(Entirely) new railway lines

[Mcr Warrior]

Building lines is great as long as they follow the paths of old routes (Something Something Beeching Something). But trying to solve problems by building on new alignments is a definite no-no.

For example, it's fine to suggest building a Sheffield - Manchester line via Woodhead (because that's an ancient line) but there seems a lot of hostility to the idea of building a Sheffield - Manchester route via Snake Pass (because that'd be a brand new alignment - at least in the middle section).

Sensible new alignments would be fine. Glossop to Sheffield via Snake Pass really isn't. Might look good on a map with a big box of crayons but it ain't ever going to happen. Reality check required!

 

[Metrolink]

I'm not pro-Snake Pass (for a start, how is it going to serve Sheffield? The western end would be fine, since you have the existing line from Manchester to Glossop but... are you going to knock down chunks of Hillsborough and approach down the Rivelin Valley? Complete non-starter) but the existing Hope Valley line means that trains between the two city centres take just short of an hour to cover around thirty miles as the crow flies - pretty poor considering the size of the two cities. Plus, you've got the capacity problems through Dore, the slow freight, the flat junctions... there's a lot of focus on Leeds - Manchester but not much on the Sheffield line.

I agree. A snake pass line isn’t going to solve any problems and could cause more. Manchester- Sheffield isn’t talked about often and is still a capacity issue. Actions need to be taken to improve the line.

For example, it's fine to suggest building a Sheffield - Manchester line via Woodhead (because that's an ancient line) but there seems a lot of hostility to the idea of building a Sheffield - Manchester route via Snake Pass (because that'd be a brand new alignment - at least in the middle section).

I don’t have a major issue with a line on old alignment because I think that could be easier achieved that could be a help to improving cross-peak services, however that is another matter.

 

[EastisECML]

Apologies if I'm repeating anyone else's ideas here:

Hartlepool - Middlesbrough station east throat

Killingworth - Alnmouth

Berwick - Edinburgh(ish)

Newcastle - Darlington

Northallerton - Middlesbrough

Exeter - Plymouth

Birmingham - Burton

Liverpool - Manchester Airport - Manchester - Bradford 'St James' - Leeds - York

Bradford 'St James' - Bradford Forster Square

Newtown/New Mills tunnel - Dore

Carstairs - Glasgow

Edinburgh - Edinburgh Airport - Inverkeithing - Kinross - Perth/Glencarse

A new trunk line from the channel tunnel to the north for UIC freight trains.

Morecambe - Barrow

New main Glasgow terminal in the East of the city to replace the other two with tunnelled lines to divert national trains into it. With a new cross city tunnel for replacing the existing two and funnelling all local trains west-east under the new terminal.

 

[The Planner]

Birmingham Burton?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Apologies if I'm repeating anyone else's ideas here:

Carstairs - Glasgow

Aren't there currently a handful of (peak hour) services calling at Carstairs and thence into Glasgow Central?

 

[popeter45]

okay so crayon time!

a new HS2-esk line complenet the GWML as a non-stop London Paddinton - Bristol line bypassing Reading,Swindon and Bath
a new Bridge to replace the Seven Tunnel
a line to connect Bude to the NR network
a rural-side ECML-HS1 connection
a system of rural batter/bi mode tram-trains in areas of south west wales like the Gower and pembrokshire

 

[Irascible]

Apologies if I'm repeating anyone else's ideas here:

Exeter - Plymouth

---

A new trunk line from the channel tunnel to the north for UIC freight trains.

Exeter-Plymouth came up before - I got shot down for suggesting the current line wasn't good enough when all I wanted to do was straighten some bits & move a station. If you're building new though you'd want to go at least to Taunton - I suspect it wouldn't be very hard to speed up Taunton-Bristol if you wanted, it's flat & straight most of the way. Alternatively head for Bournemouth/Southampton & then go for OOC or something along those lines.

