Reopening lines with marginal BCR and business case

[James_D]

I'm a fairly new visitor to this board and havent previously contributed much, but i've always had an interest in the Beeching closures and the potential reopening of axed lines. I've read many older threads on here about the re-opening of some lines - the Ripon to Leeds discussion was particularly interesting.

As a fully paid up Mackem, a particular favourite of mine would be a combination of extending the T&W Metro from South Hylton to Washington and then onto Pelaw via parts of the Leamside line, or extending South West from S.Hylton along the former alignment of the A690 corridor to Durham for a potential DMU service. I think it's shocking that two of the biggest conurbations in the North East with a combined population of around 325,000 has no direct rail link, especially given the short distances involved, the chronic rush hour congestion on the A1/A19/A690 and the interconnectedness of the local population with regards to employment and leisure activities.

Surely for the Sunderland to Durham link there is a strong business case that would result in a positive BCR upon reinstatement, but what about potential re-openings where there may be a flat or even slightly negative BCR of say 0.5-1.0, such as the aformentiond Ripon re-opening?

Surely in this age, we cannot view rail investment purely in profit and loss terms. Yes there may be a slight initial loss to the taxpayer in purely investment terms of re-instating the line and services, but what about the overall benefits to the areas/population centres served and potential for future growth? Especially in this day and age of chronic road congestion and our renewed commitments to carbon reduction?

In light of the Borders reopening and the higher than expected ROI, perhaps the government would be advised fund some 'tester' re-openings which have a more marginal business case, to see how they actually pan out when completed than relying purely on the projections. I admit I may be painting in broad brush strokes here, but at the end of the day is the railway not a core public service rather than a money making exercise?

Apologies for the collective groans that may eminate from those sick to the back teeth of the ongoing 'Beeching/Reopenings' zeitgeist!

 

[northwichcat]

There's a lot of lines in England where feasibility reports have give a better BCR than Borders but Network Rail are reluctant to reopen lines.

 

[James_D]

There's a lot of lines in England where feasibility reports have give a better BCR than Borders but Network Rail are reluctant to reopen lines.

Why though? Is it purely down to prioritization of funds to improvement of existing lines, or lack of funds for entirely new lines or a shortage of rolling stock to operate on them? Or a combination of all three?

I dread to think of the millions of man hours that are lost every year due to people being stuck in traffic jams, albeit yes that doesn't guarantee they would be better spent sitting on a train, but better and more trains equipped with wifi, going to more places quickly and efficiently is surely just a case of throwing money at the problem?

People argue that passenger rail travel didnt pick up after Beeching until the early 80's, but i wonder if it's any consequence that this also coinsided with the mass rollout of the HST, with better journey times and public perception.

It's amazing what you can do when you throw money at a problem!

 

[The Ham]

Just because a line existing in the past doesn't mean that it is worth reopening it as the nature of an area changes.

Also, if we start opening up lots of smaller lines there is a risk that it in turn increases the number of people travelling longer distance which then puts pressure on to build new long distance lines (or at the very least improvements to increase capacity).

Given how constrained many lines are reopenings should primarily be focused on providing passenger transport capacity relief rather than encouraging transport modal changes.

 

[NSEFAN]

Money is the big problem, but not just for infrastructure.

What about rolling stock? Where will the trains come from? If there's none suitable to spare then new trains are required somewhere in the system, meaning £££ added to the cost.

What about demand on existing services? Opening up connections and journey opportunities is good, but can the existing truck routes cope? If not, more carriages and maybe even more infrastructure is required. Again, adding £££.

The railway is an interlinked network. It's naive to "just" reopen A -> B without considering the knock-on costs to other parts of the network. Really what we aught to be doing for line reopenings is the same thing we aught to do for rolling stock and infrastructure upgrades, which is to have a rolling plan. That way, everything can be properly timed so that new trains and supporting infrastructure will be ready for when we'd like a new service to commence. Of course this is easier said than done with the fragmented industry we have now: the GWML upgrade is showing what a massive cock-up the whole situation is.

In light of the fragmentation, the best lines for reopening aren't necessarily those with the best BCR, but those which are easy wins. Can a service be easily extended from an existing one with no extra stock? Can a station be opened on a line without meaning the whole WTT needs to be rewritten? If the answer is yes then the reopening has a much better chance than it would otherwise.

It's all well and good for us to say "profit isn't everything!", but railway projects typically involve massive initial costs that need to be paid back in a sensible time frame. Sure a line might pay for itself after 100 years, but good luck finding an investor who will agree to that!

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Leamside Line will never reopen as it goes nowhere near any settlements of size and, in any case, has been completely dug up.

The Durham-Sunderland line never went to what we now know as Durham station, it went to Durham Elvet, which was on Green Lane. The only trace of the station left are the railway cottages on Green Lane, one of which a friend of mine lived in for many years. The trackbed is still there in places as a cycle track, but once you get into Durham the University has built on much of the land, so either you'd have to do a lot of expensive demolition work or you'd have to have the terminus out at Maiden Castle, which would be neither use nor ornament.

 

[swt_passenger]

There's a lot of lines in England where feasibility reports have give a better BCR than Borders but Network Rail are reluctant to reopen lines.

I think you must mean DfT are reluctant. It wouldn't be Network Rail who made the final decision.

