Given the Shapps announcement, which lines would you propose for reopening?

[yorksrob]

Blyth also of course

Indeed, of course Blythe !

 

[AlanL]

There are a couple of lines in Shropshire which look likely to reopen due to special circumstances. The line to Ironbridge is still intact and there is a new redevelopment project planned for the old Ironbridge Power station site and the developers are keen to reopen the line initially for waste removal, then for commuters from the large proposed housing development, so there will be third party funding available. Secondly the Gobowen to Oswestry line is also almost completely intact and there are already draft plans for its reopening.

 

[The Planner]

There are a couple of lines in Shropshire which look likely to reopen due to special circumstances. The line to Ironbridge is still intact and there is a new redevelopment project planned for the old Ironbridge Power station site and the developers are keen to reopen the line initially for waste removal, then for commuters from the large proposed housing development, so there will be third party funding available. Secondly the Gobowen to Oswestry line is also almost completely intact and there are already draft plans for its reopening.

Ironbridge won't wash its face, it would need an entirely new service to somewhere (not to New St) , a complete refurb of the branch and the stock to run it.

 

[camflyer]

Lewes to Uckfield looks like a no-brainer due to capacity problem on the Brighton Mainline but the much bigger (multi-billion) project would be a whole new line from Brighton to London and northwards in what has been called Thameslink 2

At the opposition end of the financial scale there are some very small reopenings which would make a huge difference, such as the Newmarket West Curve opening up routes to Soham and Ely.

 

[DJ_K666]

Lewes to Uckfield looks like a no-brainer due to capacity problem on the Brighton Mainline but the much bigger (multi-billion) project would be a whole new line from Brighton to London and northwards in what has been called Thameslink 2

At the opposition end of the financial scale there are some very small reopenings which would make a huge difference, such as the Newmarket West Curve opening up routes to Soham and Ely.

That's Brighton Main Line 2, which I absolutely support. I would prefer stations reopening at Isfield and Barcombe as well as a new stop at Hamsey
www.bml2.co.uk. Maria Caulfield mentioned it to Grant Shapps and he was said to be very interested in seeing the proposals. There is also funding in place via a large consortium plus detailed design work going on, remember pretty much every bridge and structure has to be re-designed and checked.

Regarding Shoreham to Horsham I do believe the route was protected although new flats at Shoreham will put the kybosh on it as they helpfully removed some of the embankment. Further up I believe Bramber station is buried, and a covered way would be necessary to put the line through the roundabout there. The Steyning bypass has just enough room to shift it over and a single line put in alongside, Otherwise a cut and cover tunnel would be necessary. I had a theory on how to do this without closing the road but whether it's practical or do-able I really don't know. At Partridge Green there is an industrial estate on the line although I believe the buildings are unoccupied or at least lightly used. There are also two houses on the trackbed so replacement and demolition would be necessary. At West Grinstead the station platforms still exist as so the platform ends at Southwater, along with the road bridge there, almost like it's waiting to be reused. All in all not impossible just very expensive. I do wonder if those who bought the land to build on had clauses inserted into the land purchase agreements about the line reopening.

 

[xotGD]

Indeed, of course Blythe !

Not Blythe. Blyth!

 

[yorksrob]

Not Blythe. Blyth!

You'll have to forgive me - I've not been there yet due to a lack of transport options !

 

[randyrippley]

Was Shap at risk of losing its bus service a few years ago ? And now only has one or two buses a day ? A station there would make a useful point for commencing walks through the Eastern Lakes and towards the Dales.

If you're going to reopen Shap, you might as well do Tebay as well, and while you're at it restore the Ingleton branch

 

[AlanL]

Ironbridge won't wash its face, it would need an entirely new service to somewhere (not to New St) , a complete refurb of the branch and the stock to run it.

Yes, your completely right that they can't get into Birmingham, but there is a possibility of a PandR station at Madeley Jnt, or a shuttle into the unused bay platform at Wolverhampton or with a new small westerly chord to go to Telford and terminate in the unused bay platform 3 at Wellington. There are possibilities given that there is significant outside funding available from developers (who need to secure a large planning application with associated large public transport enhancements).

 

[Essan]

Locally, to me, the obvious one is Honeybourne - Stratford. Which has already been proposed in conjunction with new housing development at Long Marston.

The Shakespeare Line Promotion Group (SLPG) is urging the district council to commission a study into the economic benefits of re-opening the Honeybourne Railway Line, following concerns from the county council about potential traffic from the Long Marston Garden Village site.

