Proposals for "Northern arc": linking north Oxfordshire (Banbury) with Northampton and Peterborough

[squizzler]

As has been suggested in other posts, EW rail will provide for new journey opportunities from Oxfordshire to Northampton, with change of trains at Bletchley or Milton Keynes. Should this be as successful as the wildest dreams of the promoters hope (perhaps with trains extended from MK to Northampton due to the high demand?) then consideration could be given to building a new line on a more northerly alignment. However, the fortunes of through bus service between Northampton and Oxford or Banbury doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in the economics of this.
Quite happy to contribute to a bus service thread on this area, but this should be in the Buses & Coaches section.

I have no idea how successful the EWR is expected to be, since it appears to fall between the stools of a Beeching reopening and a proper 21st century greenfield mainline. There is a thread elsewhere on this site speculating on the new rolling stock, and it looks likely that the first trains will be 1990's vintage turbostars. These 30 year old units will look a bit out of place amongst the sleek bi-modes and electrics at Oxford and Cambridge when the route opens. If it is successful it will probably need to be rebuilt extensively on the western end anyway and electrified.

Or they will need to plan another east-west corridor. to mainline standards.

 

[mr_jrt]

Even when you have electric cars and electric trains, the train is still more efficient and produces less emissions, because electricity generation isn't free, and a train uses less power to move an equivalent amount of people, as in a car the mass ratio of vehicle to people transported is usually far smaller. Not to mention the environmental damage from rubber tyres and road construction and renewal to feed that beast. There is a carbon cost t orailway construction, but renewals are typically far less polluting than road renewals due to the friction surfaces. If you generate the electricity from fossil fuels, there's obvious emissions, but even when it's generated by renewables, there are emission costs from producing the generation equipment, so less electricity consumed means less infrastructure required means less emissions.

 

[muddythefish]

Over 28 years (1990 - 2018) transport sector fell by 3%. Big wows. The transport sector is the UK's standout failure for carbon emissions and in being the biggest carbon emitter, dragging down the rest of the country with it. Of course carbon is not the only issue, and dealing with the UK's disappointing economic productivity and making us a more civilised society in which to live matters too. Those of us troubled by modern public discourse as demonstrated by your debating style are likely to prefer forms of mobility that allow us to live and travel in a more humane fashion than the tired status quo.

It's astonishing that anyone should try to politicise the need for better public transport. If the right are going down that route it could be said the right wing are generally "pro-choice" but are happy to deny people the choice of having decent public transport. In vast swathes of the country people have no choice but to use a car - many journeys are impossible without private transport. Electric cars will counterbalance the green credentials of electric rail but assuming post-Covid traffic levels recoiver and continue to rise, are the pro-road building lobby saying we should continue to cover the country with more tarmac while ignoring the need for alternatives?

 

[squizzler]

If the section of the 'arc' between Northampton and Banbury is deemed weaker than further west, perhaps an option is a new line from Bicester to Wolverton via Buckingham. Trains to Peterborough could turn north to join a new line from Northampton heading east, those for the East West Rail could turn south and go through Milton Keynes Central before joining East West Rail again at Bletchley. This would address the fact that Milton Keynes is on a bit of a spur from EWR whilst also allowing speedier access to Northampton from Oxford.

 

[gallafent]

If it is successful it will probably need to be rebuilt extensively on the western end anyway and electrified.

Eh? The bit that's open already is modern 100mph two track, and my impression is that the Bicester to Bletchley section currently under construction will be too. Why would that need rebuilding?

Electrified? Yes, obvs

 

[A0wen]

If the section of the 'arc' between Northampton and Banbury is deemed weaker than further west, perhaps an option is a new line from Bicester to Wolverton via Buckingham. Trains to Peterborough could turn north to join a new line from Northampton heading east, those for the East West Rail could turn south and go through Milton Keynes Central before joining East West Rail again at Bletchley. This would address the fact that Milton Keynes is on a bit of a spur from EWR whilst also allowing speedier access to Northampton from Oxford.

