• 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!

Next 50 Bids for reopenings

Status
Not open for further replies.

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
1,055
Nice idea but in reality a prohibitively expensive pipedream. I've cycled a lot in this area and you're right, much of the trackbed has either been incorporated into road schemes or returned to farmland. It's a largely rural area with Market Weighton and Pocklington the only two towns of any great significance along the route and anyone wanting to travel through from Beverley to York can already do so with just a change at Hull.
There are ~20,000 people in Market Weighton, Pocklington, and Stamford Bridge. That, coupled with the fact a busy bus service runs, it's parallel to a busy road. The railway would also greatly improve access to Hull and Beverley from the north. It would require some rerouting or demolition sure, but it's not just a "pipe dream"
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

BigCj34

Member
Joined
5 Apr 2016
Messages
783
The idea that a line like this would lead to a massive reduction in road congestion on the parallel road is simply fantasy. The people who are on that road causing congestion will be coming from various places and going to various places; very few of them would even be able to switch to a rail service, let alone actually do so. One only has to look at the roads approaching any rail connected coastal resort on a sunny day for evidence.
Congested roads will always be congested, the key is not to induce more demand by building more lanes but explore other means to bring down journey times, which is where spatially efficient mass transit with dedicated routes comes in.

On that logic in a rural area where there is not much road congestion reopening a railway often would not make sense When the bus services can be improved.
 
Joined
7 Feb 2008
Messages
285
York to Hull via Beverley would be a tremendous re-opening. It was one of Beeching's routes for development. Most of Yorkshire's railways were raped by Beeching's cuts and many towns have taken years to recover.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
York to Hull via Beverley would be a tremendous re-opening. It was one of Beeching's routes for development. Most of Yorkshire's railways were raped by Beeching's cuts and many towns have taken years to recover.
There is already a perfectly acceptable York to Hull service via Selby, running approximately hourly, with which passengers from Beverly/Cottingham can connect at Paragon station, so this proposal is a waste of time/money. The existing service could even be run by electric teams, if electrification is ever extended to Hull.

If money is to be spent re-opening lines, it should be focussed on routes to major cities where there are road traffic issues. Lines from Ashington to Newcastle and Portishead to Bristol are good examples. Re-opening stations is simpler, but can be helpful, provided that there is sufficient line capacity. Suitable examples include Plympton, Somerton and Charfield in SW England, and Caerleon, Magor and St Clears in South Wales.
 
Last edited:

lachlan

Member
Joined
11 Aug 2019
Messages
1,055
There is already a perfectly acceptable York to Hull service via Selby, running approximately hourly, with which passengers from Beverly/Cottingham can connect at Paragon station, so this proposal is a waste of time/money. The existing service could even be run by electric teams, if electrification is ever extended to Hull.
I can't remember the times off the top of my head but both the bus and train from York to Beverley are significantly slower than driving and slower than the service in the 50s prior to closure of the line. With that, and that the line would connect 20,000 people to the railway network, how is it a waste of money?
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,516
There is already a perfectly acceptable York to Hull service via Selby, running approximately hourly, with which passengers from Beverly/Cottingham can connect at Paragon station, so this proposal is a waste of time/money. The existing service could even be run by electric teams, if electrification is ever extended to Hull.

If money is to be spent re-opening lines, it should be focussed on routes to major cities where there are road traffic issues. Lines from Ashington to Newcastle and Portishead to Bristol are good examples. Re-opening stations is simpler, but can be helpful, provided that there is sufficient line capacity. Suitable examples include Plympton, Somerton and Charfield in SW England, and Caerleon, Magor and St Clears in South Wales

So this project would be a waste of time and money, yet money should be spent on projects on routes into cities where there are road traffic issues?

Have you driven the A1079, A614, into York or into Hull at rush hour? This scheme targets exactly the problems you describe preferring. Plus adds 3 new stations bringing 37,000 people into reasonable catchment of a railway station.

Furthermore there's clearly untapped end to end demand for the line, and capacity constraints approaching York from the south, which is avoided by accessing York from the Scarborough direction.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,153
A bit of an over-reaction that to a perfectly reasonable response.

