North Lakes Railway

[Bald Rick]

Isn't the Leylant Saltings mystery more likely to be some sort of a ticketing anomaly than dropping to 1 passenger a day. Weren't line rovers the same cost as a return at one time ? Perhaps they were selling those instead.

Indeed, it must be a ticketing anomaly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does the general geography of the environs and the layout of the town have anything to do with this at St Ives.

Indeed again, the town itself just doesn't have enough space for parking, and most of the roads are narrow. So the local authority quite sensibly pursued a park and ride policy, with traffic restraint during the day in the high season. This is mostly aimed at day trippers though. Last time we had a week in St Ives we had a parking space by the flat, but if we wanted to day trip out we needed to be out by 10 or had to tiptoe our way down roads thronged with people.

 

[deltic08]

There's facts and facts.

Fact 1) opening the line between Harrogate and Ripon does precisely nothing for the other 6.5m concessionary bus trips per year in North Yorkshire.

Fact 2) your study might have said £60m in 2005, but note that the costs of every railway opened / reopened in this country that required full reconstruction (ie not upgrading of a freight only line) since 2005 has cost at least £12m a mile. Some have cost much, much more.

Fact 3) railway construction costs since 2005 have gone up. Some markedly so.

Fact 4) optimism bias is 60% to make a compliant DfT business case

Fact 5) I'm not little

1. True, but would do an awful lot of good for Ripon and Harrogate by an additional 1.5 million footfalls annually including visitors who can only arrive into Ripon by road transport currently. Ripon does have a terrible car parking problem.

2. No, my study said £38m +/- 33% in 2005. Have construction costs doubled in ten years?
Borders rail came out at below £10m per mile with 9 miles of double track, full signalling and seven stations. Ripon-Harrogate had only 4 miles of double track and one station. It worked out at just under £4m per mile at 2005 prices. I think under £60m at to-days costs would still be on the button. We shall soon find out as I am hoping to commission an engineering study for Harrogate-Northallerton before Summer 2016.
However, Ripon-Harrogate was basically a branch line. Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton would have to be essentially a double track secondary mainline to allow two passenger trains per hour and day time freight trains. That would push up construction costs but more trains per day would pay for it in access charges.

3. Where is your evidence of markedly expensive reinstatements since 2005?

4. May be 60% now but I was quoted £30% in 2005. Is it just optimism bias that has markedly increased?

5. Can't argue that one!

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed again, the town itself just doesn't have enough space for parking, and most of the roads are narrow. So the local authority quite sensibly pursued a park and ride policy, with traffic restraint during the day in the high season. This is mostly aimed at day trippers though. Last time we had a week in St Ives we had a parking space by the flat, but if we wanted to day trip out we needed to be out by 10 or had to tiptoe our way down roads thronged with people.

From what I remember, the only decent-sized public car park in St Ives is the one created when the station was moved to a less convenient site further from the town.

 

[Bald Rick]

2. No, my study said £38m +/- 33% in 2005. Have construction costs doubled in ten years?
Borders rail came out at below £10m per mile with 9 miles of double track, full signalling and seven stations. Ripon-Harrogate had only 4 miles of double track and one station. It worked out at just under £4m per mile at 2005 prices. I think under £60m at to-days costs would still be on the button. We shall soon find out as I am hoping to commission an engineering study for Harrogate-Northallerton before Summer 2016.
However, Ripon-Harrogate was basically a branch line. Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton would have to be essentially a double track secondary mainline to allow two passenger trains per hour and day time freight trains. That would push up construction costs but more trains per day would pay for it in access charges.

3. Where is your evidence of markedly expensive reinstatements since 2005?

4. May be 60% now but I was quoted £30% in 2005. Is it just optimism bias that has markedly increased?

2) Borders Rail was £12m a mile at 2014 prices, and that's just the NR costs (£355m). It is regarded as somewhat cheap compared to other similar works. By comparison, the Croxley link (TfL) is around £100m a mile. The Selby diversion was £4m a mile at 1980 prices (with no electrification, TPWS, Radio provision, all logistics, and most design was 'free' by not being properly accounted for, no TOC compensation, etc etc), so it is absolute fantasy to think that you could build anything for that sort of cash. Incidentally by my reckoning (using OS maps) it is 8 miles between Harrogate and Ripon...

3) I didn't say railway reinstatement costs, but railway construction costs generally. See the Bowe report. Indeed any type of construction costs (highways, railways, docks, airports, etc) all have increased well above inflation in that time.