Still coming up with solutions that are looking for a problem I see.

 

[squizzler]

Eh? The bit that's open already is modern 100mph two track, and my impression is that the Bicester to Bletchley section currently under construction will be too. Why would that need rebuilding?

Electrified? Yes, obvs

Electrification counts as rebuilding of sorts

In seriousness, I get a sense of mission creep for the original east west rail which I think started as a reopening. The western section like Winslow I got the impression was lumbered with short platforms that lack potential for growth.

It is better to build something than keep procrastinating, so as said upthread it is useful to have a concept for future link if traffic proves too much for EWR.

 

[The Planner]

Electrification counts as rebuilding of sorts

In seriousness, I get a sense of mission creep for the original east west rail which I think started as a reopening. The western section like Winslow I got the impression was lumbered with short platforms that lack potential for growth.

It is better to build something than keep procrastinating, so as said upthread it is useful to have a concept for future link if traffic proves too much for EWR.

E-W itself will have plenty of capacity and platforms can be extended (though Bletchley won't be easy), it is the lines either end at Oxford and the WCML where the problems will be, another line between the two still wouldn't solve that.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Even when you have electric cars and electric trains, the train is still more efficient and produces less emissions, because electricity generation isn't free, and a train uses less power to move an equivalent amount of people, as in a car the mass ratio of vehicle to people transported is usually far smaller. Not to mention the environmental damage from rubber tyres and road construction and renewal to feed that beast. There is a carbon cost t orailway construction, but renewals are typically far less polluting than road renewals due to the friction surfaces. If you generate the electricity from fossil fuels, there's obvious emissions, but even when it's generated by renewables, there are emission costs from producing the generation equipment, so less electricity consumed means less infrastructure required means less emissions.

Although slightly OT, because it isn't specific to the Northern Arc, this claim has been made on a couple of threads recently. Apologies if I have missed it but do you have a professional/technical/academic/official source for the concept?

Whenever I see railway engineering works there always seems to be loads of diesel traction and plant chugging away, contractors' vans driven from hundreds of miles away, lots of ballast and concrete being used, etc. Living in the Peak District I am well aware of how much carbon gets used (and CO2 emitted) in producing stone and cement.

The construction of miles of brand new railway across Northamptonshire (no doubt with loads of loss of habitat, ancient woodland, AONB, SSSI and so forth like HS2 is accused of), demolitions and replacement facilities is hardly 'renewal'.

I realise that certain aspects of highway engineering - such as the bitumen in asphalt - have the potential for additional harm compared to typical railway works but it would be really helpful to get some detailed evidence in this area.

 

[si404]

Although slightly OT, because it isn't specific to the Northern Arc, this claim has been made on a couple of threads recently. Apologies if I have missed it but do you have a professional/technical/academic/official source for the concept?

There's quite a lot of evidence that rubber tyres are a big source of pollution. It seems a study in March has the sensational finding that "Pollution from tyre wear 1000 times worse than exhaust fumes", but there's other studies too. Putting something like "tyres cause pollution" into a search engine will give you lots of secondary sources (news articles, campaign groups) referring to studies that suggest that tyre dust is a big problem (as is brake dust - anyone who's blown their nose after a day on the tube knows that one #blacksnot) that's not going to go away with electric cars and the like.

 

[Bald Rick]

There's quite a lot of evidence that rubber tyres are a big source of pollution. It seems a study in March has the sensational finding that "Pollution from tyre wear 1000 times worse than exhaust fumes", but there's other studies too. Putting something like "tyres cause pollution" into a search engine will give you lots of secondary sources (news articles, campaign groups) referring to studies that suggest that tyre dust is a big problem (as is brake dust - anyone who's blown their nose after a day on the tube knows that one #blacksnot) that's not going to go away with electric cars and the like.