There are plenty of lines which do serve seaside resorts and the traffic jams ensue on the roads the minute the sun comes out. Some of those lines are fairly key as well - looking at the likes of Bournemouth or Hastings. So @Bald Rick's observation is quite correct - and the chances that reinstating Hunstanton would alleviate the traffic jams is remarkably low.

(General comment, not necessarily linked to the specific proposal).

If it were possible to create a park and ride facility then you could well see people in large numbers use the rail services, especially if the parking in the seaside resort was expensive/longer walk from the beach than the station.

A good example of this can be seen at St Ives (Cornwall), however it's always better to have a fairly decent passenger base so that the service is worth running all year round.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
So this project would be a waste of time and money, yet money should be spent on projects on routes into cities where there are road traffic issues?

Have you driven the A1079, A614, into York or into Hull at rush hour? This scheme targets exactly the problems you describe preferring. Plus adds 3 new stations bringing 37,000 people into reasonable catchment of a railway station.

Furthermore there's clearly untapped end to end demand for the line, and capacity constraints approaching York from the south, which is avoided by accessing York from the Scarborough direction.
End-to-end traffic is already adequately catered for by existing services. The length of line that would need to be re-opened is substantial (34 miles) and the previous track bed, especially in the urban areas served, has been substantially built over, obstructed or used. It is a largely rural area, and the populations of Stamford Bridge, Pocklington and Market Weighton combined are less than 20k. There is unlikely to be much commuting into Hull from towns on the proposed reinstated line (Beverley and Cottingham already have a good train service).

A much better re-opening in terms of value for money would be Aberbeeg to Abertillery, a mere 2 miles with an uobstructed trackbed as far as the Tesco store. It would bring a population of over 15k (Abertillery and Cwmtillery combined) closer to the railway than the existing station at Llanhilleth. Re-opening this short stretch of line would also be helpful to an area of economic deprivation, which is a description hardly true of Pocklington with its posh public school that actually occupies former railway land there. A new service could be run to Newport (on the existing line from Pye Corner) in conjunction with the existing service from Ebbw Vale to Cardiff. The western road approaches to Newport are quite congested at rush hours, based on personal experience from when I worked at the Royal Gwent Hospital.
 
Last edited:

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,153
So this project would be a waste of time and money, yet money should be spent on projects on routes into cities where there are road traffic issues?

Have you driven the A1079, A614, into York or into Hull at rush hour? This scheme targets exactly the problems you describe preferring. Plus adds 3 new stations bringing 37,000 people into reasonable catchment of a railway station.

Furthermore there's clearly untapped end to end demand for the line, and capacity constraints approaching York from the south, which is avoided by accessing York from the Scarborough direction.

Just using the last post on the subject, not all questions related to this post.

Would running from Scarborough allow (more) through services to run, and in doing so improve platform capacity?

Given that direct services are more attractive than changing, then a direct service would increase rail use would it not?

Likewise by removing passengers from the existing route would free up capacity for others to use the existing trains without the need to lengthen existing services, and whilst lengthening existing services would be cheaper, that would only be true of there's no significant engineering works required. Now whilst that would benefit capacity on a wider area it depends on where the extra capacity is needed. How well loaded are the existing services?

Rail has to be considered as part of the wider move towards net zero (rail with its current user of diesel trains has a slightly lower than EV emission level, with much more scope to reduce this further than EV does), would such an opening allow traffic filters to be fitted to more secondary roads (i.e. those which are mostly residential streets which people use as they are through roads) so as to reduce the reliance on the car?

Before anyone suggests that doing so would create more congestion, it generally had limited impact on main road traffic volume as there's then safe walking/cycling routes so people stop driving for their local travel and for longer distance travel are more inclined to consider public transport. Partly as people have an aversion to congestion and so find alternative road roads/change mode/change lifestyle (i.e. move jobs) so as to avoid congestion. This has been supported by before and after traffic surveys in the areas around road closures.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,153
would also be helpful to an area of economic deprivation, which is a description hardly true of Pocklington with its posh public school.

