Ivanhoe (Leicester-Burton') reopen call

[Harbon 1]

Question for Rugd1022.
In relation to the subsidence speed restriction, would it not be a little safer to whizz across the affected area at 50 MPH rather than trundle over it at 20 MPH.
Surely if the track underneath the train is really going to drop, there would be less risk to the train if it was nipping along rather than crawling along.

i think its more the track has shifted making it not perfectly straight rather than having to pass over valleys in the ballast

 

[Tomnick]

If single track was such a problem, half of our network wouldn't exist. Plus, if they'd have got on with it earlier, it probably wouldn't have deteriorated to the extent to which it has done. Remember, this has been mooted for twenty years or more.

Finally, if they can't afford a curve for the time being, use a headshunt.

The single line is a problem though - it's long, slow and potentially occupied for much of the day already. There's also a lot of faffing on the running lines (which aren't signalled to passenger standards) around Bagworth and Bardon Hill. At the Knighton end, a "headshunt" (I know what you mean) would suffer from the same problem as a new curve - the cost of the resignalling work required, which would be reduced if carried out as part of the planned wider resignalling). The consultants' document linked to above makes it clear that reversing at Knighton would mean you wouldn't be able to operate an hourly service without additional costs (relative to running via a new curve), so you'd be left with a less frequent and, overall, slower service - much less attractive.

 

[Rugd1022]

This has to be one of the most bizarre suggestions I've ever read.

Greater speeds will increase the risk of further subsidence and exacerbate the problem.

So, in a word: no!

Wasn't quite sure what to make of that myself..!

Even if it were possible to do 50mph down the bank from Bagworth Jcn, us freight chappies would still have to stop at the ground frame end of the yard at Bardon to pick up the radio from the shunter so we can back our empties in...!

If you're wondering how bad the subsidence is at Bagworth have a butcher's at this pic I took a few years back...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/21403537@N00/4382296893/in/set-72157606853423254

 

[yorksrob]

The single line is a problem though - it's long, slow and potentially occupied for much of the day already. There's also a lot of faffing on the running lines (which aren't signalled to passenger standards) around Bagworth and Bardon Hill. At the Knighton end, a "headshunt" (I know what you mean) would suffer from the same problem as a new curve - the cost of the resignalling work required, which would be reduced if carried out as part of the planned wider resignalling). The consultants' document linked to above makes it clear that reversing at Knighton would mean you wouldn't be able to operate an hourly service without additional costs (relative to running via a new curve), so you'd be left with a less frequent and, overall, slower service - much less attractive.

But it still must be easier than reinstating a lifted and sold off route.

 

[Eagle]

But it still must be easier than reinstating a lifted and sold off route.

Well yeah, obviously. But that doesn't make it objectively easy.

 

[yorksrob]

Well yeah, obviously. But that doesn't make it objectively easy.

Indeed, but they've had decades to overcome any problems. Yet nothing's been done.

 

[The Planner]

Surely that in itself says something?

 

[Tomnick]

Perhaps not a sold off route, but I'd suggest that it's probably easier to reopen a dismantled route if the alignment remains clear, than it is to reinstate the second line alongside an existing single line (which might need a lot of work itself anyway), and do the necessary work to upgrade the existing infrastructure, all with limited opportunities for full possessions.

 

[yorksrob]

Perhaps not a sold off route, but I'd suggest that it's probably easier to reopen a dismantled route if the alignment remains clear, than it is to reinstate the second line alongside an existing single line (which might need a lot of work itself anyway), and do the necessary work to upgrade the existing infrastructure, all with limited opportunities for full possessions.

Why do we need a second line at all. Granted, we'll need signalling improvements and possibly a loop or two, but there's no automatic reason reason why this route would have to be double.

The fact that when we were capable of reopening routes, these tended to be existing freight routes, suggests that reopening freight routes is easier than building from scratch.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely that in itself says something?

It says everything about our woeful record on reopenings.

Take freight. For Matlock - Chinley even though the local freight customers were found in the reopening study to feel that the Hope Valley wouldn't be adequate in the longer term for their needs, the study still concluded that there wasn't enough freight demand to justify reinstating the link.

Then take this case - we have a link which already has an existing freight flow. Surely this must count in favour of upgrading the link to passengers and freight ? Surely this must help the business case for passenger reopening resulting in a better maintained railway?

Alas no. As freight already exists on this route, it is has to be presented as an obstacle to reopening.

The fact is, in this country, we will take any reopening proposal and use all details to persuade ourselves against reopening because we are biased against railway reopenings.