I think we discussed in this thread somewhere that freight-only lines are really hard to justify - a UIC line would also fit double deck passenger trains, so it'd be even harder to justify being freight only, I think. Note I'm not saying "don't do it".

 

[southern442]

You've hit upon one of the Forum's main reactions. Building lines is great as long as they follow the paths of old routes (Something Something Beeching Something). But trying to solve problems by building on new alignments is a definite no-no.

This here was basically the main reason for me creating this thread. Obviously there are some lines that beeching closed that he shouldn't have, but it's also important to note that when thinking about a railway network for the future (and not just with regards to high speed) we should not limit ourselves to believing that everything that has been done before is an exhaustive list of what could be done in the future.

When considering a new railway link, it is important to consider the railway lines that have come before and see if they could be useful, but it is also equally as important to consider if there is a better way of doing it.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In theory, just about any new alignment would be possible if you threw enough money at the project.

Billions rather than millions.

Surely the acid test for any "(entirely) new lines" would be whether (i) they would actually be used and (ii) represented value for money.

Otherwise, what's the point?

 

[Irascible]

This here was basically the main reason for me creating this thread. Obviously there are some lines that beeching closed that he shouldn't have, but it's also important to note that when thinking about a railway network for the future (and not just with regards to high speed) we should not limit ourselves to believing that everything that has been done before is an exhaustive list of what could be done in the future.

When considering a new railway link, it is important to consider the railway lines that have come before and see if they could be useful, but it is also equally as important to consider if there is a better way of doing it.

As has also been said repeatedly anyway, rebuilding a 60s closure is an entirely new line as it is aside from perhaps reusing any still extant station architecture - how much does that *really* happen? - and tunnels/bridges. Possibly the "entirely new line" part is stifling things given you might want/need to partially use an old formation.

 

[tbtc]

This here was basically the main reason for me creating this thread. Obviously there are some lines that beeching closed that he shouldn't have, but it's also important to note that when thinking about a railway network for the future (and not just with regards to high speed) we should not limit ourselves to believing that everything that has been done before is an exhaustive list of what could be done in the future.

When considering a new railway link, it is important to consider the railway lines that have come before and see if they could be useful, but it is also equally as important to consider if there is a better way of doing it.

I agree - and I find it very frustrating.

For example, Bakewell is pretty close to Chesterfield and Sheffield; in normal times it has two buses per hour to Chesterfield and two buses per hour to Sheffield. Yet every time Bakewell gets mentioned on here it's as part of a Derby - Bakewell - Manchester mega-scheme because that's an old route, and re-opening old routes is much more important to some people than assessing actual modern travel patterns

Forfar is only ever suggested as a Perth - Forfar - Aberdeen service, when Forfar travel patterns are much more about Dundee (Dundee is much closer than Perth, Dundee has more jobs than Perth, but there was an old railway to Perth so that's people's obsession rather than where Forfar people actually want to go)

It's the same mentality with the box-ticking focus on every village having "a" station (not necessarily a station on a line to somewhere significant).

Same with service patterns - e.g. any long distance services from Morecambe must go to Leeds, to reflect where Victorians went on holiday when West Yorkshire's mills were closed, rather than Manchester (even though you'd think that Manchester was more important nowadays).

Sensible new alignments would be fine. Glossop to Sheffield via Snake Pass really isn't. Might look good on a map with a big box of crayons but it ain't ever going to happen. Reality check required!

I'm certainly not one of the people suggesting a Snake line.

But I do feel that people's reaction to "Snake" or "Woodhead" are often determined by "Was it a nineteenth century route or not" rather than a practical assessment of needs / costs etc

In theory, just about any new alignment would be possible if you threw enough money at the project.

Billions rather than millions.

Surely the acid test for any "(entirely) new lines" would be whether (i) they would actually be used and (ii) represented value for money.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Surely the same is true of building any "old" alignment too?

Or are there different standards that apply?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Or are there different standards that apply?

Probably not that you'd much notice as others have commented.