Don't underestimate the value to the railways of a posh school, as it can be a key traffic generator. There are many examples across the country of such schools creating noticeable passenger numbers on the local rail services. Especially given that such schools are likely to have a wider catchment area than the local state schools.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Don't underestimate the value to the railways of a posh school, as it can be a key traffic generator. There are many examples across the country of such schools creating noticeable passenger numbers on the local rail services. Especially given that such schools are likely to have a wider catchment area than the local state schools.
Pocklington School would probably oppose the re-opening, on the basis of NIMBY - it occupies the track bed and the former station trainshed.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,883
York to Hull via Beverley would be a tremendous re-opening. It was one of Beeching's routes for development.

No it wasn't. Quite the opposite. It was one of the worked up financial cases in the Beeching report to show why it should be closed.
 

RT4038

Established Member
Joined
22 Feb 2014
Messages
4,883
So this project would be a waste of time and money, yet money should be spent on projects on routes into cities where there are road traffic issues?

Have you driven the A1079, A614, into York or into Hull at rush hour? This scheme targets exactly the problems you describe preferring. Plus adds 3 new stations bringing 37,000 people into reasonable catchment of a railway station.

Furthermore there's clearly untapped end to end demand for the line, and capacity constraints approaching York from the south, which is avoided by accessing York from the Scarborough direction.

What is this 'clear untapped end to end demand for the line'? If there was demand, the number of carriages on the existing trains running end to end (via Selby) could easily be increased. However, these trains are not noted as being particularly overcrowded, are they?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,516
Certainly haven’t noticed routes slow to clear under normal ARS operation in the past
(General comment, not necessarily linked to the specific proposal).

If it were possible to create a park and ride facility then you could well see people in large numbers use the rail services, especially if the parking in the seaside resort was expensive/longer walk from the beach than the station.

A good example of this can be seen at St Ives (Cornwall), however it's always better to have a fairly decent passenger base so that the service is worth running all year round.

Hunstanton and St Ives aren’t comparable. The road to St Ives still gets very busy, but it only goes to St Ives. And there is limited parking there, so day trippers are quite rightly invited to use the P&R. The station at St Ives is a short walk from everything that St Ives has to offer.

The road to Hunstanton also serves a whole string of seaside villages and beaches over a 15 mile stretch of coast. The railway couldn’t serve them all, or get close to it. Parking isn’t the problem it is at St Ives.

There’s also the small matter of an awful lot of property on the line of the old railway.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,214
Hunstanton and St Ives aren’t comparable. The road to St Ives still gets very busy, but it only goes to St Ives. And there is limited parking there, so day trippers are quite rightly invited to use the P&R. The station at St Ives is a short walk from everything that St Ives has to offer.

The road to Hunstanton also serves a whole string of seaside villages and beaches over a 15 mile stretch of coast. The railway couldn’t serve them all, or get close to it. Parking isn’t the problem it is at St Ives.

There’s also the small matter of an awful lot of property on the line of the old railway.

We drove to Hunstanton earlier in the year, swathes of parking to accommodate the day trippers. (Appropriately, we parked on the former station site!) The relatively poor roads to get there naturally limit demand somewhat. The most notable congestion was around the King's Lynn ring road in the evening on the way home, which of course is caused by a multitude of journeys from A to B, C to D, F to Y, Z to Q, etc.
 

Bobdogs

On Moderation
Joined
19 Dec 2017
Messages
167
Location
Carmarthenshire
Surely it’s for the Cheese traffic. Perhaps Messrs Wallace and Gromit can build it.
The creameries at Pont Llanio and Felinfach and the subsequent Dairy Gold factory at the latter are long closed..
With the coming Assembly elections next year, it will doubtless rear its head again
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Hunstanton and St Ives aren’t comparable. The road to St Ives still gets very busy, but it only goes to St Ives. And there is limited parking there, so day trippers are quite rightly invited to use the P&R. The station at St Ives is a short walk from everything that St Ives has to offer.

The road to Hunstanton also serves a whole string of seaside villages and beaches over a 15 mile stretch of coast. The railway couldn’t serve them all, or get close to it. Parking isn’t the problem it is at St Ives.

There’s also the small matter of an awful lot of property on the line of the old railway.
Well put.
I have visited and stayed in both towns once each. I arrived in St Ives by train, changing at St Erth from the Cornish Riviera Limited. I travelled to Hunstanton by car, as I stayed in Old Hunstanton and visited the coast further east near Burnham Overy Staithe.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,516
The creameries at Pont Llanio and Felinfach and the subsequent Dairy Gold factory at the latter are long closed..
With the coming Assembly elections next year, it will doubtless rear its head again

I meant for the Hawes line, sorry if that wasn’t clear!
 