4) optimism bias of 60% is a requirement of all business cases requiring public funding and has been so for a long time.

 

[yorksrob]

I'm afraid the Chancellor needs to tap into his infrastructure fund that seems to be available to build hundreds of miles of roads to nowhere.

 

[miami]

I'm afraid the Chancellor needs to tap into his infrastructure fund that seems to be available to build hundreds of miles of roads to nowhere.

Which roads are these?

 

[yorksrob]

Which roads are these?

These ones:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/410877/ris-leaflet-accessible.pdf

 

[miami]

These ones:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/410877/ris-leaflet-accessible.pdf

I don't see any specifics in that, but certainly looks good if you take the claims at face value (reducing deaths for instance)

which specifically is a road to nowhere? As a whole the program of works delivers a 4:1 benefit, far better than the Keswick proponents can deliver.

 

[QueensCurve]

2) Borders Rail was £12m a mile at 2014 prices, and that's just the NR costs (£355m). It is regarded as somewhat cheap compared to other similar works. By comparison, the Croxley link (TfL) is around £100m a mile. The Selby diversion was £4m a mile at 1980 prices (with no electrification, TPWS, Radio provision, all logistics, and most design was 'free' by not being properly accounted for, no TOC compensation, etc etc), so it is absolute fantasy to think that you could build anything for that sort of cash. Incidentally by my reckoning (using OS maps) it is 8 miles between Harrogate and Ripon....

Not to say that there is a case for Harrogate to Ripon reinstatement, but that 8 miles is in the rural North wherease the Croxley link is high priced land in the urban Sythe. Some difference in land prices perhaps?

 

[yorksrob]

I don't see any specifics in that, but certainly looks good if you take the claims at face value (reducing deaths for instance)

which specifically is a road to nowhere? As a whole the program of works delivers a 4:1 benefit, far better than the Keswick proponents can deliver.

I notice that within the different projects, the new roads themselves tend to have a BCR of about 2, which is somewhat less than the headline figure of 4.

I also notice that in table 3.2, which illustrates the composition of the BCR, they managed to come up with a figure of £5,655m for wider economic benefits for the whole package.

Yet in the 2008 study for the Uckfield - Lewes route reinstatement, NR didn't seem to manage this (see p53 also p55-60).

http://uckfield.co.uk/lewes_uckfield_network_rail_final_report.pdf

I wonder if this has been left out of other reopening studies ?

Perhaps the DfT ought to give them a hand to fill in the gaps !

 

[Bald Rick]

Not to say that there is a case for Harrogate to Ripon reinstatement, but that 8 miles is in the rural North wherease the Croxley link is high priced land in the urban Sythe. Some difference in land prices perhaps?

Except that all but about 500metres of the Croxley link has remained in railway ownership, so land cost is a rather small proportion of the project. And the rest is, well, in Watford

And these farmers don't half know how to do a deal!

 

[deltic08]

2) Borders Rail was £12m a mile at 2014 prices, and that's just the NR costs (£355m). It is regarded as somewhat cheap compared to other similar works. By comparison, the Croxley link (TfL) is around £100m a mile. The Selby diversion was £4m a mile at 1980 prices (with no electrification, TPWS, Radio provision, all logistics, and most design was 'free' by not being properly accounted for, no TOC compensation, etc etc), so it is absolute fantasy to think that you could build anything for that sort of cash. Incidentally by my reckoning (using OS maps) it is 8 miles between Harrogate and Ripon...

3) I didn't say railway reinstatement costs, but railway construction costs generally. See the Bowe report. Indeed any type of construction costs (highways, railways, docks, airports, etc) all have increased well above inflation in that time.

4) optimism bias of 60% is a requirement of all business cases requiring public funding and has been so for a long time.

£355 includes the cost of the abortive scheme of inviting tenders to build and operate the route. Network Rails bill for planning and delivery of construction post 2012 was only £280m according to the Borders Rail website.

Selby diversion was constructed as a completely new high speed route on a flood plain (all on embankment above mean ground level) with easy curvature and much road, rail and river bridgework. The double junction at the north end was the first application of 100/125mph switches which was a very expensive installation. I would expect £4m per mile in 1980.

Nevertheless, Ripon-Harrogate was carefully costed at £38m, a touch over £4m per mile without electrification, in 2005. Whatever inflation has been in the last ten years then that is what it should cost if done now.
Fantasy or not, just wait for an update in Summer 2016 and be prepared to eat your words or hat or something.