Brake dust will be reduced with electric cars. And anyone who has sat on an HST knows only to well about brake dust.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There's quite a lot of evidence that rubber tyres are a big source of pollution. It seems a study in March has the sensational finding that "Pollution from tyre wear 1000 times worse than exhaust fumes", but there's other studies too. Putting something like "tyres cause pollution" into a search engine will give you lots of secondary sources (news articles, campaign groups) referring to studies that suggest that tyre dust is a big problem (as is brake dust - anyone who's blown their nose after a day on the tube knows that one #blacksnot) that's not going to go away with electric cars and the like.

Thanks for that. I was aware of the particulates issue from an air quality/breathing problems perspective but see that as an 'operational' issue rather than 'renewals'. I must confess to being unsure about how the tyre particles issue plays into CO2 and climate change.

 

[gallafent]

Brake dust will be reduced with electric cars.

I thought that too, since one has regen braking to reduce the need for friction braking … but a friend who's done some research suggested it isn't quite that clean cut, since when the friction brakes /do/ get used, the mass of the car is generally quite a bit higher than an equivalently capacious ICE-driven one, and so there's actually the same or more brake dust being generated since more energy is being dissipated, even after accounting for regen! Don't know if people have done enough in depth studies, but would be interested to know.

Having said that, it must depend a lot on how lead-footed (on the brakes) the driver is. Let's hope that the “one-pedal driving” configuration which is now possible (and encouraged) with many new electric cars, generally only optionally (i.e. when selected in the onboard computer!) rather than by default I think, in which lifting one's foot completely off the accelerator leads to maximum regenerative braking, makes a big difference here. I'd expect it to. I'd like to see it made default, and maybe it will be once more people are used to driving electric cars.

And anyone who has sat on an HST knows only to well about brake dust.

Those were the days

 

[corfield]

Counter view: Beeching's theory was close the branches and low-usage lines and replace them with cheaper bus routes, and develop the trunk routes. Beeching's outcome outcome was that people don't like buses, so they bought cars, and once they had to drive to the nearest major station, they just drove the whole way instead, and the bus routes closed down just like the railways they replaced, and people who couldn't drive were left with no options.

That isn’t really true though. Beeching made the point these branches contributed vritually no passengers. So losing them (even if they did join main lines) was fine.

He wanted the trunk routes developed to capture more of the traffic they were already getting and prevent its decline from losing what it already had.

Something like 4% of pax came from branchlines. Grow the remaining 96% that came from the mainline stations direct by just 10% and you more than double the loss of the branch traffic.

Beeching did not discuss “railheading” and it seems to have become a strawman myth for attacking him.

On busses, you are spot on - we have decade after decade of lived experience that people do not, en masse, trust or respect busses. If as the other thread on “why travel by train” throws up negatives about train travel, the issues with busses would be far greater.

Arguing for bus services in lieu rail is arguing for nothing and planning for failure.

 

[A0wen]

I must confess to being unsure about how the tyre particles issue plays into CO2 and climate change.

Simple answer - it doesn't. But as cars move to being electric which kills the tail pipe emission output, those who don't like people having private transport and the freedom to travel as and when they like had to find another thing to zone in on - so its tyres etc. And you can bet your life that when the motor industry overcomes those, there will still be people looking for a way to force everyone onto public transport and use it as an excuse to propose the building of railway lines of marginal benefit that will ultimately become a cost.

Yes - EWR needs to get completed, that one has a strong business case to link MK with Oxford and the Thames Valley. Eastern section makes sense, but I suspect its case isn't as good. But another parallel line less than 20 miles to the north ? Really ?

 

[A0wen]

That isn’t really true though. Beeching made the point these branches contributed vritually no passengers. So losing them (even if they did join main lines) was fine.

He wanted the trunk routes developed to capture more of the traffic they were already getting and prevent its decline from losing what it already had.

Something like 4% of pax came from branchlines. Grow the remaining 96% that came from the mainline stations direct by just 10% and you more than double the loss of the branch traffic.

Beeching did not discuss “railheading” and it seems to have become a strawman myth for attacking him.

On busses, you are spot on - we have decade after decade of lived experience that people do not, en masse, trust or respect busses. If as the other thread on “why travel by train” throws up negatives about train travel, the issues with busses would be far greater.