CaptainHaddock

Established Member
Joined
10 Feb 2011
Messages
2,476
I can't remember the times off the top of my head but both the bus and train from York to Beverley are significantly slower than driving and slower than the service in the 50s prior to closure of the line. With that, and that the line would connect 20,000 people to the railway network, how is it a waste of money?

Yet of those 20,000 people, chances are 90% of them will have access to a car and the other 10% probably don't need to travel that much, eg pensioners.

It's been 50 years since the railways served Market Weighton and Pocklington so anyone living there who wishes to travel would probably have learned to drive and buy a car at the earliest opportunity. Commuter traffic would be minimal and, nice theough the scenery is aroind there, I wouldn't really class The Yorkshire Wolds as a tourist hotspot.
 

2392

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2015
Messages
248
Location
Felling on Tyne
The Consett/Newcastle bid is a perfect example of this; the old route and the station site are long gone with plenty of roads and new houses in their place. Unless the new MP plans to start digging tunnels under Leadgate and Stanley, it's all hot air and the Consett nightlife experience will sadly remain cut off to rail passengers.

Indeed the better idea/line to resurrect, would be the line that left the ECML just south of Tyne Yard. As most of the Derwent Valley has built over reverted to farm/green belt and the like. Granted it wouldn't directly serve the MetroCentre, but that's no great problem as any service coming from the ECML couldgo forward from Newcastle Central onwards to the MetroCentre/Hexham etc.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,516
End-to-end traffic is already adequately catered for by existing services. The length of line that would need to be re-opened is substantial (34 miles) and the previous track bed, especially in the urban areas served, has been substantially built over, obstructed or used. It is a largely rural area, and the populations of Stamford Bridge, Pocklington and Market Weighton combined are less than 20k. There is unlikely to be much commuting into Hull from towns on the proposed reinstated line (Beverley and Cottingham already have a good train service).

A much better re-opening in terms of value for money would be Aberbeeg to Abertillery, a mere 2 miles with an uobstructed trackbed as far as the Tesco store.

End to end traffic is not adequately catered for; two cities the size of Hull and York have an hourly service between them which typically takes at least 1hr10m. There is huge demand for travel between locations along this route and the current rail service is simply not attractive to most of it, both due to frequency (which is constrained by capacity into York from the south) and journey time (70 minutes from Hull verses 56 via Pocklington, or 90 minutes from Beverley versus 46 via Pocklington).

The ERYC Local Plan Strategy document (adopted in 2016) recognises that the A1079 is already seriously congested at peak times and that “… the road network cannot be expected to accommodate unconstrained traffic growth” (paras 7.43-7.44).

Dualling the A1079 has been shown to be more expensive than reinstating the railway.

The intermediate stations would have catchment (as these are rural areas the quoted population of a town a very tightly drawn). More representative populations are:

Pocklington Provincial (Pocklington and Stamford Bridge plus their hinterlands) 17,001
Wolds Weighton (Market Weighton, it's hinterland and some of Pocklington's) 16,746
Holme on Spalding Moor (also Market Weighton hinterland) 3,100

So that's 37,000 odd. Remember all 3 settlements are earmarked for substantial house building in the Local Plan too.

Previous engineering studies have identified multiple workable diversions around the lost urban parts of the route.

Just using the last post on the subject, not all questions related to this post.

Would running from Scarborough allow (more) through services to run, and in doing so improve platform capacity?

Given that direct services are more attractive than changing, then a direct service would increase rail use would it not?

Likewise by removing passengers from the existing route would free up capacity for others to use the existing trains without the need to lengthen existing services, and whilst lengthening existing services would be cheaper, that would only be true of there's no significant engineering works required. Now whilst that would benefit capacity on a wider area it depends on where the extra capacity is needed. How well loaded are the existing services?

It could provide opportunity for through services too yes, from the Scarborough direction there would be the opportunity to reverse in platform 3 or 5 at York to go North. Hull lacks links north of York and this could be a good way of achieving such a service. Further platforms are suggested in other plans for construction at York so this could well be a workable option.