Old alignments no doubt were largely governed by what was technically possible by the standards of the time when they were originally built, always at a given price before the budgetted money ran out, with line gradients no more than x% for example. But following the contours of the land have often meant twisty stretches of line over which maximum line speeds are restricted.

Modern (new) alignments need not necessarily be constrained by such considerations. But at what cost?

 

[southern442]

In theory, just about any new alignment would be possible if you threw enough money at the project.

Billions rather than millions.

Surely the acid test for any "(entirely) new lines" would be whether (i) they would actually be used and (ii) represented value for money.

Otherwise, what's the point?

Well let me be clear that this was always the standard for this thread. My intention in creating this thread was not to say 'come up with any new railway line or new high speed corridor that pops into your head', it was simply suggesting useful rail connections that would otherwise be shut down as suggestions because there wasn't a line there beforehand.

 

[Irascible]

Modern (new) alignments need not necessarily be constrained by such considerations. But at what cost?

If you can just go over a hill rather than round it - given even following a 60 year old formation is as much as a new one - why is it going to cost more?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

If you can just go over a hill rather than round it - given even following a 60 year old formation is as much as a new one - why is it going to cost more?

Might do, might not.

A possible example. It's long been proposed that there should be a new "direct" line between Tain and Golspie across the Dornoch Firth and then passing by (or passing through) Dornoch which would probably reduce overall end-to-end journey times on the Far North line.

New bit of connecting line, some presumably rather expensive bridge work across the Dornoch Firth, maybe but not necessarily, the re-use of part of the alignment of the old Dornoch Light Railway, with the end benefit being much reduced journey times along the Far North line, but overall would the cost be worth it?

In conclusion, can't really see the point in adding any new sections of route to the national rail network at present if the cost is going to be stratospheric and the resultant cost-benefit is negligible.

Open to persuasive arguments on this!

But just because some new section of line is now technically possible (at a great cost, like a Manchester-Sheffield route over or under the Snake Pass) doesn't mean that it should necessarily then be built.

 

[Irascible]

In conclusion, can't really see the point in adding any new sections of route to the national rail network at present if the cost is going to be stratospheric and the resultant cost-benefit is negligible.

That is true of reopenings, new lines, upgrading existing ones, anything... I feel the point behind this thread was to find new routes which haven't ( in part or full ) ever had a rail service, and which might actually have a case, not just draw new good looking lines on a map

 

[Mcr Warrior]

In conclusion, can't really see the point in adding any new sections of route to the national rail network at present if the cost is going to be stratospheric and the resultant cost-benefit is negligible.

That is true of reopenings, new lines, upgrading existing ones, anything... I feel the point behind this thread was to find new routes which haven't ( in part or full ) ever had a rail service, and which might actually have a case, not just draw new good looking lines on a map

Indeed. I think we are then agreed.

Perhaps all the most obvious new routes which make genuine economic sense have now already been built, with the possible exception of a few short chords in a number of strategic locations?!

 

[StewLane]

Has a connection between the Watford DC lines and the Southern ever been considered? It would remove the DC platforms from the existing Euston station and provide connections through to South London. Useful too in providing onward connections for HS2

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps all the most obvious new routes which make genuine economic sense have now already been built, with the possible exception of a few short chords in a number of strategic locations?!

Or towns that have grown up since 1900 which could deserve their own branch lines, although of course most of those have deliberately been sited near existing railways. One notable new link (although not entirely a new rail corridor) I would consider would be Glynde-Ringmer-Uckfield.

Has a connection between the Watford DC lines and the Southern ever been considered? It would remove the DC platforms from the existing Euston station and provide connections through to South London. Useful too in providing onward connections for HS2

If you wanted to remove the DC platforms you could hand the line over to LU or run the DC line trains on to Primrose Hill (or even the NLL, if you kicked some other LO services out). However, Euston is a key destination (either for the tube or Euston Road area) for a lot of DC line commuters so why move the trains away from where people want to go? DC line trains can currently access the West London via reversal at Kensal Green turnback and Willesden Jn HL, or via Camden and the link to HS1 (if equipped appropriately).

