Given the way this government loves to double count money (everything gets ‘announced’ multiple times) I suspect the £500 million includes cash already committed to schemes like the Portishead line. I wonder how much, if any, is left over once this is taken into account?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If you had £500m to spend on closed Northern rail lines
- Thread starter lancastria
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Well, it depends if covering costs is your only concern. It often is, even if only because it lends itself to being measured. But what about social amenity, economic stimulus, or environmental benefits to name but three other considerations that might come into play on an infrastructure project.[/QUOTE]
It was only suggested as a rule-of-thumb (like the older 10k population one, by an esteemed member whose name I forget) to weed out the basket cases.
You would in practice factor the others in to the total project cost in the normal way.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,408
The best way to spend any money available for public transport to Keswick would be to improve the buses to coach standard quality, extend the service to Langwathby to pick up direct traffic from West Yorkshire, and modify the timetable to ensure quick, slick interchanges at the stations. Far cheaper than reopening the railway and would have wider benefits.
And have through ticketing.
And have through ticketing.
Killingworth
Established Member
The X5 runs from outside Penrith Station and is almost coach standard.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,408
Indeed. But for a tenth of the price of reopening the railway you could run a much more luxurious bus/coach service with very slick integration with rail services.
Killingworth
Established Member
I'd agree, however the masses of outdoor types in places like the Lake District, Peak District, and Highlands of Scotland load masses of kit into old cars and have wet and muddy clothing, ideally catered for in PSVs rather less sophisticated - more like a 142 Pacer!
note that they are talking about covering running costs, your already getting the infrastructure for free;
"social amenity, economic stimulus, or environmental benefits"
all of which are possible from other forms of transport, & even other investments.
The subsidy level required for a lot of these re-opening schemes would fund a much more intensive bus service, which would be able to get into more places, & have more stops, than a rail service could.
Then there's the massive amounts required for the infrastructure.
£100m could insulate & renew heating on 5000 properties, which would actually save money.
You could improve quite a few stations to make them more efficient to run.
LOL The Irony
On Moderation
The problem is integrating it with the rail service.
A hundredth of the price, easily!
jonty14
Member
How about extending the Tyne and Wear metro to Washington an Durham
ivorytoast28
Member
Sorry that this is off topic, but do you know why the Chord at Dore was ever cut down to a single line? It doesn't obviously save any money like closing actual lines did and it has just caused a completely pointless bottleneck. If they really want to save money, they could surely at least have a double track but only 1 platform. It's not ideal but it would at least improve things a bit in the mean time so trains can pass
ivorytoast28
Member
I don't know how much £500m would cover. But reopening the line from Ferryhill to Newcastle via washington should be a priority. Not only does it pass through a lot of populated commuter areas to add local stations in and around Gateshead, it also provides an alternative route for ECML trains and opens up the possibility of an express Middlesbrough northern train via ferryhill that is currently not possible because of lack of pathing - this would require more lines in the ferryhill area too.
North of Newcastle, open up the old line to Ashington/Blyth, this would be far simpler as most of it is still there but probably needs an upgrade. This could either run as an express metro into St James' or as mainline into Newcastle central.
Personally, I'd also like to see more investment in Northumberland. Electrified lines to both seahouses and Alnwick as an extension of the chathill service would enable more services to run on the line as an extension of the morpeth service (leaving Newcastle around xx:55 just after the LNER fast train). But admittedly this probably shouldn't be a priority compared to other areas.
It'd also be nice to see the return of Scarborough to Whitby but that really is the realms of fantasy...
North of Newcastle, open up the old line to Ashington/Blyth, this would be far simpler as most of it is still there but probably needs an upgrade. This could either run as an express metro into St James' or as mainline into Newcastle central.
Personally, I'd also like to see more investment in Northumberland. Electrified lines to both seahouses and Alnwick as an extension of the chathill service would enable more services to run on the line as an extension of the morpeth service (leaving Newcastle around xx:55 just after the LNER fast train). But admittedly this probably shouldn't be a priority compared to other areas.
It'd also be nice to see the return of Scarborough to Whitby but that really is the realms of fantasy...