There would probably be some effect of freeing up capacity on the existing service to York however I'm not sure it's likely to be any more meaningful than avoiding the peak services being full and standing.

The existing service isn't really getting it's hands on the end to end market, it's much more about modal shift. Once a half hourly service was running via Pocklington, I'd suggest that the existing service could pick up the all stops work between Hull and Selby (releiving the Hull-Doncaster stopper and the Hull-Leeds services).

Pocklington School would probably oppose the re-opening, on the basis of NIMBY - it occupies the track bed and the former station trainshed.

New workable alignment options have been identified by engineering studies. The areas involved are pretty much free from challenging terrain and still provide for reasonably well located stations.

No it wasn't. Quite the opposite. It was one of the worked up financial cases in the Beeching report to show why it should be closed.

The local BR management team had identified it as a route they anticipated remaining in use, and the first automatic half barrier crossing was installed on the line. In fact when closure was first announced significant amounts of modernisation was planned and equipment ordered, including resignalling to a single box.

What is this 'clear untapped end to end demand for the line'? If there was demand, the number of carriages on the existing trains running end to end (via Selby) could easily be increased. However, these trains are not noted as being particularly overcrowded, are they?

The issue is journey time, you could to a small degree address this by running the Hull services via the East Coast Mainline rather than Sherburn but you run into capacity problems on approach to York and you still don't address the frequency problem.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,516
It's been 50 years since the railways served Market Weighton and Pocklington so anyone living there who wishes to travel would probably have learned to drive and buy a car at the earliest opportunity. Commuter traffic would be minimal and, nice theough the scenery is aroind there, I wouldn't really class The Yorkshire Wolds as a tourist hotspot.

But yet that's what happened on the Borders Railway?

Your hypothetical commuter yes probably does have a car. But if they work in York they'll be experiencing a congested journey on a road with a poor safety record to get to a park and ride site for a bus into the centre of York. If they work in Hull they'll be also experiencing such a road, followed in all likelihood by spending a significant part of their journey crawling into Hull on Beverley Road. The idea that none of these people would be tempted to give that up for a quicker train journey doesn't really wash in my opinion.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Indeed the better idea/line to resurrect, would be the line that left the ECML just south of Tyne Yard. As most of the Derwent Valley has built over reverted to farm/green belt and the like. Granted it wouldn't directly serve the MetroCentre, but that's no great problem as any service coming from the ECML couldgo forward from Newcastle Central onwards to the MetroCentre/Hexham etc.
The track bed of this line via Stanley, which didn't close until the 1980s following the closure of Consett steelworks, is largely extant and is currently a public footpath. It would also serve the major tourist attraction of Beamish, so it would be the preferred route should one wish to re-connect Tyneside and Consett by rail.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
End to end traffic is not adequately catered for; two cities the size of Hull and York have an hourly service between them which typically takes at least 1hr10m. There is huge demand for travel between locations along this route and the current rail service is simply not attractive to most of it, both due to frequency (which is constrained by capacity into York from the south) and journey time (70 minutes from Hull verses 56 via Pocklington, or 90 minutes from Beverley versus 46 via Pocklington).



Dualling the A1079 has been shown to be more expensive than reinstating the railway.

The intermediate stations would have catchment (as these are rural areas the quoted population of a town a very tightly drawn). More representative populations are:

Pocklington Provincial (Pocklington and Stamford Bridge plus their hinterlands) 17,001
Wolds Weighton (Market Weighton, it's hinterland and some of Pocklington's) 16,746
Holme on Spalding Moor (also Market Weighton hinterland) 3,100

So that's 37,000 odd. Remember all 3 settlements are earmarked for substantial house building in the Local Plan too.

Previous engineering studies have identified multiple workable diversions around the lost urban parts of the route.



It could provide opportunity for through services too yes, from the Scarborough direction there would be the opportunity to reverse in platform 3 or 5 at York to go North. Hull lacks links north of York and this could be a good way of achieving such a service. Further platforms are suggested in other plans for construction at York so this could well be a workable option.

There would probably be some effect of freeing up capacity on the existing service to York however I'm not sure it's likely to be any more meaningful than avoiding the peak services being full and standing.