 

[Kneedown]

i think its more the track has shifted making it not perfectly straight rather than having to pass over valleys in the ballast

When i used to work over the route there was a huge dip just east of Moira West.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I tend to take far more notice of those forum members who have actually worked over this route and know is its infrastructural nuances than those who come across in postings as the "armchair experts and theorists".

 

[kermit]

This has to be one of the most bizarre suggestions I've ever read.

Greater speeds will increase the risk of further subsidence and exacerbate the problem.

So, in a word: no!

And if it does come to a derailment every extra mph increases the risk of a tragedy rather than an embarrassment.

 

[The Planner]

Then take this case - we have a link which already has an existing freight flow. Surely this must count in favour of upgrading the link to passengers and freight ? Surely this must help the business case for passenger reopening resulting in a better maintained railway?

Alas no. As freight already exists on this route, it is has to be presented as an obstacle to reopening.

That is because freight is worthless in a business case, it doesn't provide connectivity and journey opportunities. The freight in this case doesn't even use the whole route.

If someone was determined to find socio-economic benefits from it then it might get taken a bit more seriously. I have not read any of the reports but is there any idea of what sort of demand there is, is Leicester losing out because there is a skills deficiency that people in Coalville, Swadlinctoe and Burton and v.v could provide, what sort of service is required, from where and to, cost of upgrade etc, etc... The area is furnished fairly well with road links with access to the A42 and M1.

 

[yorksrob]

I tend to take far more notice of those forum members who have actually worked over this route and know is its infrastructural nuances than those who come across in postings as the "armchair experts and theorists".

And have you never asked yourself why, unlike in Scotland and Wales our record on reopenings has been so poor ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That is because freight is worthless in a business case, it doesn't provide connectivity and journey opportunities. The freight in this case doesn't even use the whole route.

If someone was determined to find socio-economic benefits from it then it might get taken a bit more seriously. I have not read any of the reports but is there any idea of what sort of demand there is, is Leicester losing out because there is a skills deficiency that people in Coalville, Swadlinctoe and Burton and v.v could provide, what sort of service is required, from where and to, cost of upgrade etc, etc... The area is furnished fairly well with road links with access to the A42 and M1.

In terms of improvements around the Peak/Hope valley area, freight is an integral part of any business case. Granted, there is a hell of a lot more of it there than on this route, but it's certainly not presented as an obstacle to doing something.

With regard to socio-economic benefits, surely that would be in terms of people in Coalville, Swadlinctoe and Burton missing out on job opportunities in Leicester rather than the other way round. Also, going by previous posts, road congestion seems to be a problem in the area, so alleviating this should count towards the business case in addition to other socio-economic benefits.

 

[Andyjs247]

It would be great if the Leicester to Burton line could be used as an addition to the electric spine. For example, could we have electric freight trains going from Southampton to Leicester to Burton to Lichfield to re-join a re-opened South Staffordshire railway through Walsall and the Black country?

A more sensible addition to the electric spine would be to electrify from Wigston via Nuneaton to Birmingham (and via Sutton Park to Walsall). If Derby - Birmingham gets wired in CP6 as part of a wider electrification scheme then it becomes easier to justify smaller add-ons although then it becomes simpler to do Sheet Stores Jn to Stenson Jn. Sadly I can't see much benefit in electrifying Knighton Jn to Burton any time soon.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And have you never asked yourself why, unlike in Scotland and Wales our record on reopenings has been so poor ?

At whose behest would you regard as the best ones to approach ? I remember the reopening of the Blackburn to Clitheroe route quite well.

Does the term "business case" apply in such cases ?

 

[yorksrob]

At whose behest would you regard as the best ones to approach ? I remember the reopening of the Blackburn to Clitheroe route quite well.

Does the term "business case" apply in such cases ?

Clitheroe was twenty years ago. EPB's were still numerous, as were loco hauled regional services. Practically nostalgia now.

The last set of potential reopenings to have a business case were Dunstable, St Ives (Cambs) and our very own Leigh. The first two even came with intact railway lines, but we were forced to rebuild them as guided busways.

Just because I sound like a conspiracy theorist doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy.

 

[Kettledrum]

A more sensible addition to the electric spine would be to electrify from Wigston via Nuneaton to Birmingham (and via Sutton Park to Walsall). If Derby - Birmingham gets wired in CP6 as part of a wider electrification scheme then it becomes easier to justify smaller add-ons although then it becomes simpler to do Sheet Stores Jn to Stenson Jn. Sadly I can't see much benefit in electrifying Knighton Jn to Burton any time soon.

Not sure how much capacity for additional freight those routes have.

Centro, the West Midlands local authority with responsibility for improving local commuter passenger services have aspirations for using the Sutton Park line for new passenger services that might mop up any spare paths. They also have suggested the re-opening of the south staffs line for freight so I'm assuming there is some logic to their thoughts.