Earlier this year Warwickshire County Council along with Gloucestershire and Worcestershire County Councils said that they could not further assess the planning application for the garden village without more information about the impact on the local highways network.

With the cost of the South Western Relief Road (SWRR), which has been proposed to mitigate traffic from the site, spiralling from an initial £40million to around £130million, SLPG argue that a study should now be commissioned to examine how re-opening the line could benefit the area.

https://www.stratford-herald.com/103100-council-urged-commission-honeybourne-rail-study.html

It might also improve journey times north from Evesham given that current estimations are that the next ice age will start before Worcestershire Parkway opens .....

 

[si404]

Lewes to Uckfield looks like a no-brainer due to capacity problem on the Brighton Mainline but the much bigger (multi-billion) project would be a whole new line from Brighton to London and northwards in what has been called Thameslink 2

That's Brighton Main Line 2, which I absolutely support. I would prefer stations reopening at Isfield and Barcombe as well as a new stop at Hamsey
www.bml2.co.uk.

This Thameslink 2 / BML2 thing is the problem that Lewes to Uckfield faces - rather than a fairly simple reopening of a few miles of railway along an existing track bed (though probably also some upgrades of the existing route), it becomes part of a multi-billion pound project and trapped in that framework.

BML2 have certainly put the work in to make it less absurd crayoning and more reasonable proposal in recent years. However even the Sussex phase in isolation they throw in a tunnel bypassing Lewes and talk about it being a full time alternative route to London from Brighton and not just a diversionary route - necessitating more comprehensive upgrades (eg linespeed - London Bridge to Uckfield takes longer than London Bridge to Brighton) of the Uckfield line. It also raises the question of where there's room north of Croydon for those additional trains (it's not the 1 path a more focused reopening would perhaps require) - something they know is an issue hence why their proposal is multi-billion as that's what it takes to fix!

 

[Clayton]

^^ THIS!^^

If you can't make a viable operation with a twenty five seater minibus then you shouldn't be considering heavy rail as the answer.

I like Shap - fond memories of the New Balance shop there - but if a business case is based on the grounds of "if you opened a few stations on a two track main line with several high long distance speed services on it and offered discounted tickets like Rovers then it might attract a few people for the summer months" then we should really be focussing attention on places where there is a clear demand.

For example, Tavistock has four commercial buses per hour to Plymouth, that's a clear market, that's a good enough distance for train travel to be competitive, that's a clear case of "commuter town and nearest big city" that works well for heavy rail - Tavistock ought to be relatively high up a list of future re-openings (it's just that it always seems to get weaved in with the obsession that others have about a Waterloo - Okehampton - Plymouth service - I think that a short stub to Tavistock would work perfectly well on its own but people aren't campaigning for that in sufficient number because they want a nice big juicy line through the middle of nowhere under the pretext of Dawlish).

Elsewhere, look at commercial bus routes as a guide to where there's a clear demand for public transport, look at combinations of "commuter town and nearest big city" like the Tavistock/Plymouth example. So, Portishead/Bristol. Ashington/Newcastle. Peterhead/Aberdeen. Keep it simple, show a clear everyday demand, forget about "diversionary resilience" or seasonal tourism or other high minded stuff. Focus on boring urban stubs rather than scenic locations (however nice an Aberystwyth - Carmarthen service might be to ride on if the sun were shining, we'd be better attending to uglier places that need simple connections to the jobs of the nearest big city - e.g. in Scotland I'd rather have Renfrew/ Methil than Callander/ Newcastleton).

Oh, and there's a difference between "a station" and "a station that's actually useful to the people who live there". I see suggestions for lines on the basis of "putting a town back on the map" but for services that wouldn't actually link the town with the nearest big city. Whilst I'm sure that Forfar is on the list of "places without a station", a line from Aberdeen to Perth won't be much use to the majority of locals who work/shop in Dundee. I've seen other suggestions of putting Maltby on the map by re-opening the freight line from Worksop to Doncaster to passenger traffic (ignoring the fact that Maltby people gravitate towards Rotherham/ Meadowhall/ Sheffield). Otherwise we are spending huge sums on giving a place a station on the "wrong" route.

Most people live fairly unremarkable lives, they have fairly unremarkable commutes, fairly unremarkable shopping habits. I should know, I'm one of these predictable people! Give us something simple and it'll work. Spending hundreds of millions of pounds on routes because they might be useful for diversions on a couple of weekends a year isn't going to help much.

That’s remarkably sensible! One of the main reasons for reinstatement of a line is surely to give a quick reliable way through heavy rush hour traffic, as with Witney to Oxford.