Killingworth
Established Member
Electrified to Seahouses for Bamburgh? Possibly for a terminus that would pick up more traffic then the current Chathill which serves a little over 2,000 passengers a year from 2 return services a day. Nice idea, but rather expensive, much as I love the Northumberland coast.
Alnwick Lionheart would be more practical and axing Chathill altogether. Lovely station that it is, it really is an anachronism. It isn't marketed well as a relatively easy walk to Seahouses.
Last edited:
Malton - Pickering? Alan Williams could get out more - and write about places further afield!
Hadfield - Penistone (call it HS3, reopen rest of GC call that HS2, perfect)
Thornhill - Low Moor
Oh, and in Manchester Pic area
.. Open platform 0 - have you noticed the spare terminal platform with only staff car park on it?
.. Between Pic and Ardwick - the old viaduct line round to Philips Park, intact viaduct mostly and only 400 metres to reopen. This gets a circular from Platform 0 - 4 that can do Victoria if we so wish, or get Rochdales directly into Pic via Miles Platting and Philips Park.
Hadfield - Penistone (call it HS3, reopen rest of GC call that HS2, perfect)
Thornhill - Low Moor
Oh, and in Manchester Pic area
.. Open platform 0 - have you noticed the spare terminal platform with only staff car park on it?
.. Between Pic and Ardwick - the old viaduct line round to Philips Park, intact viaduct mostly and only 400 metres to reopen. This gets a circular from Platform 0 - 4 that can do Victoria if we so wish, or get Rochdales directly into Pic via Miles Platting and Philips Park.
And where would Low Moor-Thornhill go? It would need some serious infrastructure at the Thornhill end to turn towards Leeds and towards Huddersfield too. I would like to see it re-open too as Cleckheaton and Heckmondwike are public transport wastelands in terms of getting anywhere quickly but there would be great cost involved.
Gareth
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 1,505
£500m is chicken feed.
tbtc
Veteran Member
It's impressive how many things Beeching gets blamed for (like the 1980s closure of the Woodhead line)!
I suppose its easier for some people to blame every closure on one bad man (or two, with Marples), rather than accept that closing lines was something that happened for decades - many routes were built for a particular purpose and that purpose finished (e.g. a coal mine closing).
It must be easy being the SELRAP people - come up with a lovely press release a couple of times a year suggesting amazing benefits, knowing that this will generate lots of positive attention without anyone worrying about the practicalities of how you plan to actually build all of the infrastructure required (not just the track from Colne to Skipton, but all of the infrastructure beyond that would be necessary to achieve all of the things you suggest).
I'm not knowledgeable on the Guisborough branch but (knowing the town a little) I'm guessing it'd be a short simple line into the nearest large conurbation (Middlesbrough), which seems a good benchmark for any new lines - there's a clear market, there's a decent enough bus service, it looks a good idea on paper (but, as I say, I don't know the ground, so can't comment on whether it'd require large disruption to close a hedgehog sanctuary built on the old trackbed or whatever)
+1!
There are all of these unquantifiable benefits to any railway project though - there'd be environmental benefits and improved social amenity and some economic stimulus if we just did something simple like extending the length of existing platforms or building a passing loop.
Otherwise you can say you are taking a holistic approach and come up with a list of well meaning (but unquantifiable) "other" benefits to plug holes in a weak BCR (or just invest in a project that is quantifiably better)
I think that the credit needs to go to @Altnabreac for this one
Agreed - if we want to provide "environmental benefits" for our £100m then there are much better/greener ways of achieving that than a rural branchline with a Sprinter chugging along it every hour
I don't know - presumably yet another BR cost saving (the rule of thumb being that BR were good for all of the good things that they achieved, but any of the bad things that they did were the fault of the nasty Government for not giving them enough money)?
Good point.
There's certainly a large population in Kirklees without a nearby station, and despite Arriva's best efforts to deter their own bus passengers they still manage to run a frequent service towards Leeds/ Bradford/ Huddersfield - the problem is how to serve that market with one railway line
There's also the two problems in some schemes (that you allude to here) that...
...sometimes people are more focussed on "putting a town on the map" than providing a practical service to that town that takes people where they want to go (e.g. I see suggestions on here that we rebuild a line from Perth to Aberdeen to reconnect Forfar - but the majority of demand from Forfar will be to Dundee rather than Perth/ Aberdeen - people are sometimes more interested in giving a town a station than considering where people in the town will want to travel to...
