so that they don't get lumbered with every rebuilding/ re-modelling idea on lines near HS2. See also "Crossrail to Reading" - where they waited for electrification along the Thames Valley to be paid for out of the GWML budget, then piggy-backed on it).

The Castlefield corridor through Manchester is an obvious problem (albeit one that could be sorted out if we rationalised the service patterns and didn't obsess with giving everywhere an hourly service to Manchester Airport), but is going to be very expensive/ difficult/ time-consuming to resolve. Especially after Manchester has just had an eighty five million pound infrastructure scheme built next door - the Ordsall Chord - it's going to be hard for Manchester to plead poverty after swallowing up a large chunk of the North's infrastructure budget.

It's clearly rubbish to suggest that new road building and the upgrading of existing highways has not outstripped the development of the rail network in the last fifty years, and that it does not continue to do so

I don't deny that road building has swallowed up a lot of our money, but then roads do take significantly more of our journeys (and our freight) than railways.

Network Rail haven't burned through a deficit of fifty billion pounds by building roads - there has been money allocated to the railway (and significantly more spent on the railway than was allocated!).

 

[yorksrob]

True - a busy road (that seems to have got busier since people started relying on SatNavs more - maybe it's just me, but it feels like more people are choosing that way to get up country nowadays).

If money were no object for road improvements you'd surely have seen the A66 "solved" by now?



You're talking about proposals and suggestions - rather than evidence of lots of road building since the millennium.

There are similar railway wish-lists (e.g. CP5 proposals), of course.



Railway investment (which is obviously finite) should be targeting improvements that will have the biggest benefit to the most people.

If you want to talk Wakefield, we could take a lot more cars off the road by increasing the minimum length and lowest speed of Wakefield - Leeds services (paths currently taken up by 75mph Pacer/Sprinters) than we would by connecting small places like Okehampton.

You have this sentimental attachment to small rural places - fair enough - but we'd be better focussing our money on urban areas where rail can compete.



We have had simple re-openings done in that time.

Look at Ebbw Vale, look at Alloa - simple stubs through populated parts of the country - that's what works - that's what we should be doing elsewhere (Portishead, Washington, Ashington, Blyth).

Trouble is, you don't tend to suggest many simple reopenings (e.g. Okehampton to Bere Alston would not be "simple"!).



I'm confident that the HS2 connection in Birmingham will happen - it's just that the HS2 budget is based on passing as many costs onto other projects as they can, keeping tangential things "out of scope", so that they don't get lumbered with every rebuilding/ re-modelling idea on lines near HS2. See also "Crossrail to Reading" - where they waited for electrification along the Thames Valley to be paid for out of the GWML budget, then piggy-backed on it).

The Castlefield corridor through Manchester is an obvious problem (albeit one that could be sorted out if we rationalised the service patterns and didn't obsess with giving everywhere an hourly service to Manchester Airport), but is going to be very expensive/ difficult/ time-consuming to resolve. Especially after Manchester has just had an eighty five million pound infrastructure scheme built next door - the Ordsall Chord - it's going to be hard for Manchester to plead poverty after swallowing up a large chunk of the North's infrastructure budget.



I don't deny that road building has swallowed up a lot of our money, but then roads do take significantly more of our journeys (and our freight) than railways.

Network Rail haven't burned through a deficit of fifty billion pounds by building roads - there has been money allocated to the railway (and significantly more spent on the railway than was allocated!).

Scotland and Wales seem to have managed them yes, but England no.

I'm all for Portishead reopening - bring it on. Like Diana Ross, "I'm still waiting".

 

[squizzler]

If the industry can't sort out its day to day issues then politicians (even if they carry substantial responsibility for the current problems) will not be willing to provide the significant and long term funding required for the larger investments we all want to see. That's what Monica Grady isn't seeing.

If we assume her views as those of a lay person its a good assumption they are also those of politicians too. Perhaps many outside the industry wonder why the railway spends so much time and money fettling their tracks and laboriously tinkering around with the platforms instead of building new routes?

I've still to understand where you think these links should actually be.

I would recommend borrowing Mark Casson's book to check the counterfactual he comes up with. There are also on this forum a number of threads over the years that give an idea of where the network is very poor. The trivia threads are a bit of a goldmine for highlighting absurdities in the network. I picked a random one where people are invited to name slow "direct" trains.