They see a need for freight to by-pass central Birmingham to free up paths on a number of lines for new passenger services (such as the Camp Hill Line and the Sutton Park Line), hence my thoughts as to whether Leicester to Burton might be a strategic fit with these aspirations.

 

[The Planner]

Sutton Park can fit more services, Water Orton is fit to bursting.

 

[Andyjs247]

Not sure how much capacity for additional freight those routes have.

Centro, the West Midlands local authority with responsibility for improving local commuter passenger services have aspirations for using the Sutton Park line for new passenger services that might mop up any spare paths. They also have suggested the re-opening of the south staffs line for freight so I'm assuming there is some logic to their thoughts.

They see a need for freight to by-pass central Birmingham to free up paths on a number of lines for new passenger services (such as the Camp Hill Line and the Sutton Park Line), hence my thoughts as to whether Leicester to Burton might be a strategic fit with these aspirations.

I can see that Camp Hill could sustain a useful passenger service (presumably via new chords at Bordesley into Moor Street) however the Sutton Park line doesn't really go where people want to go.

To my mind Birmingham - Nuneaton - Leicester should be fairly high up the list to electrify in CP6 as it is a natural fill in scheme to link to the electric spine and improve connectivity to the WCML at Nuneaton. In time the full route to Felixstowe might get done eventually for freight (at which time XC could also run Birmingham - Stansted by EMU).

Oxford - Leamington - Coventry - Nuneaton is being wired as part of the electric spine but there are still the capacity constraints in crossing Coventry on the level. But with the new north chord at Nuneaton (does much traffic use this yet?) you'd then have an alternative electrified route from the WCML to Southampton (via Bedford), if Nuneaton to Wigston were to be wired also that is.

Also I'd have thought there should be some capacity between Birmingham and Nuneaton now that Daw Mill has closed.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Clitheroe was twenty years ago. EPB's were still numerous, as were loco hauled regional services. Practically nostalgia now.

What locomotive hauled services ran to Clitheroe, or other local Blackburn-area routes, as late as 1993 ?

 

[RichmondCommu]

What locomotive hauled services ran to Clitheroe, or other local Blackburn-area routes, as late as 1993 ?

Who has suggested that they did?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The post that I was responding to said locomotive-hauled services was the case twenty years ago, which to my reckoning was 1993.

 

[RichmondCommu]

The post that I was responding to said locomotive-hauled services was the case twenty years ago, which to my reckoning was 1993.

But did that refer to East Lancs services specifically?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But did that refer to East Lancs services specifically?

It was not I that brought locomotive-hauled services into the equation. That was something that was added into a posting by another forum member in response to my posting that referred to the reopened line for passenger services from Blackburn to Clitheroe.

I am as much as a loss as you are as to why any mention of locomotive hauled services was mentioned by that forum member, so all I can suggest is that you direct your queries on that particular matter to the forum member in question.

 

[RichmondCommu]

It was not I that brought locomotive-hauled services into the equation. That was something that was added into a posting by another forum member in response to my posting that referred to the reopened line for passenger services from Blackburn to Clitheroe.

I am as much as a loss as you are as to why any mention of locomotive hauled services was mentioned by that forum member, so all I can suggest is that you direct your queries on that particular matter to the forum member in question.

I'm not aware that anyone on this thread has specfically suggested that there should be loco hauled services on East Lancs lines. I'm assuming that you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I'm not aware that anyone on this thread has specfically suggested that there should be loco hauled services on East Lancs lines. I'm assuming that you have evidence to the contrary?

Was that mention made on the Todmorden Curve thread ?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Was that mention made on the Todmorden Curve thread ?

I have no idea but to my knowledge it hasn't been suggested on this thread unless you know other wise.

 

[The Planner]

But with the new north chord at Nuneaton (does much traffic use this yet?) you'd then have an alternative electrified route from the WCML to Southampton (via Bedford), if Nuneaton to Wigston were to be wired also that is.

Not sure how, the chord is uni-directional from the Leicester direction to the down WCML only. You can access the Leicester line from the Up Slow though.

Also I'd have thought there should be some capacity between Birmingham and Nuneaton now that Daw Mill has closed.

They didn't really cause a lot of problems as Daw Mill is closer to Whitacre than Nuneaton. Hams Hall is likely to cause more problems than that now, longer box trains going from a stand up that hill are not good....

 

[yorksrob]

What locomotive hauled services ran to Clitheroe, or other local Blackburn-area routes, as late as 1993 ?

I was thinking more of the scene around the country as a whole (although there may still have been some loco hauled Blackpools at the time ?).