 

[DJ_K666]

This Thameslink 2 / BML2 thing is the problem that Lewes to Uckfield faces - rather than a fairly simple reopening of a few miles of railway along an existing track bed (though probably also some upgrades of the existing route), it becomes part of a multi-billion pound project and trapped in that framework.

BML2 have certainly put the work in to make it less absurd crayoning and more reasonable proposal in recent years. However even the Sussex phase in isolation they throw in a tunnel bypassing Lewes and talk about it being a full time alternative route to London from Brighton and not just a diversionary route - necessitating more comprehensive upgrades (eg linespeed - London Bridge to Uckfield takes longer than London Bridge to Brighton) of the Uckfield line. It also raises the question of where there's room north of Croydon for those additional trains (it's not the 1 path a more focused reopening would perhaps require) - something they know is an issue hence why their proposal is multi-billion as that's what it takes to fix!

The previous studies using the Hamsey (1858) connection failed (notably the 2008 study) because the connection points the wrong way, hence the tunnel under the downs idea. North of Croydon there's talk of going up the old Selsdon line, I believe NR are building a couple of new platforms at East Croydon and not going for the BML2 idea until that's done.

 

[Neen Sollars]

Stourbridge, Brierley Hill, Dudley, Wednesfield, Walsall, then on via South Staffs line to Lichfield. Will have to share track with the Midland Metro from Wednesfield to Dudley. Local connectivity, national freight route, Worcester to Derby type route potential?

 

[The Planner]

Yes, your completely right that they can't get into Birmingham, but there is a possibility of a PandR station at Madeley Jnt, or a shuttle into the unused bay platform at Wolverhampton or with a new small westerly chord to go to Telford and terminate in the unused bay platform 3 at Wellington. There are possibilities given that there is significant outside funding available from developers (who need to secure a large planning application with associated large public transport enhancements).

You cannot get into 6 at Wolves easily from any direction as there is no pointwork to do it. A chord would need ridiculous amount of money for little benefit.

 

[The Planner]

Stourbridge, Brierley Hill, Dudley, Wednesfield, Walsall, then on via South Staffs line to Lichfield. Will have to share track with the Midland Metro from Wednesfield to Dudley. Local connectivity, national freight route, Worcester to Derby type route potential?

Can't get the freight through Worcester as there isnt the capacity and that entire route would suck up pretty much all of the 500 million.

 

[SCH117X]

This could be like closures in reverse, what is the most marginal seat with a closed railway. Aside from that Skipton to Colne would be a good one as it immediately opens up a new transpennine route with the potential to reroute freight traffic.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Blackpool South to Blackpool Central (would require some redoubling along the Blackpool South line) comes to my mind as the most obvious one. Somewhat ironically given that the Government have chosen Blackpool as one of the places to highlight in their reverse-Beeching plan - except they've picked the Fleetwood re-opening which is arguably the less useful of the two. It also ought to be very feasible since the trackbed is still intact, and there aren't any huge issues about no capacity at the other end of the line. (Even if capacity at Preston is a problem, adding one or two Blackpool-Kirkham shuttles an hour should be doable).

 

[si404]

The previous studies using the Hamsey (1858) connection failed (notably the 2008 study) because the connection points the wrong way, hence the tunnel under the downs idea.

No that study failed because they couldn't get enough passengers to use the line to get to Eastbourne in 2008. Bare in mind that rail usage was considerably less in 2008 and they've underestimate the growth since - the case has surely improved.

Later studies fixed that mistake by going to Brighton (slightly more popular from the Weald than Eastbourne, but they didn't care about that and merely wanted to grab a share of the huge passenger numbers between London and Brighton in an act of overcompensating) but made the bigger mistake of bypassing Lewes - the main destination by some way for Weald passengers. Why was Lewes bypassed? Because the simple idea that the Wealden line had before of linking Uckfield and stations north to Lewes and stations south had morphed into a new mainline from London to Brighton and going via Lewes was too slow on an already too slow route!

At the meeting where the Wealden Line Campaign jumped the shark and went all in on BML2, they had the local MP - a minister at the DfT at the time - rejecting BML2 on the basis that it missed the point by missing Lewes. But the siren call of the shiny drowned out the sensible.

You can serve both Lewes and Brighton on the same train from Uckfield fairly easily and cheaply when you realise you don't need to be super fast trying to catch up with a service that's already reversed at Brighton and started heading back north! A loop from east of Lewes station doing a tight turn to head west alongside the bypass and then merge in with the line west of Lewes station.

