Luton Dunstable railway - dual use solution

[alfred roberts]

For details of my dual use busway and railway solution see

http://south_bedfordshire_railway.webs.com/retainlutondunstable.htm

 

[alfred roberts]

Brief details of dual - use bus - rail proposal

This proposal is my own work only and does NOT represent anybody else.

1: - The guided bus way would be curtailed along narrow stretches of the disused railway corridor to allow the disused railway formation to be retained

A: - Provision for the disused railway line

The formation of the disused railway line

a: - between Luton Bute Street and Telford Road bridge
b: - across Telford Road bridge
c: - alongside A5065 Hatters Way to Dunstable Skimpot Road bridge

retained intact.

B: - Provision for the bus way
a: - The guided bus way beside A5065 Hatters Way would be replaced by two bus lanes

2: - Construction of the sections of the planned guided bus way that do provide bus - only links not provided by existing roads

Guided bus way sections retained in design and built

a: - from Skimpot Road bridge (between Jeans way and Blows Down / houses on Station site) to Church Street Dunstable
b: - across Church Street Dunstable
c: - from Church Street to Court Road Dunstable
d: - from Court Road Dunstable to Blackburn Road Houghton Regis

On - street works retained in design and built

a: - On - street works provided in Dunstable (around ASDA, the A5 - A505 cross roads and Church Street)
b: - On - street works provided in Houghton Regis (from Blackburn Road to High Street)

3: - The disused railway line deviated to run along additional areas of land acquired beside the course of the formation which had been converted into the guided bus way

Sections of railway deviated

a: - across Skimpot Road [1]
b: - along a narrow strip of land acquired from Blows Down Site Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) beside guided bus way to Church Street bridge [2]
c: - across Church Street bridge [2]
d: - along a narrow strip of land acquired from the Kingsway redevelopment land beside the guided bus way to Court Road [4]

Notes: -

[1] The Skimpot Road bridge would need to be re - aligned to run between disused railway line to North of Hatters Way and the deviated railway formation beside Blows Down to South of existing formation
[2] i - The railway would cross bus way access road leading to Long Hedges Road via a signalled level crossing.
ii - Clearances beside the houses at site of Church street station would be tight.
[3] The Church Street bridge would need to be widened to three lanes (two guided bus way and one single- track railway)
[4] The railway would cross the main bus way access road leading to and from Church Street via a signalled level crossing

Service integration: -

Bus routes to and from the guided bus way could carry passengers to restored train services along the railway line running beside the guided bus way.

Government spending cuts

Are forecast to hit Luton hard.

See: -
http://www.lutontoday.co.uk/news/business/get_ready_to_take_the_pain_1_157878

Status of the disused railway line

In planning terms the use of the land by the disused railway line has not been abandoned as not all the track is gone, the ballast is still there and the land has not been redeveloped.

Status of the railway powers

Powers in planning sphere of the 1855 Luton Dunstable and Welwyn Junction Railway Act have effect whatever the state of the land
unless the application of the powers over a given area of land is restricted by a planning direction in redevelopment authorisation.
The original railway drawings illustrating the land over which the powers have effect are at the County Records Office in Bedford.

Under Section 47 of Translink Bus way Order
The railway powers are transferred to Luton Borough Council
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si20063118.htm#47

The land along the disused railway corridor (including the old railway infrastructure) all forms part of the undertaking of the disused railway line, and under Translink Bus way Order Luton Borough Council buys the land and railway infrastructure along the disused railway corridor, which thus forms part of the bus way undertaking.