Trivia: most inefficient direct train (time:distance)

Here is rather more relevant thread dealing with missing links in the network. Some of these links will no doubt now be practical with modern engineering.

(TRIVIA) Useful lines never built because of geography

Of course both these threads are still live, so feel free to add your own!

 

[quantinghome]

I would recommend borrowing Mark Casson's book to check the counterfactual he comes up with. There are also on this forum a number of threads over the years that give an idea of where the network is very poor. The trivia threads are a bit of a goldmine for highlighting absurdities in the network. I picked a random one where people are invited to name slow "direct" trains.

Trivia: most inefficient direct train (time:distance)

Here is rather more relevant thread dealing with missing links in the network. Some of these links will no doubt now be practical with modern engineering.

(TRIVIA) Useful lines never built because of geography

Of course both these threads are still live, so feel free to add your own!

Having looked at both those threads I don't think they tell us much. So-called 'absurdities' of direct trains taking ages to go between places are either down to geography (e.g. Bradford - Huddersfield) or trains that are only 'direct' for reasons of operational convenience (e.g. Scunthorpe to Lincoln via Sheffield). If you wanted to get the trains from Scunthorpe to Lincoln you would go via Barnetby. Why isn't the infrastructure in place to connect these two together with a faster, direct train? Because there demand simply isn't there to justify the expense.

Geography is still a problem by the way. Tunnels are still expensive. If you wanted to build a new line from Hellifield to Darlington, as suggested on one of the threads you linked to, it would cost an absolute fortune and again I can't see why it would be worth doing in the first place.

I'll say it again, other than the schemes which are already being developed, the scope for "new railway construction that falls between two extremes of either ultra high speed or of re-opening old lines" seems rather limited. However, I do think there is scope for bypassing slow or congested sections of the network e.g. Darlington - Newcastle. In other places it makes sense for these bypasses to be joined together as a new high speed line.

 

[eastdyke]

Hitherto this thread has mostly concentrated on moving people.
If the flow from Felixstowe across the country was of people rather than container freight there would be 'some uproar' without a new line. This to provide capacity and to reduce both journey times and propensity to disruption.
Perhaps a new line from Trimley to North of Peterborough? 4 ways on from there.
Anyone with £5 billion to invest?
As it is we have had the Ipswich Bacon Factory chord in 2014, about £60 million, (on budget and on time). Trimley 'loop', LC closures and other works which are currently under construction - another approx £60 million.
Future interventions will include some or all of:
Haughley grade separation, Stowmarket-Haughley 4 tracking, Ely-Soham doubling, Ely loops, Ely/Ely North junction, Ely avoider, quite apart from re-signalling projects/headway improvements. And then still all those level crossings and pesky aspirations to run more passenger trains!

 

[30907]

Hitherto this thread has mostly concentrated on moving people.
If the flow from Felixstowe across the country was of people rather than container freight there would be 'some uproar' without a new line.

While I don't think a new line is remotely likely, it's an important link, and corresponds to the one new major cross-country road since the motorway X, ie the A14 plus all the upgrades East of the A1.

 

[deltic08]

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.

The study you refer to was published in Feb 2006 and is nearly 13 years out of date. Further studies have been done since then on the whole route Harrogate-Northallerton and is a more healthy BCR for being a through route. It will provide a diversion for the only piece of ECML route without one. When York-Northallerton is closed in an emergency the job stops as happens 7 times a year on average for the last 7 years. Passengers can be bused eventually but not freight particularly merry go round.

NYCC is not interested as it is a "roads" county with few railways and would rather push through a bypass than a rail reinstatement. A good example is Bedale bypass, less than two miles long costing £45m with original BCR 1.7. The figures were massaged to up the BCR above 3.0. so it would be built.

Harrohate Council are not interested because they are self centred. They have a railway so it is a case of I'm Alright Jack. They hate Ripon's guts and Ripon hates Harrohate. The sitting MP is an ex Harrogate councillor so no help there. The sitting Ripon MP is lukewarm to the idea and wants evidence before supporting us.
We have never had a website or blogpost as it only gives ammunition to the knockers like yourself. The one still on the web is unofficial.

You have the audacity to jest at those not rail connected when you already are rail connected and have had an additional spend of £1.0billion to make it even better when reconnecting Ripon would only cost a quarter of that amount.