North of Croydon there's talk of going up the old Selsdon line

There was, but thankfully the amateur crayoning is (mostly*) over. The idea of using a disused line just because, then a mile later have to evict Tramlink from its alignment, then play havoc with Hayes line services was always silly and it was amazing that it lasted as long as it did.

The more considered BML2 proposals of recent times have replaced it with a tunneled route via East Croydon - presumably having realised that you'd have to tunnel under the existing railways between Lewisham and Croydon anyway (extending the tunnel from Stratford that exists as part of the plan because BML2 was originally going to use the SEML to get to London Bridge - having avoided Croydon due to a lack of capacity. Stuck at Lewisham they then proposed a tunnel via Canary Wharf and turned the scheme into Thameslink 2 from Cambridge and Stansted to the South Coast), and so it would be better to route that tunnel via the existing major destination/interchange rather than trying to create a brand new one a couple of miles to the south.

And yes, a big tunnel from Croydon to Stratford with 4 underground stations and all that is going to be expensive. And so the first phase of Uckfield-Falmer (and maybe Lewes if they remember it) has a lot of the case the promoters are making tied onto this further phase that's going to cost billions, and so it needs to be a gold-plated reopening so that it can fulfill that potential: the costs go up to achieve benefits that don't happen until a later phase and so can't count. The scheme doesn't happen unless it's a local link - BML2 undermines it.

*I mean the entire concept is that, but it's less ill thought through now

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There are 2 for me
Northwards from Poole towards Broadstone and Wimborne (as area has now been used for housing)

Is that the line that appears on Google maps to diverge just East of Hamworthy and follow what is now Castleman Trailway? That certainly looks interesting and serves some well built up areas, although I'm not sure how well losing the trailway would go down with locals. I suspect the main issue there is that I'm guessing Poole isn't by itself a massive Commuter pull. Bournemouth might be, but Bournemouth station is very badly located. Also, if you wanted to build the line so it connects to the mainline heading towards Poole, not towards Hamworthy, then it looks to me on Google maps like the junction might have to be built on the bridge where the line crosses Holes Bay - as building it on dry land further West might require too tight a curvature on the branch. That won't help the business case.

South from Guildford (Peasmarsh) to Cranleigh (especially if Dunsfold airport is developed, which could be alternative)

That would be high up my list too. However I suspect any feasibility study is going to run into the problem of, no capacity at Waterloo, so through trains from Cranleigh to London won't be possible. On the other hand, maybe you could serve Cranleigh by extending the Farnham-Guildford trains - that ought to be do-able fairly easily. I suspect that won't be quite as attractive as direct London trains, but could well still be worth doing.

Could tbtc (who, IMHO, writes copious sense on these forums) comment if the Sheffield to Stocksbridge line, currently freight only as I understand, could be a sensible candidate? I see the new MP has mentioned it on her FB page:

I'm not tbtc, but my thought is... very difficult. As the line heads from Stockbridge into Sheffield, it does a pretty good job of avoiding the kinds of populated areas where intermediate stations would have been really useful. And then it spectacularly avoids Sheffield station, heading East instead. Any new link into Sheffield would involve a very tight curve and probably have to be built underground, which isn't exactly going to help costs.

 

[MarkyT]

... very difficult. As the line heads from Stockbridge into Sheffield, it does a pretty good job of avoiding the kinds of populated areas where intermediate stations would have been really useful. And then it spectacularly avoids Sheffield station, heading East instead. Any new link into Sheffield would involve a very tight curve and probably have to be built underground, which isn't exactly going to help costs.

If tram-train rolling stock was used, perhaps a new street track connection could be built across the valley from the old Wadsley Bridge station site to join the existing tram network at Hillsborough, about 1 km away.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You can serve both Lewes and Brighton on the same train from Uckfield fairly easily and cheaply when you realise you don't need to be super fast trying to catch up with a service that's already reversed at Brighton and started heading back north! A loop from east of Lewes station doing a tight turn to head west alongside the bypass and then merge in with the line west of Lewes station.

Maybe not as cheap, but perhaps rather more sensible - someone once posted on this forum to suggest a line that (coming from Brighton), diverges from the Lewes-Eastbourne line near Glynde, and then heads up via Ringmer to join the old Lewes-Uckfield line. I don't know how to what extent local geography would help or hinder a route like that, but it would allow trains from Uckfield to serve Lewes and Brighton - and Ringmer as a bonus - on a reasonably direct route.