Under Section 42 of Translink bus way Order
Luton Borough Council may sell or otherwise transfer any part of the undertaking within Translink Bus way
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si20063118.htm#42

Under Section 10 of 1968 Transport Act
Luton Borough Council may dispose of redundant infrastructure, buy and develop land for the undertaking forming part of the disused railway line and dispose of the land, and transfer the railway powers retained by the council due to Section 47(2) of the bus way Order
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/73/section/10

IN THEORY

Agreement could be reached between Luton Borough Council and Network Rail (etc)

a: - to dispose (by sale etc) of the planning powers in 1855 Luton Dunstable and Welwyn Junction Railway Act,
b: - to dispose of the land (by sale etc) along disused railway formation to North of Hatters Way,
c: - to acquire and dispose of (by sale etc) a thin strip of land alongside the disused railway line between Skimpot Road and Court Road,
d: - to build and dispose (by sale etc) of a re - aligned bridge across Skimpot Road,
e: - to build - and dispose of certain rights over the railway portion of - the tri - tracked bridge across Church Street,
f: - to build and dispose of (by sale etc) other works as required

The proceeds of the sale (etc) could raise much needed money towards reducing the impact of government spending cuts in Luton area.

Further details: -

http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=101535814486&topic=13577

Maps: -

Map showing how bus routes to and from guided bus way can carry passengers to restored train services along railway line beside bus way
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1457189430204&set=o.101535814486

Proposals drawn on to a Dunstable street map
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1418722748561&set=o.101535814486

 

[A0wen]

For crying out loud - some people really like flogging a dead horse.

For the umpteenth time, the Dunstable line is dead - it will not be coming back.

And this idea is simple fantasy land stuff both from a practicality point of view and financial - have you any idea how much this crazy idea would cost?

The Dunstable line closed in the late 60s because it wasn't well used. It's final demise was probably sealed in the early 1980s when the Bed-Pan electrification took place and it wasn't included in that. Since then the formation has gone at the east-end of the line and would need some very expensive bridges to connect it to the MML at Luton (which is already pretty much at capacity).

Add to that the fact that Leagrave station is less than a mile outside of Dunstable and both Luton Airport Parkway and Luton stations are easily accessible from Dunstable and this idea just doesn't make sense.

 

[alfred roberts]

Try telling that to a lot of people in Dunstable!

 

[A0wen]

Try telling that to a lot of people in Dunstable!

According to Wikipedia, Dunstable has a population of about 34,000 people and has 3 railway stations within 5 miles of it. Compared with Corby (popn 53,000) which until recently didn't have a station at all (and Kettering is more than 5 miles from Corby), I don't think there is a particular hardship here.

I suspect of those 34,000 about 31,000 either don't care or don't see it as a problem - bearing in mind the vast majority would have moved to Dunstable after the railway closed (which IIRC was 1965 so almost 50 years ago).

Even if you charged a levy of £ 100 on everyone in Dunstable, you would raise nothing like enough money to pay for what you're proposing. So which 'magic money tree' do you propose be used to pay for this?

 

[Greenback]

A tourist/heritage line is completely pointless in that area as the use of terms like grim and non descript in the business plan reveal. Still, I enjoyed reading the business plan, as it bears bno relation to the real world at all.

 

[asylumxl]

The Dunstable line closed in the late 60s because it wasn't well used,

Do you have any figures to support this? I have books that say otherwise (though don't include figures).

The Dunstable line is dead, yes, the track has been removed now. But the Busway is still pointless, due to bad planning and design.

 

[Greenback]

The busway does seem pretty pointless. It's a shame the line could not be reopened in the late 1980's as I think was planned?

 

[asylumxl]

The busway does seem pretty pointless. It's a shame the line could not be reopened in the late 1980's as I think was planned?

I wouldn't even mind the busway if it actually avoided the road it was supposed to. As it stands (probably cos they're cheap) it doesn't do this at all.

 

[A0wen]

Do you have any figures to support this? I have books that say otherwise (though don't include figures).

The Dunstable line is dead, yes, the track has been removed now. But the Busway is still pointless, due to bad planning and design.

I haven't specific figures, but I'm fairly sure several of the books on the line and railways in the area cite poor loadings as one of the reasons for closure, together with anecdotal evidence from family who lived in the area during the time - having said that, I don't know where you'd get hold of the loading figures from the time.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A tourist/heritage line is completely pointless in that area as the use of terms like grim and non descript in the business plan reveal. Still, I enjoyed reading the business plan, as it bears bno relation to the real world at all.

Yes, my thoughts exactly. That and a complete lack of reference to other heritage schemes throughout the country and the challenges many of them have faced.