If you can't be supportive don't knock others who are trying to do something constructive about righting the gross wrongs of the 1960s all free of charge for the benefit of others. Look at the 3rd anniversary figures for Borders Rail. 4 million journeys in 3 years.

 

[eastdyke]

The sitting Ripon MP is lukewarm to the idea and wants evidence before supporting us.

That could just be a rather important focus for the attention of all promoters?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

Further studies have been done since then [snip] The sitting Ripon MP is lukewarm to the idea and wants evidence before supporting us.

If these studies are as convincing as you keep saying then publish them and win your MP over. It's not difficult. Is it?

We have never had a website or blogpost as it only gives ammunition to the knockers like yourself. The one still on the web is unofficial.

Again if you have such convincing evidence then put it in the public domain. You'd be surprised how many "knockers" are open to reason but you are not even trying relying instead on the idea that because you are convinced that somehow everyone else should take your word for it and commit to large amounts of public expenditure.

If you can't be supportive don't knock others who are trying to do something constructive about righting the gross wrongs of the 1960s all free of charge for the benefit of others. Look at the 3rd anniversary figures for Borders Rail. 4 million journeys in 3 years.

I have gone on record more than once as saying that I support re-opening of Harrogate-Ripon. But nothing beyond. I think you'll find Borders Rail serves rather more than the (nearly) 17,000 population of Ripon as well as enjoying the support of local politicians. If you can't even get your own MP on-side why would the rest of us be interested? Note my previous remarks about being politically savvy.

 

[B&I]

Isn' the fundamental point that re-opening an old alignment (if it remains in goodish shape) will usually be cheaper than building a new one, so the new alignment will have to present some substantial advantage justifying its additional cost ?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Isn' the fundamental point that re-opening an old alignment (if it remains in goodish shape) will usually be cheaper than building a new one, so the new alignment will have to present some substantial advantage justifying its additional cost ?

Yes indeed, but there are three major caveats:

1) Many disused routes are no longer completely intact because of new buildings and roads:

2) Even when the route has not been interfered with, it will probably have deteriorated enormously and will need to be substantially reconstructed.

3) The closed route might not have been any good in the first place. We suffer today from important routes with poor alignments and low speed limits. We should not imagine that all the closed lines were suitable for high speed running.

 

[EastisECML]

I think we'd benefit a lot in the North East with some new alignments to replace existing ones. The Tyne Valley line could do with some cut-offs which follow the A69 in some places. It would mean sacrificing some small stations though.

Middlesbrough could do with a line direct to Hartlepool from the East end of the station and possible a direct link from Stockton to Middlesbrough which leaves Thornaby purely to trains from Darlington and Northallerton.

A bypass of Northallerton and Croft and a new alignment for the ECML between Darlington and the Leamside line. Possibly with a branch to Middlesbrough or Stockton to avoid trains passing through Yarm.

The Leamside alignment seems reasonable for reactivation as a moderate speed Durham bypass. The curved bridge before Washington might not be a problem if Washington or Washington Parkway were intended to be a major station for the area with all trains calling.

North of Newcastle Virgin's proposed bypass from Killingworth to Chevington would be useful for freeing up space for trains to call at Cramlington, Morpeth, Pegswood and Widdrington Station. If anyone's read the HS2 report about Anglo-Scottish high speed links I'd even say their option of a new line from Newcastle (let's say Killingworth for arguments sake) to Grantshouse (just past Berwick) would be useful to replace the current mainline through the county. But with the Cramlington - Morpeth - Pegswood - Widdrington line connecting to the new alignment at both ends as a loop. An LGV style station beside Alnwick and a connection to Berwick so that is also on a loop. I'm envisaging a mix of high speed trains racing through the county alongside German/Dutch type high'ish speed inter-regional services.

 

[FQTV]

I think we'd benefit a lot in the North East with some new alignments to replace existing ones. The Tyne Valley line could do with some cut-offs which follow the A69 in some places. It would mean sacrificing some small stations though.

Middlesbrough could do with a line direct to Hartlepool from the East end of the station and possible a direct link from Stockton to Middlesbrough which leaves Thornaby purely to trains from Darlington and Northallerton.

A bypass of Northallerton and Croft and a new alignment for the ECML between Darlington and the Leamside line. Possibly with a branch to Middlesbrough or Stockton to avoid trains passing through Yarm.