Building a link would either cause a very large number of conflicts or need very costly engineering/demolition as the DC lines run around the outer edge of Wembley Yard with the Willesden Relief Lines (the link to the West London Line) running immediately adjacent to the WCML.

 

[StewLane]

Or towns that have grown up since 1900 which could deserve their own branch lines, although of course most of those have deliberately been sited near existing railways. One notable new link (although not entirely a new rail corridor) I would consider would be Glynde-Ringmer-Uckfield.


If you wanted to remove the DC platforms you could hand the line over to LU or run the DC line trains on to Primrose Hill (or even the NLL, if you kicked some other LO services out). However, Euston is a key destination (either for the tube or Euston Road area) for a lot of DC line commuters so why move the trains away from where people want to go? DC line trains can currently access the West London via reversal at Kensal Green turnback and Willesden Jn HL, or via Camden and the link to HS1 (if equipped appropriately).

Building a link would either cause a very large number of conflicts or need very costly engineering/demolition as the DC lines run around the outer edge of Wembley Yard with the Willesden Relief Lines (the link to the West London Line) running immediately adjacent to the WCML.

I had in mind they would call at Euston and it would become crossrail 3

 

[zwk500]

I had in mind they would call at Euston and it would become crossrail 3

Where would you link to on the Southern side?

 

[PaulLothian]

One think I haven't mentioned explicitly that I'd like to advocate for is rail links that go into the centre of New Towns. For example, we have a Livingston North and South, I think a new-build rail link should be perhaps one to Livingston Central, near the main shopping centre. The car-centered nature of new towns in the UK is very outdated, and having one station on the very edge of a large town, much like an airport, encourages leaving out train journeys for 'special occasions' and makes the idea of daily commuting by rail unrealistic, so perhaps more centrally-located stations like this could do some good.

I think that it would have been preferable for New Town planners to have designed in good rail links at the outset! Unfortunately in the 1960s that was the last thing on their minds. Specifically in relation to Livingston, a new central station wouldn't solve as many problems as we would all like. The town 'centre' is now quite wide-spread, with busy retail parks scattered around it, generally not connected in a particularly pedestrian-friendly way. Leisure venues are not all centrally-situated either. The population distribution puts the biggest masses of housing well up the hill-sides on either side of the river. While a majority of the population of Livingston lives within a mile of the two Livingston stations or of Uphall, which is the nearest station for NE Livingston, travelling that sort of distance to then travel a mile or so to the centre by train will not be most people's choice. While Livingston is a regional centre as well as a local one, to use the train to get to Livingston Central will require more than one mode of transport for most people.
Arguably what Livingston would find more useful would be a tram network, preferably an extension of the Edinburgh proposed network, linking the stations, the centre and the residential districts. At the cost of slightly slower and longer journies within the town, it would be possible to get people to where they actually want to be!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Arguably what Livingston would find more useful would be a tram network, preferably an extension of the Edinburgh proposed network, linking the stations, the centre and the residential districts. At the cost of slightly slower and longer journies within the town, it would be possible to get people to where they actually want to be!

You may well be right!

If it were to be a heavy rail (or tram) route through Livingston, perhaps connecting with both the Bathgate and Shotts lines, which way might it go through the town? The vicinity of the A899 is presumably already quite busy.

Livvy looks quite a built up place right now!

 

[EastisECML]

Exeter-Plymouth came up before - I got shot down for suggesting the current line wasn't good enough when all I wanted to do was straighten some bits & move a station. If you're building new though you'd want to go at least to Taunton - I suspect it wouldn't be very hard to speed up Taunton-Bristol if you wanted, it's flat & straight most of the way. Alternatively head for Bournemouth/Southampton & then go for OOC or something along those lines.

I think we discussed in this thread somewhere that freight-only lines are really hard to justify - a UIC line would also fit double deck passenger trains, so it'd be even harder to justify being freight only, I think. Note I'm not saying "don't do it".