I suspect that the heritage scene is fast reaching saturation point and wouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the more marginal players have to close.

In the last 20 years the following have closed:

- Dinting
- South Yorkshire Railway (at Sheffield)
- Swansea Vale Railway

And there have been no shortage of other schemes which have been stillborn - some of which have actually been in tourist destinations - something which Dunstable is most definately not (apart from the Downs).

 

[Greenback]

The problem with some of the failed heritage projects is that they have, essentially, been set up and run by a small group of people who just want to play trains. The Swansea Vale Railway for example, ran for only a short distance largely within a retail park, although it was bordered by trees for much of its length. In that respect, at least, it's reminiscent of these Dunstable plans!

I'm afraid that to be successful a tourist line needs to offer a bit more than a one mile ride in a brkae van on selected Saturdays only. Some longer lines may have started out this way, but this would have been years ago and at least they had ambitions to run over a longer length and used this as a way to kick start their schemes. The Swansea society was literally not going anywhere.

 

[alfred roberts]

The scenary around the Dunstable line at the Western end does vary a lot, depending on what direction you actually look in - the land around council offices is well landscaped, the housing on Houghton Road looks pretty grim, Brewers Hill Road is tree lined, High Street North beside the railway bridge site is pretty non - descript but it looks a lot better by the Middle school and Town council office further along.

There IS potential for expansion if High Street North can be crossed after A5 bypass etc is built.

The Dunstable line would be the only standard - guage railway in Bedfordshire or Hertfordshire and although you are right there are railways around Aylesbury (Chinnor and Princess R and Quainton Road) and Northampton (Chapel Brampton Hunsbury Hill Country Park and the Rushden Transport Museum) there are no others to the EAST for 100 miles +

The Luton Airport is nearby and the Olympics in 2012 would get many visitors passing through the area.

The are efforts being made to boost tourism in the Luton and Dunstable area - the Downs Gateway centre, Grove Theatre etc (Dunsatble) and the Carnival Arts Centre (Luton).

So...?

 

[A0wen]

The scenary around the Dunstable line at the Western end does vary a lot, depending on what direction you actually look in - the land around council offices is well landscaped, the housing on Houghton Road looks pretty grim, Brewers Hill Road is tree lined, High Street North beside the railway bridge site is pretty non - descript but it looks a lot better by the Middle school and Town council office further along.

There IS potential for expansion if High Street North can be crossed after A5 bypass etc is built.

The Dunstable line would be the only standard - guage railway in Bedfordshire or Hertfordshire and although you are right there are railways around Aylesbury (Chinnor and Princess R and Quainton Road) and Northampton (Chapel Brampton Hunsbury Hill Country Park and the Rushden Transport Museum) there are no others to the EAST for 100 miles +

The Luton Airport is nearby and the Olympics in 2012 would get many visitors passing through the area.

The are efforts being made to boost tourism in the Luton and Dunstable area - the Downs Gateway centre, Grove Theatre etc (Dunsatble) and the Carnival Arts Centre (Luton).

So...?

It would seem geography isn't your strong point. The Colne Valley Railway (which is pretty much due East) is showing as 80 miles using the AA route planner with a route via the M1, M25 and M11. It is less as the crow flies.

 

[Greenback]

I'm sure that there are efforts being made to boost tourism in the area, but it seems a bit flogging a dead horse to me. I question whether arts centres and theatres are tourist attractions in any case. What do visitors want when they go somewhere? Things to do such as museums, outdoor activities such as cycling or hiking, great scenery, a bit of history, and beaches. I'm not being funny, but how many of these things has the area got?

 

[A0wen]

I'm sure that there are efforts being made to boost tourism in the area, but it seems a bit flogging a dead horse to me. I question whether arts centres and theatres are tourist attractions in any case. What do visitors want when they go somewhere? Things to do such as museums, outdoor activities such as cycling or hiking, great scenery, a bit of history, and beaches. I'm not being funny, but how many of these things has the area got?