...and that sometimes you can rebuild a branch to connect somewhere but find that there's no spare capacity on the main line to run meaningful services (e.g. I could support the idea of a railway to Leigh but there seems to be no spare capacity for trains into central Manchester, I could support the idea of a railway to Wetherby but there seems to be no spare capacity for trains into central Leeds) << and if there is spare capacity then there'll be a long list of existing lines that could use the capacity to increase their current frequency into the big city.
Oh yeah if the will (and money) was there it would be very easy in the main.
Main stumbling blocks are that part of the track bed has been turned into nature trail (though that's not insurmountable), the ideal location for the station (no more than five minutes from the town centre) has just been built on but the real problem is that a dozen or so houses have been built on the track bed. Someone like @Bald Rick might be able to comment on how insurmountable (or expensive!) compulsory purchasing houses might be for a railway scheme.
I've always thought that re-opening Guisborough would have been a real winner. Not only is there a good bus service (showing demand) but there's plenty of car traffic and the traffic from Guisborough into Middlesbrough is fairly notorious for being dreadful so could go someway to relieving that congestion if people could be tempted out of their cars. Distance terms it's about four miles of track required and one (I'd argue two stations) so not even that far.
That being said it never seems to get a look in and instead all the sound and fury goes on 'sexy' schemes to reopen long lines through desolate and low population moorland like SELRAP or Tweedbank to Carlisle.
I might... although it’s slightly off topic I assume that as it is responding to a commission from a mod it will be allowed (invoice in the post
)The process for compulsorily purchasing property is clear, and it is always possible. For ‘new railway’ schemes such as this it would normally be activated through an Order made under the Transport & Works Act, a Development Consent Order, or an act of Parliament resulting from a Hybrid Bill. In this case it would most like be the first of these. There’s really only two things you need to demonstrate:
1) that the proposal requiring the purchase of the properties has overall benefits that significantly outweigh the implications of making the CPO
2) that all reasonable alternatives have been considered and proven to be less effective; that is alternatives for the project itself (eg not building it, or alternative provision such as buses), and also alternative possibilities for achieving the project objective (eg taking the line on another route).
Whilst this sounds simple, it can be rather complicated. Clearly, you need to have done your homework on the alternatives. That will take a minimum of a couple of years of scheme feasibility, consultation, design, more consultation before triggering the process, i.e. formally submitting the draft TWA Order. Then the TWA process itself takes a minimum of 12 months, usually longer. And of course all this costs money.
Now, typically, once a property owner realises that their property is likely to be subject to a CPO, they may choose to sell it to the ‘acquiring authoirty’, whoever that is, before the CPO process is completed. Most do. Some hold out to the bitter end.
Typically if an owner holds out to the end, they will receive fair market value (as determined by independent values) + the full costs of moving (legal, removals, stamp duty on your new property, etc), + costs for things within the property that can’t easily be moved (carpets, curtains etc). There is then a ‘home loss’ allowance, typically around 10% of market value (with a maximum limit) that is basically an extra payment for the distress caused. Typically, the cost of acquiring the property once the CPO Order is made is about 25% above the market value of the property. This excludes the whole process fo obtaining the CPO, which even for a simple scheme can be millions.
Often, acquiring authorities will offer property owners incentives to sell early, as it reduces the cost of the whole process. In short, they will offer above market value, or extra compensation. I know people who have literally knocked on doors with chequebooks to do this. Whilst it means paying well above market value, it can shorten the process by months (sometimes years) which can save a vast amount of time, effort and therefore cash.
This sums up pretty accurately 'the trouble with the Leamside', I think.
An overall lack of vision in terms of transport strategy keeps Leamside bubbling away as an 'aspiration', but no-one's quite sure what for. I am reasonably convinced that that's because a lot of folks can't get their heads beyond simple linear routes.
The key to Leamside is reopening Sunderland to Durham, not just the two miles from South Hylton (Metro) to its junction with the Leamside, with an additional East to North chord onto the viaduct.