Arguing for bus services in lieu rail is arguing for nothing and planning for failure.

Except that buses still carry far more people than the rail network does. And I can think of several journeys between towns where the bus and rail are parallel and despite the station to station journey time being better by train, the bus will be far better used and is a more sensible choice. Examples - Welwyn Garden City to Hatfield - the rail station is 15 minutes walk away from the town centre and further still from the Galleria or University - easily a better choice to use the bus. St Albans - Harpenden, again regular bus services from town centre to town centre, where St Albans City station is a good 10 minute walk from the town centre - equally St Albans to Watford where Abbey station is a distance from the town centre and same at Watford. Berkhamstead to Hemel - again buses between town centre / areas of employment where Hemel station is a distance from those. Hitchin - Letchworth - if you're travelling from Hitchin town centre, you'll have covered about 1/3rd of the distance just getting to the station. Wellingborough to Kettering - again, neither station is close to the town centre and the buses are more frequent.

 

[edwin_m]

Except that buses still carry far more people than the rail network does.

Buses carry more people, but average journeys by rail are longer so trains carry more people-miles. That's the more useful measure when considering CO2 reduction, and arguably so for many other downsides of transport use.

I thought that too, since one has regen braking to reduce the need for friction braking … but a friend who's done some research suggested it isn't quite that clean cut, since when the friction brakes /do/ get used, the mass of the car is generally quite a bit higher than an equivalently capacious ICE-driven one, and so there's actually the same or more brake dust being generated since more energy is being dissipated, even after accounting for regen! Don't know if people have done enough in depth studies, but would be interested to know.

Having said that, it must depend a lot on how lead-footed (on the brakes) the driver is. Let's hope that the “one-pedal driving” configuration which is now possible (and encouraged) with many new electric cars, generally only optionally (i.e. when selected in the onboard computer!) rather than by default I think, in which lifting one's foot completely off the accelerator leads to maximum regenerative braking, makes a big difference here. I'd expect it to. I'd like to see it made default, and maybe it will be once more people are used to driving electric cars.

All that sounds reasonable - perhaps driving style is one reason the range of electric cars in "real life" is less than what the manufacturer quotes, as use of regenerative braking returns the energy to the battery. As the motors are sized to accelerate the car at a reasonable rate, then to a first approximation they should also be capable of braking it at a similar rate. That's probably good enough for most non-emergency needs, especially if the driver anticipates hazards rather than responding at the last possible moment. So friction brakes don't have to be used more for a heavier vehicle, but if they are then they will emit more particulates - and brake pad life will be shorter too.

The greater weight of an electric vehicle probably increases tyre particulates too - and shortens tyre life.
.

 

[A0wen]

Buses carry more people, but average journeys by rail are longer so trains carry more people-miles. That's the more useful measure when considering CO2 reduction, and arguably so for many other downsides of transport use.
.

And completely misses the point about the reasons people travel. Most people don't travel "long distances" - by that I would say upward of 20 miles - on a daily basis.

Take Luton - about 30 miles outside London as an example. Population about 220,000 - station usage across its 3 stations is about 10 m a year. Even if you average that out on 240 days a year (thinking of just "work" days), you're looking at about 40,000 journeys a day - assume 20% of them are less than 20 miles and you're at 32,000 which are more.

That's about 15% of the population of Luton making a "long distance" journey. Reality is the number is probably lower than my scratch calculation.

If everyone or even a majority was travelling 100 miles a day, you'd have a point about the distance factor - but they're not. So long distance journeys whilst interesting are largely irrelevant if most people don't make them.

 

[HSTEd]

Except that buses still carry far more people than the rail network does.

Their advantage is only 4.8 billion versus 3.2 billion journeys now.
If you include light rail its 4.8 versus 3.5.

Buses advantage continue to fall.