Simple answer is apart from The Downs and Whipsnade Zoo, it doesn't. And both of those are well away from the old railway formation - even if you follow the formation through to Leighton Buzzard. And I'm not sure that a short stretch of standard guage railway with a DMU shuttling back and forth in urban Dunstable is a great draw, particularly as it's off the beaten track.

All the other 'local' standard guage lines do have other draws:

- Quainton Road, developed as a museum and steam centre, so despite the short running line, there's a lot to see and do.

- Princes Risborough & Chinnor, a 2 mile line with station and ride into the countryside, with potential link into Princes Risborough.

- Northampton & Lamport, built alongside a popular cycleway, there are two family friendly pubs close by and plenty of potential for the line to extend northwards to the country park at Pitsford.

- Northamptonshire Ironstone (Hunsbury Hill) - situated at a large hill fort which is now a country park - though this railway has struggled and was closed a while back.

- Rushden Historic transport society, a perfect station building with award winning pub. Now has a 400 yard running line with potential to extend.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Oh no! Not the dreaded Dunstable Heritage Railway! This must have been the only forum that hasn't been clogged up by multiple thousand word posts and "business plans" about this scheme!

 

[alfred roberts]

Thanks for all the replies!

I welcome having what I write TESTED by people disagreeing with me.

Closure of the Dunstable to Luton branch line

The comment on the restricted size of the catchment area (34,000 population) appears to fit in well with an earlier posting at http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=36778
saying that the Dunstable line has only one stop along it over the 5-mile length.

[BUT bear in mind that the population within the catchment area of the Manningtree to Harwich line in Essex is only 30,000 and the population within the catchment area of the Marks Tey to Sudbury line along Essex – Suffolk border area is cia 20,000.]

The article on the BBC web site about the Dunstable to Luton branch line http://www.bbc.co.uk/threecounties/content/articles/2008/10/27/beeching_feature.shtml
noted that the formation was poorly situated to serve the conurbation and the stations were at either end of the town.

The Dunstable to Hatfield line had poor services
http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=267855&id=114408429930&ref=mf
and there were no timetable arrangements or facilities at stations to provide any coordination with local bus services run by United Counties (or London Country around Wheathampstead) in order to overcome this.

Hence it is believable that the line wasn’t well – used.

Implications of any reinstatement and reopening

The formation of the Dunstable to Luton branch line runs along the southern edge of the conurbation and since the line closed the centre of gravity of new development has moved radically northwards.

Moreover the town of Houghton Regis cannot be served by any rail – based option because the track along the mineral railway (which ran to APCM Cement works) was lifted in the 1990s, so the population can be excluded from the catchment area of the branch line.

Although a new location for a potential station (created by development in the early 2000s) now exists at Court Road land available for car parking in the vicinity of this location and the site of Dunstable Town station at Church Street – Station Road would be limited.

Road links between Houghton Regis and Court Road are very circuitous and as has been said most people can drive from Houghton Regis and Northern Dunstable to Leagrave station on the Midland Main Line.

My ideas

Bearing in mind the factors noted above and a letter I received from ‘Go-East’ (the government office for Eastern England) in July 2010 I DO NOT intend to ‘PARROT’ failed rail re – opening proposals.

The guided bus way

The Luton guided bus way is extremely controversial – look at what has been said about it at this forum and others, and on the Wall discussions of the Face book Group ‘Don’t let Dunstable Die’.

I among others have often wondered what effect this would have on levels of patronage….

It has to be pointed out that the guided bus way does serve Houghton Regis (alone of all the transport development options for the Dunstable to Luton disused railway corridor), from the point of view of rail access between Dunstable and Luton the guide way merely provides a route to the main Luton station and Luton Airport – it does not serve Leagrave and hence has no effect on traffic travelling between Northern Dunstable and Houghton Regis and Leagrave station at all.

BUT the cost is VERY high indeed - £89 million, funded by a £80 million grant from central government and a £9 million local contribution – BUT some estimates have been in to the £90s.

My proposals

In these cash – strapped times it appears possible to substantially reduce the cost of the guided bus way by removing the length that duplicates the A5065 relief road, which could be replaced by bus lanes to North and South of Hatters Way. These could also carry buses running to and from the Bushwood Development (unlike the guide way at this stretch).

