I share
@Bald Rick view that Skipton - Colne is unlikely to be commercially viable by itself, but like BordersRail, this one will be an explicitly political reopening if it happens - nothing wrong with that per se, as government is about making choices - but you'd be hard pressed to show that the BCR on £300m+ was going to put Skipton - Colne was going to put it ahead of a pile of more valuable schemes. NB, none of this is claiming that if Skipton-Colne had never closed we'd be talking about closing now on the basis that it is loss-making (ie, requires subsidy) - if that was the case, then most of the rural network would be a goner, and in my view, the country would be much poorer for it.
If it happens, it will only be for political reasons. There is nothing remotely like a decent case for it. Also, significantly, it can’t be made use of without considerable investment in the existing network.
I have never seen any hard evidence that supports the construction of this line, and by that I mean passenger demand modelling detailing where the passengers were coming from / going to, in what numbers, and what benefit they realise from the line. And how that justifies £300m+ capital expenditure and ongoing subsidy.
The old GNR station is just off London Road in St Albans and has been converted into a nursery. the old station site has been lost to development. So any development would begin with "First obtain multiple compulsory purchase orders". That's not impossible but for a scheme designed to boost Government MPs - not guaranteed to make them popular. Nobody disagrees that you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs - unless it your nest EGG they are breaking.
It would need a very significant consents process. There are at least 45 houses that are in the way before the line has even got out of St Albans. For those who don’t know the average house price in St Albans, it’s over £600k as a purchase price; in compulsory purchase terms that’s well on the way to a million, and that doesn’t include the cost of getting the consent in the first place, which would be well into 8 figures before any land costs. Then there’s the Galleria, and various houses and business in Hatfield that are in the way. It’s reasonable to assume that the cost of obtaining the land necessary would not be less than £100m.
Then there’s the problem of the old Great North Rd (Bridge still extant, railway under road) the A1(M) (bang on the level of the old line, 50 metres from the Gt North Rd), and then Cavendish Way. Sorting all that out is going to be at least another £100m.
Then there’s the issue of what to do where the line meets the ECML. Clearly it couldn’t run on the Down Slow, so that means a fifth track, with a new platform with all the relevant access to it, a new bridge for St Albans Rd, Etc Etc.
Then you have to build a railway.
At best, you’ll end up spending nearly half a billion quid on a single track line from a part of St Albans that isn’t of use to most people, to a part of Hatfield that also isn’t of much use, for at best a half hourly train service.
Perhaps we can put this one to bed.
"Commercial viability" isn't everything, as if it was the government during the last 50 years would have shut several more branch lines...
Agreed. However, socio-economic variability is important, as otherwise you are spending money on something which would have achieved greater social benefit elsewhere.
You can't, honestly, be that naive. Surely? It was the most obvious attempt a a fillibuster you will ever see.
The only people talking about the railway part of that briefing are here. No one in the real world is
The announcements were planned several days ahead, so it wasn’t a case of trying to bury bad news.
But I do agree that the only people talking about the railway news are the rail community. No one else gives a **** in the slightest.