 

[MarkyT]

Except that buses still carry far more people than the rail network does. And I can think of several journeys between towns where the bus and rail are parallel and despite the station to station journey time being better by train, the bus will be far better used and is a more sensible choice. Examples - Welwyn Garden City to Hatfield - the rail station is 15 minutes walk away from the town centre and further still from the Galleria or University - easily a better choice to use the bus. St Albans - Harpenden, again regular bus services from town centre to town centre, where St Albans City station is a good 10 minute walk from the town centre - equally St Albans to Watford where Abbey station is a distance from the town centre and same at Watford. Berkhamstead to Hemel - again buses between town centre / areas of employment where Hemel station is a distance from those. Hitchin - Letchworth - if you're travelling from Hitchin town centre, you'll have covered about 1/3rd of the distance just getting to the station. Wellingborough to Kettering - again, neither station is close to the town centre and the buses are more frequent.

It's wrong to assume that people all travel to or from traditional town centres. Employment and residential areas may be distributed across towns. Hatfield is a good example with the Galleria and Uni a considerable distance from the central shopping area and station. Growing up in Letchworth during the 1970s I never once used a bus. I knew the big green things existed clearly, but had no knowledge of the numbers or network. Even going to Hitchin town centre I always walked a mile to Letchworth station and got the train, walking again at the other end after the short journey. In a handful of emergency occasions I walked the whole way but I never caught a bus. Coming from a railway family, priv fares probably influenced me but I was happy to use buses extensively in South Yorkshire when we visited Doncaster grandparents, and fares were pennies. Mum always cycled around town and Dad walked to the station for his London commute. Leisure journeys were always rail or car. When it was raining, mum occasionally organised taxis for school which was otherwise always a walk or bike ride. Where I live now in Torbay, I use bus far more than train for local journeys. Anywhere beyond say Teignmouth and Totnes would be train though. The big disincentive to making combined journeys is the cost, rather like using two different bus companies where there's competition which thankfully in Devon there isn't. The two modes need to work better together to provide alternatives to private cars. More integration in service planning and fares is what is needed not infighting over which is better. Some people and some detailed itineraries are always going to favour one over the other. Many of my Hitchin journeys were to an educational establishment very close to the railway station, so the distance from town centre was no disincentive whatsoever.

 

[edwin_m]

And completely misses the point about the reasons people travel. Most people don't travel "long distances" - by that I would say upward of 20 miles - on a daily basis.

Take Luton - about 30 miles outside London as an example. Population about 220,000 - station usage across its 3 stations is about 10 m a year. Even if you average that out on 240 days a year (thinking of just "work" days), you're looking at about 40,000 journeys a day - assume 20% of them are less than 20 miles and you're at 32,000 which are more.

That's about 15% of the population of Luton making a "long distance" journey. Reality is the number is probably lower than my scratch calculation.

If everyone or even a majority was travelling 100 miles a day, you'd have a point about the distance factor - but they're not. So long distance journeys whilst interesting are largely irrelevant if most people don't make them.

But the fact remains - the total numbers of miles people travel by train is greater than by bus. There must be enough people travelling long enough distances today to make that true. If there were no trains or buses, and people still made the same journeys, they would do so by car. So trains remove more car miles from the roads than buses do. It may be that buses remove more cars from the road in urban areas, but I suggest that's less relevant when we're mostly talking about travel between towns ten or more miles apart.

I get that you're trying to make the point that car use is important in this region and will be difficult or impossible to replace with other modes. I think we are all aware of these facts, and it will be interesting to find out if there is actually scope to provide good alternatives to driving in a region like this one. That's not a reason not to look into the possibility of doing so. And quoting dodgy or irrelevant statistics doesn't help your case.

 

[A0wen]

But the fact remains - the total numbers of miles people travel by train is greater than by bus. There must be enough people travelling long enough distances today to make that true.

But far fewer people travel by train and fewer people travel long distances. So its a question of which problem is it you want to resolve - encouraging 1 person to travel 100 miles by train or 20 people to travel 5 miles by bus ?

The latter will have *much* more impact by removing up to 20 cars from the roads - assuming modal shift is what you are trying to achieve. I happen to believe "modal shift" isn't the right solution for all circumstances and it shouldn't be a default position.