The guide way between Skimpot Road, Church Street, Court Road (Dunstable) and Blackburn Road (Houghton Regis) WOULD be retained, because it provides a bus – only link NOT provided by existing roads.

BUT removal of the guide way North of A5065 Hatters Way would allow the formation of the disused railway line to North of Hatters Way to be retained. This could be linked via a slewed bridge across Skimpot Road to a diverted formation to South – South/West - West of the guide way beside Blows Down.

A station at Court Road would provide a closer railhead to Northern and western Dunstable than Leagrave, and buses running to and from the guided bus way could be coordinated to bring passengers to and from the train services.

The coordinated service

The station at Court Road would provide a closer railhead to the area than Leagrave station and the coordinated bus – rail link between Northern Dunstable – Houghton Regis – Court Road and London would offer a shorter road journey to and from the railhead. Because it depended on coordinated bus and rail services there would be no increase in congestion in Dunstable and car-parking problems would be overcome.

Catchment area

In answer to the postings about the catchment area of the Dunstable line and the number of stops en route, it appears that the guided bus way from Court Road (Dunstable) to Blackburn Road (Houghton Regis) would bring the town of Houghton Regis (POP ) in to the catchment area of the Dunstable to Luton branch line because buses running to and from the guided bus way could be coordinated to bring passengers to and from the train services.

Moreover the catchment area could be widened by application of the same principle - to the coordination between the restored train services and bus services between other areas of Dunstable and nearby villages to and from the guided bus way.

The effect could be to add x thousand to the catchment area of the Dunstable to Luton railway line equivalent to several stops.

Funding implications for the guided bus way

Concerning bus way funding, the very high cost of the guided bus way would fall and the reduction in the cost would be incremented still further by the proceeds from the sale of the railway undertaking. BUT I do not know what the procedure for approving this change would be.

Costing of the rail link

Costings for reopening of the Dunstable to Luton railway line as a stand-alone operation vary from £5 million to £36 million.

Judging by their position during the negotiations over the Cambridge to St Ives line, in any retention or reinstatement operation along the Dunstable to Luton line Network Rail would want to secure the best possible infrastructure along the line – involving widespread track renewals etc.

The costing of the retention of the Dunstable to Luton rail link beside the guided bus way can be divided in to two stages: -

1. Land and legal costs those works involving Luton Borough Council prior to sale or agreed works executed by the council after sale

A. Legal

Transfer of railway powers in 1855 Luton Dunstable and Welwyn Junction Railway Act from Luton Borough Council to Network Rail

B. Land

Owned by Luton Borough Council

1. Around Midland Main Line
2. Between Bute Street and Telford Road Bridge
3. North of A5065 Hatters Way

Acquired and developed by Luton Borough Council

1. Alongside Blows Down
2. Alongside Kingsway

C. Agreed works

1. Rail bridges in Luton (Guildford Street, New Bedford Road, Dunstable Road, Kingsway)
2. Realigned bridge across Skimpot Road
3. Widened bridge across Church Street
4. Level Crossings carrying bus way access roads leading to Long Hedges Road and to and from Church Street

2. Those works involving Network Rail

1. New track
2. New signalling
3. Platforms and facilities at the stations at Bute Street and Tolland Close (Luton) Court Road (Dunstable)
4. Bridges and so on to give access to the Midland Main Line

Funding implications for the rail link

I am not clear about how Network Rail funds rail upgrades etc or what the procedure is (NOTE the recent rail upgrades announced – how will they fund these and how did they process and approve applications anyone?)

I think we need to discover this BEFORE we can comment on the Dunstable to Luton line.

Midland Main Line capacity

There would be no impact on MML capacity, as it has always been proposed by Dunstable Town Council and ADAPT that existing Thameslink services, which terminate at Luton, would be extended to and from Dunstable.

Midland Main Line upgrade

As there is to be a major rail investment programme maybe the Dunstable to Luton line could fit on behind that?

 

[A0wen]

You may welcome your ideas being tested, but quite simply you're not listening to what you are being told, on both this and other forums.