It is 9 miles from former Dragon Jct to the proposed station site at Ripon. Station to station is 10 miles

Harrogate-Northallerton is not Croxley. Just think how far £100m would reinstate up here?

3. What is your interpretation of the difference between railway reinstatement and railway construction costs?

4. A long time must be less than 10 years as it wasn't 60% in 2005.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

These ones:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...t_data/file/410877/ris-leaflet-accessible.pdf

Does the Government, DfT and Highways Agency think we are all idiots. This is just a load of spin.
Improving air quality by increasing provision for MORE traffic and improving the environment by increasing provision for MORE traffic? Totally illogical!!!!!
Car usage has flat lined since 2010 having fallen from 2008-2010.
The EU has directed that vehicle exhaust emissions must fall by 60% by 2050 and here is the Government building yet more roads. Absolutely barking.

 

[MarkRedon]

I notice that within the different projects, the new roads themselves tend to have a BCR of about 2, which is somewhat less than the headline figure of 4.

I also notice that in table 3.2, which illustrates the composition of the BCR, they managed to come up with a figure. £5,655m for the whole package.

Yet in the 2008 study for the Uckfield - Lewes route reinstatement, NR didn't seem to manage this (see p53 also p55-60).

http://uckfield.co.uk/lewes_uckfield_network_rail_final_report.pdf

I wonder if this has been left out of other reopening studies ?

Perhaps the DfT ought to give them a hand to fill in the gaps !

I fear that we have travelled rather a long way from Penrith to Keswick in our discussions! I am not sufficiently familiar with the roads strategic assessment methodology to be in a position to comment on the figures which the Department for Transport uses in the document you have linked to.

Benefit to cost ratios BCRs are notoriously dependent upon the assumptions that you make: in particular, the extent to which you take into account wider network and social benefits and disbenefits. The specific case you were quoting, the final 2008 report by Network Rail into Lewes to Uckfield reopening, was a heavily redacted version of the original draft report – which had been much more positive about the wider benefits of a straightforward Lewes to Uckfield reopening.

In any event, the debate has long since moved on from discussing whether or not to reopen a short stretch of railway between two towns which in and of themselves are not particularly significant generators of passenger traffic. The BML2 campaign, of which I am a strong supporter, argues initially for a new railway between Uckfield and Brighton – with a spur to Lewes and beyond. This it positions within the context of new strategic links between Stansted, a Croydon Gateway, Uckfield and Brighton with journey possibilities also extending to Gatwick. In its Kent phase, it integrates links from Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. Taken together, the proposals provide relief both for the Kent main line through Tonbridge and the Brighton main line through Gatwick.

Detailed BCR figures are not yet calculated – that is not unusual in the early scoping of such a major transport development. Surely, this is the task of the Department for Transport and its consultants, not campaigners and politicians. But the idea has traction on the Conservative, Green Party and the Labour Party sides of the political divide in and around Brighton and has sufficiently impressed George Osborne for him to commit funds to more detailed study.

The project is very ambitious, will be very costly, but will significantly improve network connectivity and raw capacity in the south-east of England.

The BML2 campaign specifically rejects a limited Uckfield to Lewes reopening, on the grounds that it cannot – undertaken as a limited scheme, with a slow and low capacity so-called horseshoe curve into Brighton – do anything to overcome the fundamental need for a major capacity increase on routes to and from Brighton. See http://www.wealdenline.org.uk/why-lewes-uckfield-has-no-business-case.html:

WHY ‘LEWES – UCKFIELD’ HAS NO BUSINESS CASE

The following is an analysis by Chris Curtis, Network Rail’s Project Manager for the Lewes – Uckfield 2008 Reinstatement Study. Written in 2009, it explains why Network Rail cannot support a basic, incremental scheme to reopen the railway from Uckfield into Lewes.

Interestingly, as East West Rail is progressing through the various GRIP stages, the BCR forecasts are actually increasing – although that is at least in part because the scope of the project as a whole (and its headline cost) are also increasing.

I would suggest that Keswick Penrith can only make sense once it is clearer the extent to which HS2 will extend northwards and very probably only as part of a more strategic route to Workington? Similarly, reopening Harrogate to Ripon alone makes no sense; however, in the context of a strategic route northwards from Leeds – particularly with HS2 integration - through Ripon and Northallerton it is worthy of fuller investigation. If the cost of a scheme is doubled but the benefits increase fourfold, then the remaining issue is one of prioritising justified projects.