You could then unlock the benefits of linking Sunderland (pop 277,000) with Washington (pop 67,000) and Durham (pop 52,200) for local flows, as well as providing a much quicker route than the Durham Coast for longer distance trains to and from Sunderland.
Whether longer distance services route via Durham, or Durham 'Parkway' for which passive provision exists at J62 on the A1(M), would obviously be something to model based on how many existing ECML services (freight, ECS, light loco, non-stoppers before you even think about re-routes) through the Durham Viaduct bottleneck you could get on to the Leamside.
If you can then effectively extend the Leamside South from its junction with the ECML at Tursdale, to run parallel through the Mainsforth Cut, Ferryhill Station (pop 10,000) could reopen as a local lines only facility, with the parallel lines avoiding conflicts for Northern Connect services coming up from Middlesbrough (pop 138,400 to 376,000 if Teesside taken into account) via Stillington.
In a £500bn (ie not million) fantasy world, a grade separated junction from the Leamside/Mainsforth/Ferryhill link could then swing West to reconnect Spennymoor (pop 20,000, which I think was 14th in the list of unserved towns in the ATOC Connecting Communities Report) and then to Bishop Auckland (pop 25,000), meaning that the latter is no longer only served from the South. When it gets to £1000bn, a short extension West of Bishop along what's currently the first yards of the Weardale Railway, before diverging North over a new Wear crossing upstream of the Newton Cap viaduct and then re-linking Willington (pop 9,000), Brandon, Meadowfield (pop 10,000) and then back to Durham on the ECML would complete a linked network.
Depending on how much existing traffic had come off the mainline, completion of the loop could be difficult in pathing terms, but for local services, new platforms to the North of Durham Station, where the current lower level car park* and engineering siding is, would at least mean that stoppers were clear of the mainline platforms when calling.
My feeling is, though, that until at least the first few of these other projects are included in a Leamside plan, the effects of just reopening Tursdale to Wardley are indeed difficult to pin-down at a level where the investment will show anything like the benefits that the costs would require.
*Acknowledging that the lower level is currently being double-decked.
Edited to add population figures.
Last edited:
Riverside Branch, Newcastle. 5miles, do it as Metro. Rejoin the current line between Wallsend & Hadrian Road. Extend that up to Shiremoor/Northumberland Park (3miles) Likely to cover running costs, or even make money.
I would also have a new South Shields-Heworth-Sunderland service. Would need works at Heworth & on the line to Sunderland & a few trains.
Leamside Line;
This I would do in different sections. The line north of the River Wear, Washington-Pelaw would be part of the T&W Metro, no heavy rail.
Sunderland-Belmont, shared use heavy rail & Metro.
Belmont-Gilesgate & further into Durham, Metro.
Belmont-Ferryhill, heavy rail.
I would also have a new South Shields-Heworth-Sunderland service. Would need works at Heworth & on the line to Sunderland & a few trains.
Leamside Line;
This I would do in different sections. The line north of the River Wear, Washington-Pelaw would be part of the T&W Metro, no heavy rail.
Sunderland-Belmont, shared use heavy rail & Metro.
Belmont-Gilesgate & further into Durham, Metro.
Belmont-Ferryhill, heavy rail.
Last time I went to Otley (via Manchester and the Calder valley, crossing Bradford on foot) I found that there were hardly any direct buses from Otley to Bradford, though express buses to Leeds seemed to be good. It was possible to get a bus from very near Menston station. The fairly short distance from Menston to Otley could be reopened. It's no longer possible to reach the old Otley station site, now a road, but you could get most of the way to a reasonably situated new station.
Last edited:
I might... although it’s slightly off topic I assume that as it is responding to a commission from a mod it will be allowed (invoice in the post
I somehow missed this post back in November! Thank you for it, it was very interesting.
No sign of the invoice yet but then again the shredder has developed a taste for expensive things so who knows
Blyth, which has just elected a Tory for the first time. Could be looking up!
xotGD
Established Member
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2017
- Messages
- 6,800
Using that criterion we could have a whole network rebuilt across County Durham.
If that is indeed a very reasonable threshold to set the thread may as well end there. Can anyone name a candidate for reopening which would have any realistic chance of covering its costs? Bearing in mind Northern services lose £600m annually and at most only one or two TOCs are genuinely profitable.
- Status