The existing service isn't really getting it's hands on the end to end market, it's much more about modal shift. Once a half hourly service was running via Pocklington, I'd suggest that the existing service could pick up the all stops work between Hull and Selby (releiving the Hull-Doncaster stopper and the Hull-Leeds services).



New workable alignment options have been identified by engineering studies. The areas involved are pretty much free from challenging terrain and still provide for reasonably well located stations.



The local BR management team had identified it as a route they anticipated remaining in use, and the first automatic half barrier crossing was installed on the line. In fact when closure was first announced significant amounts of modernisation was planned and equipment ordered, including resignalling to a single box.



The issue is journey time, you could to a small degree address this by running the Hull services via the East Coast Mainline rather than Sherburn but you run into capacity problems on approach to York and you still don't address the frequency problem.
With respect to this route, Beeching made the right decision, which in this case was evidence-based.
 

Gathursty

Established Member
Joined
31 May 2011
Messages
2,596
Location
Wigan
The only thing I can add to the York - Beverley debate is that there are some people saying you can travel by Selby and Hull so what's the issue?

Surely if you wanted to walk from the top left corner of a rectangle to the top right corner of a rectangle, most people would want to walk along the top edge only. People saying there is already a three edge route are surely crazy in my opinion. Why would you want to walk 3/4 of the rectangle when you could just walk 1/4??
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
32,516
Why would you want to walk 3/4 of the rectangle when you could just walk 1/4??

For the exercise, generally.

But in this case, the top of the rectangle doesn’t exist, and putting it there will cost a lot of money.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
11,153
Hunstanton and St Ives aren’t comparable. The road to St Ives still gets very busy, but it only goes to St Ives. And there is limited parking there, so day trippers are quite rightly invited to use the P&R. The station at St Ives is a short walk from everything that St Ives has to offer.

The road to Hunstanton also serves a whole string of seaside villages and beaches over a 15 mile stretch of coast. The railway couldn’t serve them all, or get close to it. Parking isn’t the problem it is at St Ives.

There’s also the small matter of an awful lot of property on the line of the old railway.

I suspected that it wouldn't have been comparable, although not knowing the area didn't want to guess, hence the opening statement about it being a general comment and not scheme specific.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
29,292
Location
Redcar
With respect to this route, Beeching made the right decision, which in this case was evidence-based.

Beeching made a decision based on the prevailing circumstances of the 1960s. Many were right, some were questionable and some were wrong. We have however moved on in the subsequent sixty-odd years and decisions that were made then surely cannot be binding on what we do now to meet the needs and requirements of the 21st Century. I would propose that rather than simply dismissing the suggestion on the basis that "Beeching was right" it might be worth engaging with the very good arguments advanced by @IanXC (which I would agree with having experienced the main road in question and the rail journey between Hull and York when I went to University in Hull). Otherwise, why on earth even bother with any of these exercises at all!?
 

Jamesrob637

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2016
Messages
5,699
Sadly I can't see much of it happening either. There's been so much talk over the decades about various reopenings from both sides of the house and still nothing happens. Locally the likes of Bere Alson-Tavistock makes very good sense but nobody has the commitment or money to make it happen,but they all agree it's a good idea,as long as someone else pays. Many of you may remember a decade or more ago that the government of the day issued a list of lines that were desirable to reopen. Again locally the Brixham branch was on it! Really? How many on the new list are actually feasable,or are some so hard to make it not worth the bother. I'm reminded of Yes Minister. You give a number of proposals,one that is possible (the one you want). One that is possible but far to expensive and another that is impossible.

Half of the Brixham bit is still intact albeit as the steam line to Dartmouth!
 

2392

Member
Joined
7 Apr 2015
Messages
248
Location
Felling on Tyne
The track bed of this line via Stanley, which didn't close until the 1980s following the closure of Consett steelworks, is largely extant and is currently a public footpath. It would also serve the major tourist attraction of Beamish, so it would be the preferred route should one wish to re-connect Tyneside and Consett by rail.

That's why I suggested that route, rather than the pretty well obliterated Derwent Valley line which connected to the Newcastle Carlisle line near to Blaydon Rugby clubs ground on the west side of the MetroCentre.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top