If there were no trains or buses, and people still made the same journeys, they would do so by car. So trains remove more car miles from the roads than buses do. It may be that buses remove more cars from the road in urban areas, but I suggest that's less relevant when we're mostly talking about travel between towns ten or more miles apart.

Not necessarily - some may choose not to travel. Some may move house to avoid the journey. Some may change jobs to avoid the journey. You're trying to oversimplify it to meet your argument.

I get that you're trying to make the point that car use is important in this region and will be difficult or impossible to replace with other modes. I think we are all aware of these facts, and it will be interesting to find out if there is actually scope to provide good alternatives to driving in a region like this one. That's not a reason not to look into the possibility of doing so. And quoting dodgy or irrelevant statistics doesn't help your case.

It's also the argument that we have to push for "modal shift" all the time which is then used on these boards to justify proposals rebuilding railway lines which ultimately will run at a loss which impacts everyone. Luckily the business case process kills most of those off more formally. That was the downfall of the British railway network - it ended up far too large with too many marginal lines. Reinstating marginal lines won't help anyone - all it will do is cost alot for the benefit of relatively few people.

And my statistics weren't "dodgy" - you can find all the numbers cited on line.

 

[edwin_m]

But far fewer people travel by train and fewer people travel long distances. So its a question of which problem is it you want to resolve - encouraging 1 person to travel 100 miles by train or 20 people to travel 5 miles by bus ?

The latter will have *much* more impact by removing up to 20 cars from the roads - assuming modal shift is what you are trying to achieve. I happen to believe "modal shift" isn't the right solution for all circumstances and it shouldn't be a default position.

It would remove 20 cars for a fifth of the distance each, so the same amount of modal shift. But I agree it depends which problem you are trying to achieve - short distance buses would be better at removing traffic from towns, longer distance buses or trains would be better for removing traffic between towns.

There are plenty of downsides to car traffic that electric vehicles won't resolve: congestion, tyre particulates, accidents, noise. There are also uncertainties around electric cars, particularly the future costs of batteries and the availability of the scarce materials needed to make them. And there is also the accessibility issue, with many people not having access to a car even in car-owning households, including those that can't drive due to infirmity.

It's also the argument that we have to push for "modal shift" all the time which is then used on these boards to justify proposals rebuilding railway lines which ultimately will run at a loss which impacts everyone. Luckily the business case process kills most of those off more formally. That was the downfall of the British railway network - it ended up far too large with too many marginal lines. Reinstating marginal lines won't help anyone - all it will do is cost alot for the benefit of relatively few people.

If they are indeed marginal (in socio-economic not financial terms) then the study should reach that conclusion.

And my statistics weren't "dodgy" - you can find all the numbers cited on line.

At least one of the ones you quoted (without giving a source) is clearly wrong according to the official one I cited (with a source). You have used others in contexts for which they aren't applicable. I tend to think that people resorting to such tactics either don't understand or wish to cloud the issue. Or perhaps you are actually Jeremy Clarkson under a pen name?

 

[squizzler]

E-W itself will have plenty of capacity and platforms can be extended (though Bletchley won't be easy), it is the lines either end at Oxford and the WCML where the problems will be, another line between the two still wouldn't solve that.

I stand corrected and am glad to hear it from you. I was thinking aloud and did not like my own suggestion much anyway as it diluted the concept of three 'horizontals' proposed by EEH to link up the existing four 'verticals' into a grid.

The construction of miles of brand new railway across Northamptonshire (no doubt with loads of loss of habitat, ancient woodland, AONB, SSSI and so forth like HS2 is accused of), demolitions and replacement facilities is hardly 'renewal'.

I realise that certain aspects of highway engineering - such as the bitumen in asphalt - have the potential for additional harm compared to typical railway works but it would be really helpful to get some detailed evidence in this area.

I am not party to the specific details on renewals but intuition suggests that replacing bits of steel track that can be melted down and used in other products (hence the 'scrap value') is less environmentally harmful than landfilling bits of tarmac or whatever they must do with it. Garden centres do a roaring trade selling wooden sleepers for landscaping, if not the concrete ones.