Likening Dunstable to the Sudbury line is invalid. The reason that passenger services to Sudbury survived is because of the hardship it would have caused had it closed. Dunstable, as previously pointed out, has alternative stations at Leagrave and Luton close at hand - and would have done in 1965 when the Dunstable line was closed.

Likening it to the Harwich branch is also invalid, because the service there had good passenger flows to and from the Hook of Holland ferry.

The reason the Dunstable line was poorly patronised is because of the places it served when running between Welwyn GC and Dunstable. Ayot, Wheathampstead and Harpenden weren't at that time (and still aren't in many respects) major population centres. In the case of Harpenden it enjoyed better rail links on the MML. In the case of Wheathampstead, access to WGC, Harpenden and St Albans was already more than adequately provided by various bus services.

As for this statement:

"Midland Main Line capacity

There would be no impact on MML capacity, as it has always been proposed by Dunstable Town Council and ADAPT that existing Thameslink services, which terminate at Luton, would be extended to and from Dunstable."

This is clearly wrong. Currently the terminators arrive at Luton 04 and 34 and leave at 14 and 44 - a 10 minute dwell time, probably less if it's been delayed on it's journey north. There's no way you could run up to Dunstable and back in 10 mins, so you would have an impact in needing additional units to provide the service on the existing timetable.

Add to that the need to cross from the Northbound to the Southbound tracks and IIRC the slow lines (which the terminators use) are the pair on the East side of Luton station, which means you'd need a path to cross the fast lines (which would impact capacity) to get to a, presumably new, platform on the west side to access the Dunstable line. This would also have to bisect Station Road, unless costly bridges / flyovers were installed.

As for a more general Midland Mainline upgrade, I think you'll find this is going to focus on the line north of Bedford to Leicester, Nottingham and Derby, which suffer from poor linespeeds which impacts journey times compared to similar distance journeys on either the ECML or WCML.

 

[Greenback]

I did compose a post about the Hariwch and Sudbury lines, but I decided there was little chance of any notice being taken. The idea is ill thought out for so many reasons. The fact that the OP has no idea how difficult it is to secure funding for a reopening is the final nail in a coffin that si already just about nailed shut.

 

[alfred roberts]

My interest was in reinstating the Luton to Dunstable end not the remainder, which I agree is a bit of a red herring.

Yes that was the intention, to add additional units to the timetable to allow the 04 and 34 etc services to continue to Dunstable.

Yes you are right, for various reasons as you have identified, they would need to install flyovers etc to connect the Dunstable line to the MML.

Do bear in mind that the journey from Luton to Dunstable on an existing bus can take over 45 minutes at peak periods, so many London - bound commuters actually drive to Cheddington or Berkhampstead on the WCML and travel to London from there.

 

[A0wen]

My interest was in reinstating the Luton to Dunstable end not the remainder, which I agree is a bit of a red herring.

Yes that was the intention, to add additional units to the timetable to allow the 04 and 34 etc services to continue to Dunstable.

Yes you are right, for various reasons as you have identified, they would need to install flyovers etc to connect the Dunstable line to the MML.

Do bear in mind that the journey from Luton to Dunstable on an existing bus can take over 45 minutes at peak periods, so many London - bound commuters actually drive to Cheddington or Berkhampstead on the WCML and travel to London from there.

I don't agree that the bus journey time is the reason they drive to the WCML.

If they're driving to one of those stations it's probably because it provides them a more convenient route into London in terms of their ultimate destination as the WCML provides far better connections to areas of Central London ( via Northern Line), North West London (stops at Harrow and interchange to Bakerloo line) and West and South West London (Kensington Olympia and Clapham Jnc) than the MML does. You get commuters from St Albans using the Abbey line to Watford and changing to the WCML for exactly the same reason.

In terms of the 'additional' units - where do you propose they would come from? Whilst the 377s are coming on stream there is probably a small surplus with the 319s, but as a quantity of the 319s have been earmarked for refurb and further service on the GWML when it is electrified, it is unlikely there will be any spare.

As for flyovers etc at Luton - you'd virtually end up having to build a whole new station at Luton to accommodate this - so, per one of my previous posts, which magic money tree do you propose be used to fund this idea? And how many years will it take before the investment is 'paid back'?