 

[deltic08]

I don't see any specifics in that, but certainly looks good if you take the claims at face value (reducing deaths for instance)

which specifically is a road to nowhere? As a whole the program of works delivers a 4:1 benefit, far better than the Keswick proponents can deliver.

If the average benefit is 4:1 then there must be schemes less than this. I must contact the Chancellor straight away as ATOC has calculated Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton at 4.6:1. in its 2009 Report and my early calculations work out somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0 until I factor in 100,000 fictitious homes and boost it to 11.0.
Do you know the BCR for Keswick reinstatement to make such a bold statement as this?

 

[yorksrob]

I fear that we have travelled rather a long way from Penrith to Keswick in our discussions! I am not sufficiently familiar with the roads strategic assessment methodology to be in a position to comment on the figures which the Department for Transport uses in the document you have linked to.

Benefit to cost ratios BCRs are notoriously dependent upon the assumptions that you make: in particular, the extent to which you take into account wider network and social benefits and disbenefits. The specific case you were quoting, the final 2008 report by Network Rail into Lewes to Uckfield reopening, was a heavily redacted version of the original draft report – which had been much more positive about the wider benefits of a straightforward Lewes to Uckfield reopening.

In any event, the debate has long since moved on from discussing whether or not to reopen a short stretch of railway between two towns which in and of themselves are not particularly significant generators of passenger traffic. The BML2 campaign, of which I am a strong supporter, argues initially for a new railway between Uckfield and Brighton – with a spur to Lewes and beyond. This it positions within the context of new strategic links between Stansted, a Croydon Gateway, Uckfield and Brighton with journey possibilities also extending to Gatwick. In its Kent phase, it integrates links from Tonbridge and Tunbridge Wells. Taken together, the proposals provide relief both for the Kent main line through Tonbridge and the Brighton main line through Gatwick.

Detailed BCR figures are not yet calculated – that is not unusual in the early scoping of such a major transport development. Surely, this is the task of the Department for Transport and its consultants, not campaigners and politicians. But the idea has traction on the Conservative, Green Party and the Labour Party sides of the political divide in and around Brighton and has sufficiently impressed George Osborne for him to commit funds to more detailed study.

The project is very ambitious, will be very costly, but will significantly improve network connectivity and raw capacity in the south-east of England.

The BML2 campaign specifically rejects a limited Uckfield to Lewes reopening, on the grounds that it cannot – undertaken as a limited scheme, with a slow and low capacity so-called horseshoe curve into Brighton – do anything to overcome the fundamental need for a major capacity increase on routes to and from Brighton. See http://www.wealdenline.org.uk/why-lewes-uckfield-has-no-business-case.html:

Indeed, it comes as no surprise to me that the original report was redacted as part of a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. NR ought to explain themselves.

I have every respect for the Wealden campaign and its long term objectives, however, I believe it is making a strategic error by arguing against its own core purpose, i.e. restoring the Brighton - Tonbridge line in its own right. If political fashion changes in favour of smaller scale local projects, it could bite them on the arse.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I would suggest that Keswick Penrith can only make sense once it is clearer the extent to which HS2 will extend northwards and very probably only as part of a more strategic route to Workington? Similarly, reopening Harrogate to Ripon alone makes no sense; however, in the context of a strategic route northwards from Leeds – particularly with HS2 integration - through Ripon and Northallerton it is worthy of fuller investigation. If the cost of a scheme is doubled but the benefits increase fourfold, then the remaining issue is one of prioritising justified projects.

Harrogate - Ripon definitely makes more sense as part of the through route North, but these are extra benefits to the core.

 

[Bald Rick]

£355 includes the cost of the abortive scheme of inviting tenders to build and operate the route. Network Rails bill for planning and delivery of construction post 2012 was only £280m according to the Borders Rail website.

...

Fantasy or not, just wait for an update in Summer 2016 and be prepared to eat your words or hat or something.

It is 9 miles from former Dragon Jct to the proposed station site at Ripon. Station to station is 10 miles

...

3. What is your interpretation of the difference between railway reinstatement and railway construction costs?

4. A long time must be less than 10 years as it wasn't 60% in 2005.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The borders rail website says £294m construction costs. That doesn't include a whole load of things like land purchase, consents, legals, design, feasibility, and so on. Usual rule of thumb is 20% for this. By coincidence that is £354m. The £355m is what NR have spent.