The Leamside alignment seems reasonable for reactivation as a moderate speed Durham bypass. The curved bridge before Washington might not be a problem if Washington or Washington Parkway were intended to be a major station for the area with all trains calling.

North of Newcastle Virgin's proposed bypass from Killingworth to Chevington would be useful for freeing up space for trains to call at Cramlington, Morpeth, Pegswood and Widdrington Station. If anyone's read the HS2 report about Anglo-Scottish high speed links I'd even say their option of a new line from Newcastle (let's say Killingworth for arguments sake) to Grantshouse (just past Berwick) would be useful to replace the current mainline through the county. But with the Cramlington - Morpeth - Pegswood - Widdrington line connecting to the new alignment at both ends as a loop. An LGV style station beside Alnwick and a connection to Berwick so that is also on a loop. I'm envisaging a mix of high speed trains racing through the county alongside German/Dutch type high'ish speed inter-regional services.

Darlington to Tursdale is indeed very windy in parts, although it's perhaps also the case that straightening it out would only save a few minutes off the journey time on what's already a very competitive journey time between (say) Newcastle, Durham and Darlington.

Northallerton to Croft would really only benefit stoppers rather than long distance, I think, given that the existing line is already 'the racetrack'.

I agree very much that, now that the Newport Bridge is bolted down and there's next to no river traffic, a lower Tees crossing to make a Teesside Loop could be transformational to mobility in the area. It comes back to the political will, of course, with Hartlepool not getting defensive that everyone will up-sticks to work in Middlesbrough; Middlesbrough not getting over-confident and Yarm and Stockton stopping fretting about being part of Teesside and wanting to declare UDI back into North Yorkshire and Durham respectively.

The other link that I think would make a huge difference in the area is Sunderland to Durham, which of course would be bolstered by the Leamside reopening. The A690 road, particularly at the A1(M) and A19 junctions, is heavily over-burdened, and Sunderland is hampered by having only the slow Durham Coast Line for a heavy rail connection.

Reconnecting Sunderland to the ECML both at Tursdale via the Leamside and at Newton Hall to allow Durham <> Sunderland flows as well as longer-distance ones could open up lots of different opportunities and encourage real modal shift, I suspect.

 

[Bald Rick]

Isn' the fundamental point that re-opening an old alignment (if it remains in goodish shape) will usually be cheaper than building a new one, so the new alignment will have to present some substantial advantage justifying its additional cost ?

Cheaper, yes, but not by much. If in ‘goodish’ shape (ie the civils and structures have had some form of maintenance in the past half century), maybe 20-40% cheaper, depending on the nature of the line. If not then perhaps 5-15% cheaper, and possibly more expensive.

Note there are very few old alignments that have had civils maintenance in the last half century.

 

[EastisECML]

Darlington to Tursdale is indeed very windy in parts, although it's perhaps also the case that straightening it out would only save a few minutes off the journey time on what's already a very competitive journey time between (say) Newcastle, Durham and Darlington.

Northallerton to Croft would really only benefit stoppers rather than long distance, I think, given that the existing line is already 'the racetrack'.

If I remember correctly I read in the report I was referring to (https://assets.publishing.service.g...ds/attachment_data/file/506022/NES_Report.pdf) that there is capacity strain from Northallerton to Newcastle. So rather than just being about speed, a couple of more tracks would be useful for relieving pressure. I think upgrading the Northallerton-Stockton-Ferryhill line as a secondary route is ruled out.

Personally I think serving Chester Le Street with more frequent trains should be a priority. Something that could perhaps be achieved by sending long distance trains due to terminate at Newcastle up the Leamside line.

I agree very much that, now that the Newport Bridge is bolted down and there's next to no river traffic, a lower Tees crossing to make a Teesside Loop could be transformational to mobility in the area. It comes back to the political will, of course, with Hartlepool not getting defensive that everyone will up-sticks to work in Middlesbrough; Middlesbrough not getting over-confident and Yarm and Stockton stopping fretting about being part of Teesside and wanting to declare UDI back into North Yorkshire and Durham respectively.

I'd imagine if the Leamside and Stillington lines are reopened and Middlesbrough gets a direct rail link to Newcastle a faster link to Hartlepool may end up on the back burner?