 

[asylumxl]

Very slightly OT, but Luton is long overdue a new station complex anyway. The current one is not fit for purpose,. It has to be the least wheelchair accesible station I've ever been to.

NR had earmarked money for it, but the coalition government put an end to that idea to please the British public, supposedly all in the name of reducing the deficit. It's a typical case of British stupidity. Leave everything undone because of money, then when it becomes unworkable, spend more to put it right.

 

[A0wen]

Very slightly OT, but Luton is long overdue a new station complex anyway. The current one is not fit for purpose,. It has to be the least wheelchair accesible station I've ever been to.

NR had earmarked money for it, but the coalition government put an end to that idea to please the British public, supposedly all in the name of reducing the deficit. It's a typical case of British stupidity. Leave everything undone because of money, then when it becomes unworkable, spend more to put it right.

That may all be true, but the work required to make Luton station DDA compliant is a fraction of the work which would be required to make the link to the Dunstable branch.

As for the government's decision - what do you suggest? Gordon Brown ****ed tax revenues up the wall relentlessly for 13 years. At some point, somebody has to take the decision to start paying the debt off - unless you seriously believe getting the country into more into debt is worthwhile. IMO the stupidity was that of the government which allowed the deficit to balloon to the stage it did, not that of the government which is trying to resolve it.

 

[asylumxl]

That may all be true, but the work required to make Luton station DDA compliant is a fraction of the work which would be required to make the link to the Dunstable branch.

As for the government's decision - what do you suggest? Gordon Brown ****ed tax revenues up the wall relentlessly for 13 years. At some point, somebody has to take the decision to start paying the debt off - unless you seriously believe getting the country into more into debt is worthwhile. IMO the stupidity was that of the government which allowed the deficit to balloon to the stage it did, not that of the government which is trying to resolve it.

I never even mentioned the Dunstable branch in my reply, hence I said it was slightly OT.

All 13 years are Gordon Browns fault? Irrelevant of whos fault it is, yes, I'd rather we invest in our country than make cuts to everything in sight. If you want improvements you've got to pay, simple.

If they want to save some money, maybe they should look at the horrendous amounts they spend on "independent" consultants...

 

[A0wen]

I never even mentioned the Dunstable branch in my reply, hence I said it was slightly OT.

All 13 years are Gordon Browns fault? Irrelevant of whos fault it is, yes, I'd rather we invest in our country than make cuts to everything in sight. If you want improvements you've got to pay, simple.

If they want to save some money, maybe they should look at the horrendous amounts they spend on "independent" consultants...

But you can't spend money you don't have - regardless of the possible future benefit.

Off topic, but the point has to be made, for over 10 years the economy grew in this country and tax revenues did as well (due to a combination of increases in the rates / allowances and also naturally through the economy growing). Any sensible government would have divided the proceeds betwen investment in the national infrastructure (which is not the same as giving ever increasing pay rises to public sector employees) and paying down the deficit which this country has run since WW2. Instead, the last government chose to 'spend' i.e. hire more people, increase public sector pay, rather than 'invest' and didn't put money aside for the inevitable downturn.

Given that Gordon Brown was either chancellor or PM between 1997 and 2010, I think it is perfectly fair to lay a large proportion of the blame at his door for the problems the country now faces.

And lastly, however much is being paid to consultants, is a drop in the ocean compared to the liabilities of the public sector pension scheme. That would be a far more reasonable place to start looking for economies, given the public sector employs < 35% of the total workforce, yet is a massive drain on the tax system.

 

[E&W Lucas]

Very slightly OT, but Luton is long overdue a new station complex anyway. The current one is not fit for purpose,. It has to be the least wheelchair accesible station I've ever been to.

Luton station may well be a run down 1960's dump, but there is a far more wheelchair friendly option just up the road at Parkway. If you want to save public money, huge sums invested to please minority groups would be a good place to start. Any wheelchair user has a realistic option in the Luton area, so that is not a justification for spending a fortune ripping the main station apart.