If by Summer 2016 you have a fully costed scheme to GRIP stage 3 (or equivalent - which is what funders require) with appropriate risk provision that says you can do it for less than £100m, I will indeed eat my hat. But I'm afraid you won't do that, as it requires extensive ground investigations, land referencing, structural assessments, environmental impact assessments, traffic impact assessments, constructability plans, consents plan with relevant statutory and non-statutory consultation conducted, assessed and concluded, alternatives considered, costed and discounted with evidence, and a full schedule with risk assessment. Plus reference designs suitable for approval in principle. Sorry if this is a bit extensive, but I have actually built railways (still am). It's not easy!

Railway construction costs are the costs of all construction on the railway. Mostly renewing and enhancing existing, but also building new. It's the same people, same techniques, same machinery, same materials. The only difference between new and existing is that there are fewer trains to worry about on new, but a lot more hassle from the neighbours. Most of whom really don't want you to build a new railway in their back yards. And there is an awful lot of evidence out there that railway construction costs have increased.

Optimism bias for major railway schemes (classed as non standard Civil Engineering) has been 66% since 2002/3. See HM Treasury Green book. Projects can of course vary from this with a well developed Cost Risk Assessment, and/or if it is not being funded by taxpayers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191507/Optimism_bias.pdf

I must stress that I'm all for building new railways. But I want everyone to be realistic about the effort and costs involved in doing so. And realistic about who is paying, and why they should pay, especially when there are so many other calls on public funding.

 

[MarkRedon]

I have every respect for the Wealden campaign and its long term objectives, however, I believe it is making a strategic error by arguing against its own core purpose, i.e. restoring the Brighton - Tonbridge line in its own right. If political fashion changes in favour of smaller scale local projects, it could bite them on the arse.

This is a real danger. And it may not just be political fashion; big-ticket schemes have to fight for limited capital, particularly when they are largely funded by the public purse and have very long payback periods. At this stage, I would prefer to talk about a strategic choice; time will tell whether that is erroneous.

I note that a new strategic analysis has been undertaken by the BML2 project group "this very month as is". It is available at: http://www.bml2.co.uk/images/PDF's/L&SC AnalysisR1.pdf.

In October 2015 the Secretary of State for Transport instructed WSP Parsons Brinckerhoff to produce a study investigating how capacity might be increased between the Sussex Coast and London. This follows on from Chancellor George Osborne’s commitment to investigate the Brighton Main Line 2 Project (BML2) in his 2015 Summer Budget... This document by the BML2 Project Group proposes how that extra capacity should be achieved - but with the greatest benefit.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed, it comes as no surprise to me that the original report was redacted as part of a deliberate attempt to mislead the public. NR ought to explain themselves.

Surely to goodness the authority / board* that commissioned the study are the ones to explain themselves. If there is anything to explain that is. As all the work done would have been presented to them. Why would NR want to hide anything or deliberately attempt to mislead anyone to stop the line being built? It's more railway which equals more work, more cash, more jobs.

* which IIRC included 2 MPs and reps from various local authorities including, presumably, people connected to the reopening campaign. Perhaps they can explain?

 

[yorksrob]

Surely to goodness the authority / board* that commissioned the study are the ones to explain themselves. If there is anything to explain that is. As all the work done would have been presented to them. Why would NR want to hide anything or deliberately attempt to mislead anyone to stop the line being built? It's more railway which equals more work, more cash, more jobs.

* which IIRC included 2 MPs and reps from various local authorities including, presumably, people connected to the reopening campaign.

In that case, let them publish the full study including wider economic impacts to set my mind at rest.

 

[miami]

If the average benefit is 4:1 then there must be schemes less than this. I must contact the Chancellor straight away as ATOC has calculated Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton at 4.6:1. in its 2009 Report and my early calculations work out somewhere between 3.5 and 4.0 until I factor in 100,000 fictitious homes and boost it to 11.0.
Do you know the BCR for Keswick reinstatement to make such a bold statement as this?

From the Keswick website
"Benefit to cost ratio of around of 1.32:1 as a base case, up to 2.59:1 with optimistic passenger numbers, and could rise to 3.29:1 under certain circumstances."

I read that as "1.32 at best"

The other schemes you mention sound worthwhile. What was the projected BCR for borders rail and what's the real BCR?