The other link that I think would make a huge difference in the area is Sunderland to Durham, which of course would be bolstered by the Leamside reopening. The A690 road, particularly at the A1(M) and A19 junctions, is heavily over-burdened, and Sunderland is hampered by having only the slow Durham Coast Line for a heavy rail connection.

Reconnecting Sunderland to the ECML both at Tursdale via the Leamside and at Newton Hall to allow Durham <> Sunderland flows as well as longer-distance ones could open up lots of different opportunities and encourage real modal shift, I suspect.

Sunderland is really going to need its Metrolink to be re-electrified to 25 KV to unlock additional rail links. Either that or it's going to end up being the catchment area for a station at Washington. I'm not sure what can be done about the capacity issues on the Pelaw-Sunderland line. But as a start I think Sunderland's main railway station should be restored to four platforms to allow more terminating services alongside the busy metro operation.

 

[DarloRich]

The study you refer to was published in Feb 2006 and is nearly 13 years out of date. Further studies have been done since then on the whole route Harrogate-Northallerton and is a more healthy BCR for being a through route. It will provide a diversion for the only piece of ECML route without one. When York-Northallerton is closed in an emergency the job stops as happens 7 times a year on average for the last 7 years. Passengers can be bused eventually but not freight particularly merry go round.

Shall we be sensible about this? How many times is the ECML shut? 7 times a year? Really? For how long? Hours? That doesnt justify this idea. There is no diversion on the WCML between London and Birmigham. Perhaps we should take the money for Ripon and build one! Diversion routes butter no parsnips

Freight? Yesterday Northallerton saw 8 freight movements. They were broken down as follows:

1 x Royal Mail Willesden - Low Fell. No opportunity to travel via Ripon
1 x York - Thirslington No opportunity to travel via Ripon
1 x Doncaster to North Bylth - a very convoluted trip via Ripon possible if we disregard Leeds station
1 x Doncaster to Millerhill - a very convoluted trip via Ripon possible if we disregard Leeds station
1 x New Biggin British Gypsum to Tees Dock - ROUTE VIA RIPON POSSIBLE!
1 x Doncaster to Tyne - a very convoluted trip via Ripon possible if we disregard Leeds station
1 x Royal Mail Low Fell - Willesden No opportunity to travel via Ripon
1 x Drax - Tyne coal terminal - a pointlessly convoluted trip via Ripon possible if we disregard Leeds station

So we have 1 train that could run via Ripon and 4 more if we take the most charitable routing possible. That doesn't seem like a great basis for investment! Where do you suggest the extra freight to justify this line would come from?

NYCC is not interested as it is a "roads" county with few railways and would rather push through a bypass than a rail reinstatement. A good example is Bedale bypass, less than two miles long costing £45m with original BCR 1.7. The figures were massaged to up the BCR above 3.0. so it would be built.

it is a good bit of road that removes a bottle neck at the narrow cross roads in Bedale and makes the journey up the dales quicker. The approach road from the A1 seems long mind!

Harrohate Council are not interested because they are self centred. They have a railway so it is a case of I'm Alright Jack. They hate Ripon's guts and Ripon hates Harrohate. The sitting MP is an ex Harrogate councillor so no help there. The sitting Ripon MP is lukewarm to the idea and wants evidence before supporting us.

So your local MP doesn't buy in and "wants to see evidence". That wont help matters............................

We have never had a website or blogpost as it only gives ammunition to the knockers like yourself. The one still on the web is unofficial.

that seems a bit silly and backwards looking. Perhaps the point about political savvy is accurate! A decent, professional well presented web site with detailed documentation will help the case no end. if you have these superb studies publish them.

You have the audacity to jest at those not rail connected when you already are rail connected and have had an additional spend of £1.0billion to make it even better when reconnecting Ripon would only cost a quarter of that amount.

any Ripon to Northallerton wouldn't wash it's face as they say. Harrogate to Ripon MIGHT just pass muster. Might.

If you can't be supportive don't knock others who are trying to do something constructive about righting the gross wrongs of the 1960s all free of charge for the benefit of others. Look at the 3rd anniversary figures for Borders Rail. 4 million journeys in 3 years.

You seem to expect everyone just to agree with the essential rightness of your position. Sadly I don't. It seems your local politicians don't. It seems NR LNE Route and the Toc's don't.

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.

A sensible post. Some of the more outlandish posters on this thread would to well to absorb the contents.