 

[Trog]

If you were going to reinstate the Dunstable Branch with a service off the MML, which would be madness. The least stupid way to do it would be to come off the slow line side of the MML south of Chiltern Green, and follow the old branch alignment from there. As this would obviate the need for large scale remodelling and flyovers at Luton. But the capacity and linespeed available on such a single track branch would be low.

A slightly more practical alternative would be to reinstate the previous link just south of Luton Station. For use only for stock access off and on the branch. Build a platform on the branch opposite the main Luton station. Then run a one or two car shuttle, one engine in steam up and down the branch.

 

[asylumxl]

But you can't spend money you don't have

You say that, but I don't think it's quite true, otherwise we wouldn't have this problem. It is preferable not to.

You've also gone and blamed Gordon Brown, then said that this problem has been in existance since WWII. The Americans set the ball rolling with the "Marshall Plan" and since then European governments have resorted to borrowing as a solution. To me, it is this culture of borrowing that has caused all the issues, not one particular person. It's responsible for so many problems on a global scale. Yes, I do think cuts need to be made, but I also think the Condems are cutting too deeply and in the wrong areas.

 

[A0wen]

If you were going to reinstate the Dunstable Branch with a service off the MML, which would be madness. The least stupid way to do it would be to come off the slow line side of the MML south of Chiltern Green, and follow the old branch alignment from there. As this would obviate the need for large scale remodelling and flyovers at Luton. But the capacity and linespeed available on such a single track branch would be low.

A slightly more practical alternative would be to reinstate the previous link just south of Luton Station. For use only for stock access off and on the branch. Build a platform on the branch opposite the main Luton station. Then run a one or two car shuttle, one engine in steam up and down the branch.

First one is totally impractical as a quick look using Google Earth will show you - Luton Airport link road is in the way, and there's been various bits of building on the formation in the south of Luton.

Option 2 isn't much better - the big issue is that the site of Bute St station has been completely cleared now and nothing remains as have the links into it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You say that, but I don't think it's quite true, otherwise we wouldn't have this problem. It is preferable not to.

You've also gone and blamed Gordon Brown, then said that this problem has been in existance since WWII. The Americans set the ball rolling with the "Marshall Plan" and since then European governments have resorted to borrowing as a solution. To me, it is this culture of borrowing that has caused all the issues, not one particular person. It's responsible for so many problems on a global scale. Yes, I do think cuts need to be made, but I also think the Condems are cutting too deeply and in the wrong areas.

This country has run a deficit since WW2, however under Gordon Brown's stewardship it has reached monumental proportions, quite unheard of at any other times.

In terms of where to make the cuts, there are only so many options - given that (rightly or wrongly) health and much of the education budget were protected, that doesn't leave many other areas. The public sector pension scheme is the one area where savings, both current and future, could be made, but the unions refuse to negotiate on this.

 

[Trog]

First one is totally impractical as a quick look using Google Earth will show you - Luton Airport link road is in the way, and there's been various bits of building on the formation in the south of Luton.

Option 2 isn't much better - the big issue is that the site of Bute St station has been completely cleared now and nothing remains as have the links into it.

If I remember rightly the buildings you speak of are retail units. The owners of which not having any sentimental attachment to them, will move on if paid the going rate. This will cost money but less than a major railway remod with grade seperated junctions.

Looking at Google Earth as you recomend, I also note that the remaining section of the formation runs very close to the A505. So it might even be possible to run the railway alongside the road and leave the shops alone.

As for the Luton Airport link road, as it is on a high enough embankment to go over the Midland Mainline. I would suggest that an adjacent single span for the branch should also be possible.

OK so the track at Bute Street has been replaced with a car park. So what, the track would probably have needed replacing anyway after ~ 20 years of disuse, and a bit of tarmac won't take much shifting. The main advantage of replacing the connection like for like is that unless the station has been resignalled since the connection came out. The layout of the remaining signalling will have a hole in it, that will fit the signalling required for the connecting line. This will help reduce the amount of signal design and alteration required, and S&T work does not come cheap.

But as I said these are least stupid options, as the costs against traffic will not add up.