I wish that the quantities easing money has gone into infrastructure rather than bank bonuses, but that's not who runs the country.

 

[deltic08]

The borders rail website says £294m construction costs. That doesn't include a whole load of things like land purchase, consents, legals, design, feasibility, and so on. Usual rule of thumb is 20% for this. By coincidence that is £354m. The £355m is what NR have spent.

If by Summer 2016 you have a fully costed scheme to GRIP stage 3 (or equivalent - which is what funders require) with appropriate risk provision that says you can do it for less than £100m, I will indeed eat my hat. But I'm afraid you won't do that, as it requires extensive ground investigations, land referencing, structural assessments, environmental impact assessments, traffic impact assessments, constructability plans, consents plan with relevant statutory and non-statutory consultation conducted, assessed and concluded, alternatives considered, costed and discounted with evidence, and a full schedule with risk assessment. Plus reference designs suitable for approval in principle. Sorry if this is a bit extensive, but I have actually built railways (still am). It's not easy!

Railway construction costs are the costs of all construction on the railway. Mostly renewing and enhancing existing, but also building new. It's the same people, same techniques, same machinery, same materials. The only difference between new and existing is that there are fewer trains to worry about on new, but a lot more hassle from the neighbours. Most of whom really don't want you to build a new railway in their back yards. And there is an awful lot of evidence out there that railway construction costs have increased.

Optimism bias for major railway schemes (classed as non standard Civil Engineering) has been 66% since 2002/3. See HM Treasury Green book. Projects can of course vary from this with a well developed Cost Risk Assessment, and/or if it is not being funded by taxpayers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/191507/Optimism_bias.pdf

I must stress that I'm all for building new railways. But I want everyone to be realistic about the effort and costs involved in doing so. And realistic about who is paying, and why they should pay, especially when there are so many other calls on public funding.

OK. I graciously surrender to your greater knowledge and experience. I am just a mere recently retired surgeon who has been banging the drum for reinstating the Northallerton-Ripon-Harrogate line for 27 years and more recently Harrogate-Wetherby-Cross Gates and Wetherby-Tadcaster-Church Fenton routes because that allows diversion of selected freight trains off the ECML between Northallerton and Doncaster which raises the BCR for Northallerton-Harrogate.

Be careful though in being too clever 'cos I may ask you to join my team of advisors of ground/soil engineer, two transport consultants, a concrete engineer, an ex Network Rail electrification advisor, a barrister and a judge?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Can Deltic08 flesh out the 'benefits' to a BCR of diverting part of the currently dwindling volume of freight off a 4 track section of the ECML?

Freight access charges only cover marginal wear and tear, certainly on passenger lines. Routes re-opened for freight would have to be built to highest standards of axle load and gauge to be of any use. Loops would need to be long.

People living near the line would be less likely to support the prospect of 'noisy' freights 'rumbling' by in the middle of the night and suchlike.

 

[deltic08]

From the Keswick website
"Benefit to cost ratio of around of 1.32:1 as a base case, up to 2.59:1 with optimistic passenger numbers, and could rise to 3.29:1 under certain circumstances."

I read that as "1.32 at best"

The other schemes you mention sound worthwhile. What was the projected BCR for borders rail and what's the real BCR?

I wish that the quantities easing money has gone into infrastructure rather than bank bonuses, but that's not who runs the country.

Borders Rail BCR was 0.96:1 rising to 1.04:1 adjusted for "sensitivities" whatever those are.

HS2 is 0.04:1.

 

[miami]

Borders Rail BCR was 0.96:1 rising to 1.04:1 adjusted for "sensitivities" whatever those are.

HS2 is 0.04:1.

That's terrible!

But then that's the NIMBYs who don't want a rail line harming their house prices.

Adam Smith have a critical view of HS2, and claim 1.6 or 2.0 just for phase 1, depending on various factors
http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/ASI1018_High_Speed_Two_WEB.pdf

And the government claims a 2.0-2.5 ratio.

What this tells me is that BCRs are a pile of dogs wassits, but if proponents of your scheme can only come up with 1.32:1, then it's not worthwhile.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But then that's the NIMBYs who don't want a rail line harming their house prices.

Do you see any advantage in having the price of your property "harmed" (to use your descriptive phrase).......Prey tell, should we not be aware of this strange financial acumen to which you appear to support.