A mixed use line seems fine, just with freight being giving priority when required. It could fill the gap between HS2 at Toton and London via the M1 corridor. And link directly to HS1 somewhere in London. The other end could bolster the case for some sort of new/heavily upgraded line from Sheffield to Manchester. And from Sheffield to York via Pontefract.

Aren't there currently a handful of (peak hour) services calling at Carstairs and thence into Glasgow Central?

It's the local services north of Carstairs that need by-passing.

I forgot to mention a new line from Bristol to Newport under the Severn. And if Reading to London passenger numbers need separating from other services perhaps a new line from Paddington to Didcot would be in order?

 

[StewLane]

Where would you link to on the Southern side?

Either Battersea Park then towards Brixton and link up with Overground services or via Herne Hill while also sorting that flat junction out. I have no set ideas but it just seems odd that I have never seen a proposal to continue the DC services onwards to the Southern. They are a bit of an oddball at Euston.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

​

EastisECML said:
Apologies if I'm repeating anyone else's ideas here:

Carstairs - Glasgow

It's the local services north of Carstairs that need by-passing.

Agree that it can be a right old crawl from Carstairs into Glasgow Central, but if you were to want to do something about that section of line, wouldn't you maybe quadruple track the existing double track rather than build an entirely new line and instead have both up (and down) fast and slow lines alongside each other?

 

[30907]

Either Battersea Park then towards Brixton and link up with Overground services or via Herne Hill while also sorting that flat junction out. I have no set ideas but it just seems odd that I have never seen a proposal to continue the DC services onwards to the Southern. They are a bit of an oddball at Euston.

Probably because a cross-London tunnel would have to carry 20-24 full-length tph to make construction economical.
Even if you built it, and diverted the whole outer-suburban service over it, your second problem is that the Watford DC lines can only cope with 5-car trains or so, which would be awkward through Central LondonLondon (though fine to connect up with LO.

 

[MrPosh]

If we're getting crayons out, then a major City which seems very poorly connected is Norwich. Yes it has trains to most places, but they are very slow - new lines aren't just about connecting places without railway stations to the network, but also about catering for modern travel requirements

Thus I'd build a new 125mph mainline from Cambridge to Norwich, directly linking Norwich to the most important commercial and technological City, possibly outside of London. Just one stop (Bury St Edmunds) and a drastically reduced journey time over the pitiful existing one via Ely

This also gives the possibility of reducing journey times from Norwich to London, by having express trains from Norwich to Kings Cross, especially if HS2 takes takes over some of the existing ECML services to give some spare capacity. The Hitchin to Cambridge line would need to be heavily upgraded too or possibly bypassed, plus Cambridge station would probably need expanding

Give me £20bn, and I'll get on with it

I think a route North West out of Cambridge to the ECML somewhere South of Peterborough would be beneficial - especially if your Norwich corridor was getting built.

Cambridge is a major centre and only reason ably accessible from London for a decent journey time.

This would open up better long distance connections for Cambridge to the North, as well as a commuter corridor to Peterborough.

It would also make Stansted more accessible.

I know there's the old line to Huntington, but I don't think there was ever a connection to the ECML and, if we're only ripping up farmland, why not make it more direct.

 

[Mikey C]

I think a route North West out of Cambridge to the ECML somewhere South of Peterborough would be beneficial - especially if your Norwich corridor was getting built.

Cambridge is a major centre and only reason ably accessible from London for a decent journey time.

This would open up better long distance connections for Cambridge to the North, as well as a commuter corridor to Peterborough.

It would also make Stansted more accessible.

I know there's the old line to Huntington, but I don't think there was ever a connection to the ECML and, if we're only ripping up farmland, why not make it more direct.

Exactly, a route following the recently rebuilt A14 would make more sense, reusing an existing corridor and joining the ECML south of Huntingdon

 

[30907]

How about a freight bypass for Ely, roughly following the A10?