 

[The Ham]

That would be high up my list too. However I suspect any feasibility study is going to run into the problem of, no capacity at Waterloo, so through trains from Cranleigh to London won't be possible. On the other hand, maybe you could serve Cranleigh by extending the Farnham-Guildford trains - that ought to be do-able fairly easily. I suspect that won't be quite as attractive as direct London trains, but could well still be worth doing.

This is one of the big problems with reopenings, that the larger places which used to be served by the previous services are unable to do so due to the growth in passenger numbers.

It could, at least, run to Waterloo after Crossrail 2 is built. It could provide extra capacity from Guildford, freeing up space for the longer distance passengers from the South.

If you deliberately made the long distance services be a bit slower from Guildford to Waterloo than the Cranleigh services would be more attractive, then this certainly would help in attracting Guildford passengers to use those new services over the existing trains.

Of course it would be better if there was more capacity on the network in general.

 

[yorksrob]

In the 2008 study of Uckfield - Lewes, it was calculated that a straightforward single track link between the two would cover its operating costs. Perhaps now, with increased usage the case can be made towards funding construction.

 

[Meerkat]

That would be high up my list too. However I suspect any feasibility study is going to run into the problem of, no capacity at Waterloo, so through trains from Cranleigh to London won't be possible.

Has anyone suggested Cranleigh getting through trains to London?! It never had them before did it?
It’s a repeatedly raised non-starter. There would be loads of NIMBY opposition as it goes so close to expensive housing, has dubious demand, and would have negative affects (house prices rising even further out of local’s reach, demand for new housing developments etc etc)

Uckfield-Lewes is another zombie that won’t die! Didn’t work as a local line so morphed into a crazy long way round Brighton diversion that has become so expensive it would be better to just quadruple BML1....

 

[yorksrob]

Has anyone suggested Cranleigh getting through trains to London?! It never had them before did it?
It’s a repeatedly raised non-starter. There would be loads of NIMBY opposition as it goes so close to expensive housing, has dubious demand, and would have negative affects (house prices rising even further out of local’s reach, demand for new housing developments etc etc)

Uckfield-Lewes is another zombie that won’t die! Didn’t work as a local line so morphed into a crazy long way round Brighton diversion that has become so expensive it would be better to just quadruple BML1....

Except it did work - no one wanted to cough up for it.

 

[Meerkat]

Except it did work - no one wanted to cough up for it.

Did it? What was the BCR?

 

[JonathanH]

That would be high up my list too. However I suspect any feasibility study is going to run into the problem of, no capacity at Waterloo, so through trains from Cranleigh to London won't be possible. On the other hand, maybe you could serve Cranleigh by extending the Farnham-Guildford trains - that ought to be do-able fairly easily. I suspect that won't be quite as attractive as direct London trains, but could well still be worth doing

One obvious problem with Cranleigh is how it would be powered with the apparent ban on installing further third rail electrification. If it had to be run with self-powered trains it may be better to link it to GWR stopping services to Reading.

 

[camflyer]

And yes, a big tunnel from Croydon to Stratford with 4 underground stations and all that is going to be expensive. And so the first phase of Uckfield-Falmer (and maybe Lewes if they remember it) has a lot of the case the promoters are making tied onto this further phase that's going to cost billions, and so it needs to be a gold-plated reopening so that it can fulfill that potential: the costs go up to achieve benefits that don't happen until a later phase and so can't count. The scheme doesn't happen unless it's a local link - BML2 undermines it.

Yes, it would be expensive - that's why it picks up labels such as BML2, Thameslink 2 or Crossrail 3 - but with the centre of gravity of London moving eastwards, it will become more urgent.

 

[si404]

Did it? What was the BCR?

Less than 1. It wasn't bad, but it wasn't going to recoup its capital costs. It might do now with a large amount of growth in rail travel.

Didn’t work as a local line so morphed into a crazy long way round Brighton diversion that has become so expensive it would be better to just quadruple BML1....

Exactly. And that's made it less likely to open.

Yes, it would be expensive - that's why it picks up labels such as BML2, Thameslink 2 or Crossrail 3 - but with the centre of gravity of London moving eastwards, it will become more urgent.

It might work as a Thameslink style service (though doubtful as you aren't turning terminators to through services, but diverting services away from The City to Docklands). It's definitely not a Crossrail (focused on fast service across London and outer suburban/regional services outside). It certainly isn't a 2nd Brighton Mainline!

With the centre of gravity moving eastwards, London Bridge and Liverpool Street - the places where services would otherwise serve with more conventional capacity upgrades (or even just currently do) - would be more central than where they are now, rather than at the eastern end of the CBD.