 

[HSTEd]

This is where I propose a Keswick Shinkansen - which is essentially a knockoff of the Gala-Yuzawa line in Japan. A short section branching off HS2-Scotland that heads to Keswick and allows trainloads of tourists to be delivered and removed in short spaces of time.

In line with the exemplar line the speed would be entirely classic, but would be constructed for use with conventional high speed equipment.

 

[deltic08]

Can Deltic08 flesh out the 'benefits' to a BCR of diverting part of the currently dwindling volume of freight off a 4 track section of the ECML?

Freight access charges only cover marginal wear and tear, certainly on passenger lines. Routes re-opened for freight would have to be built to highest standards of axle load and gauge to be of any use. Loops would need to be long.

People living near the line would be less likely to support the prospect of 'noisy' freights 'rumbling' by in the middle of the night and suchlike.

A post from someone who has not read Network Rails East Coast Post 2016 Capacity Review which led to looking at removing as much daytime freight from the ECML as possible to allow more high speed passenger train paths. Removing one freight train allows room for two passenger trains. Upgrading Peterborough-Lincoln-Doncaster and grade separation at Werrington isn't just a whim of some faceless planner.

It is not the quad track section that is the problem, it is where it splits into two double tracks on the flat at Skelton and Skelton Bridge Junctions, double track from Hambleton Junction to Doncaster and flat junctions each end of Doncaster station.

It has been calculated by those much more knowledgeable than myself that 25 freight trains have to be removed from Northallerton-York-Doncaster daily to allow for growth in passenger numbers beyond 2016. Nobody mentioned diverting freight during the night as there is capacity on the ECML at night.

Unlike the Lincoln route, there is no alternate route presently to allow diversion of these 25 trains around York and the ECML between Northallerton and Doncaster without creating a strategic route of Northallerton-Harrogate-Wetherby-Tadcaster-Church Fenton-Gascoigne Wood-Pontefract-South Elmsall-Doncaster.

Ideally the trains to divert are the 60mph coal/biomass MGR trains to Drax and Ferrybridge power stations from Port of Tyne and Teesport.

25 MGR trains daily each way plus proposed passenger trains from Leeds to the North this way would pay for reinstatement of this route within 30 years from track access charges.

Sadly Keswick can't become a freight diversion route to help pay for reinstatement.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's terrible!

But then that's the NIMBYs who don't want a rail line harming their house prices.

Adam Smith have a critical view of HS2, and claim 1.6 or 2.0 just for phase 1, depending on various factors
http://www.adamsmith.org/sites/default/files/resources/ASI1018_High_Speed_Two_WEB.pdf

And the government claims a 2.0-2.5 ratio.

What this tells me is that BCRs are a pile of dogs wassits, but if proponents of your scheme can only come up with 1.32:1, then it's not worthwhile.

Obviously there is massaging of the BCR by Government for their own end because BCR dropped below 1.0 when estimated cost rose from £35 billion to £50 billion and dropped to 0.4 when estimates went above £60 billion.

The plan is for 4,000 seats every hour from Leeds to Euston throughout the day to justify the cost of HS2. It is only 800 now with many of those not filled outside the peaks. Where are all these passengers coming from at fares much higher than to-days?

 

[miami]

Do you see any advantage in having the price of your property "harmed" (to use your descriptive phrase).......Prey tell, should we not be aware of this strange financial acumen to which you appear to support.

Well it will be cheaper for people to upgrade from a 3 bed to a 4 bed, so there's that.

But of course they don't want their house prices to fall, or indeed. And when practical concerns have been raised (truck through villages etc) they've been addressed.

However as a campaign group they're about as impartial as Swampy's views on the second runway at Manchester, and should be ignored in the same way.

 

[RichmondCommu]

This is where I propose a Keswick Shinkansen - which is essentially a knockoff of the Gala-Yuzawa line in Japan. A short section branching off HS2-Scotland that heads to Keswick and allows trainloads of tourists to be delivered and removed in short spaces of time.

In line with the exemplar line the speed would be entirely classic, but would be constructed for use with conventional high speed equipment.

This is all very well however the cost would be huge.

 

[HSTEd]

This is all very well however the cost would be huge.

Not significantly more than a classic line between Penrith and Keswick - there would be at most a couple of more miles of line to wherever HS2 can be accessed, assuming the current alignment doesn't already cross it.

Otherwise its slightly larger clearances, and longer/lower platforms at Keswick.

Hardly bank breaking.