It is certainly the case that construction and maintainance of new rights of way will have negative environmental impacts. However, my understanding is that the EEH is designated as a growth area and is earmarked for massive housing and employment construction in the next few years, come what may. Surely far better that this development is served by narrower railway corridors than wide highways which are vastly more profligate in use of land.

 

[Bald Rick]

I am not party to the specific details on renewals but intuition suggests that replacing bits of steel track that can be melted down and used in other products (hence the 'scrap value') is less environmentally harmful than landfilling bits of tarmac or whatever they must do with it. Garden centres do a roaring trade selling wooden sleepers for landscaping, if not the concrete ones.

I’m afraid your intuition is a little off the mark.

Almost all old ashphalt is recycled, and turned into either new tarmac for lower courses of road resurfacing / new roads (where it can be recycled again and again) or used as hardcore fill instead of quarried aggregate. Almost none ends up in landfill, except perhaps as a specific layer in the landfill process.

Meanwhile a fair proportion of used ballast counts as hazardous waste and *must* be disposed of in specially designated and licensed landfill (at great expense). In part because it can contain half a century’s worth of accumulated raw sewage. The rest of ballast is recycled; about 70% of what goes through a ballast cleaner on site is put back in the track, whilst about the same proportion recycled in depot (eg Whitemoor) is sold as base aggregate / hardcore for the general construction industry. The rest goes to landfill.

You won’t have bought a secondhand railway sleeper in a garden centre for well over a decade. Or shouldn’t have done. All timber sleepers ex the railway are contaminated waste due to the treatment they have (eg creosote), and are typically chipped and burned, or landfilled.

Old concrete sleepers are crushed - the rebar is recycled and the crushed concrete is used as scalpings. Rails and fastenings are obviously recycled. Old pads and nylons go to landfill.

All told, roads are more recyclable than railways.

 

[DarloRich]

@Bald Rick is spot on about recyling

Old concrete sleepers are useful for roadways and walls especially on farms!

Also not all timbers go for burning. There is some resale and reuse but the older ones are really not nice at all!

 

[Bald Rick]

Old concrete sleepers are useful for roadways and walls especially on farms!

What’s the going rate - still a fiver a pop?

 

[DarloRich]

What’s the going rate - still a fiver a pop?

For you: £4.50. And I am robbing myself!

 

[squizzler]

It's astonishing that anyone should try to politicise the need for better public transport. If the right are going down that route it could be said the right wing are generally "pro-choice" but are happy to deny people the choice of having decent public transport. In vast swathes of the country people have no choice but to use a car - many journeys are impossible without private transport. Electric cars will counterbalance the green credentials of electric rail but assuming post-Covid traffic levels recoiver and continue to rise, are the pro-road building lobby saying we should continue to cover the country with more tarmac while ignoring the need for alternatives?

It certainly should not be happening on this thread which is discussing a specific project and EEH plans more generally. Moderators can and do separate the off-topic posts into new threads, so why not here?

The merits of rail travel are established and do not need to be re-established by inquisition before getting down to the business of appraising every rail project. Or maybe they do? Perhaps this constant need to have trains re-justified for each case - as if they were a totally new and untested concept - is why we are not allowed nice things like a long term rail strategy?

 

[A0wen]

@Bald Rick is spot on about recyling

Old concrete sleepers are useful for roadways and walls especially on farms!

Also not all timbers go for burning. There is some resale and reuse but the older ones are really not nice at all!

On the subject of wooden sleepers a former, and now sadly late, neighbour of mine was part of the management of one if the BR yards in the Northampton area in the early 60s and recounted a story where every time wooden sleepers came back they were being sold immediately, so he called a halt to all sales. A couple of days later a pair of trilby hatted gents (his words) turned up in his office to ask why the supply had dried up. It was the gas board who at the time were relaying key gas mains across the county and were using said sleepers to line the trenches. The ceasing of supply was causing them something of a problem......