 

[northwichcat]

What about rolling stock? Where will the trains come from? If there's none suitable to spare then new trains are required somewhere in the system, meaning £££ added to the cost.

Indeed. Scotrail have 8 class 158 trains which were originally intended for Northern Rail and without them they wouldn't be able to run a service on the Borders railway. While Chiltern had to be crafty to get 9 class 170 trains for the new Oxford link when the lease with TransPennine Express expired before TransPennine Express were able to end the lease (due to their franchise end date.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

For decades the government view was that the existing railways needed subsidy, and reopening more lines just increased the need for more subsidy. Undoubtedly true.
More recently things have got more constructive, with several reopenings after campaigns backed up by local business plans.
But the costs are huge, and we are into pretty much a "one line at a time" situation.
Network Rail quotes very high construction costs.
In their defence the regulatory position on new/reopened lines is very onerous (land, environmental impact, structures, level crossings, stations, signalling etc).
Reinstating the old infrastructure is not an option these days.

Most new lines need DMUs of which there is a big shortage for at least the next 5 years.
A positive BCR is a pre-requisite for consideration, but in truth nobody really believes them.
They are mostly inventions of the promoters and their consultants, and are based on conditions which can't be met or guesses of future usage.

The best bet for a reopening is if a credible local business plan exists which relies on a rail link to succeed - things like new housing or industrial development. Developer contributions also help a lot.
The government also has capital expenditure limits, and HS2 will take a big chunk of that for rail in the next decade.
Add in Crossrail (1 & 2), Thameslink and electrification, and reopenings come a long way down the priority list.
Only East-West Rail currently has proper government backing for reopening at the moment.
Politics and devolution play a part too. After decades of seemingly favouring spend in the South East, the government looks to spread the largesse round the regions/countries of the UK.
Everybody has to have a piece of the pie.
"City Deals" might be a way forward, with capital and decision-making devolved to city level, but you then have to get the locals to do their homework and agree on a specific scheme.
And local politicians are a fickle bunch - ask the good folk of Edinburgh about their tram project.
The outturn on the Borders railway will be very interesting.
It's construction cost was far more than the original business case.
We'll have to see if the benefits from reopening are worth the initial cost and ongoing subsidy for the service.

 

[HarleyDavidson]

They're on about reopening the Cranleigh & Horsham line again as part of the areas development plans, as the locals have been saying, if you want to put in several thousand homes, then you have to have the infrastructure in place to deal with it.

The problem is the residents of Bramley, who keep blocking it, despite the fact that its reinstatement will actually increase the value of their properties, reduce traffic and pollution.

 

[bluenoxid]

There are a number of lines with reasonable business cases. I am not aware of any group advocating the reopening the railway line through Washington like Senrug is doing with Ashington. I would disagree with the one line at a time comment . This year, there have been three infrastructure additions, a station move and a number of stations built all whilst Crossrail has continued on. We are talking onerous processes and construction projects that can suddenly lose steam because new rules and regulations lead to another change to the project. Many require planning changes and construction changes l, which can substantially blow the budget.

The current rolling stock shortage is throttling many reopenings. Henbury, Middlewich and Ashington are three I can think of in England alone.

 

[deltic]

There are two different issues here which often get confused, economics and finance.

An economic assessment produces a BCR - a scheme which produces a BCR of less than 1 means that the economic benefits of the scheme are less than the cost and is therefore highly unlikely worth doing. There are lots or arguments about whether all the benefits are fully captured but that is a different issue. The benefits while quantified in monetary terms are not necessarily providing a financial benefit to the operator or government but to society as a whole (eg safety benefits)

If a scheme has a very high BCR it doesnt always mean it is financially viable and hence there may be a need for an increased level of on going support never mind covering the up-front capital cost hence why it doesnt proceed. There are hundreds of transport schemes with good BCRs but they will never happen because there is not enough money to pay for them.

 

[Senex]

The Durham-Sunderland line never went to what we now know as Durham station, it went to Durham Elvet, which was on Green Lane.

The passenger service was between Bishop Auckland and Sunderland via the present Durham station, Newton Hall, and Leamside.

 

[coppercapped]

...but at the end of the day is the railway not a core public service rather than a money making exercise?

Why do you think the two things are mutually exclusive?

 

[FQTV]

The Leamside Line will never reopen as it goes nowhere near any settlements of size and, in any case, has been completely dug up.

The Durham-Sunderland line never went to what we now know as Durham station, it went to Durham Elvet, which was on Green Lane. The only trace of the station left are the railway cottages on Green Lane, one of which a friend of mine lived in for many years. The trackbed is still there in places as a cycle track, but once you get into Durham the University has built on much of the land, so either you'd have to do a lot of expensive demolition work or you'd have to have the terminus out at Maiden Castle, which would be neither use nor ornament.

Dear oh dear.

The Leamside Line is lifted, but the trackbed is wholly intact.

The Sunderland to Durham line crossed the Leamside Line, ran across the (extant) Belmont Viaduct and joined the ECML at Newton Hall Junction. Services terminated at the current Durham Station in a north facing bay, and through services ran South to various destinations including Barnard Castle.

The Elvet Line closed many years before the 'Sunderland to Durham' line and reference to it is irrelevant and/or specious.

The benefits of reopening Sunderland to Durham would be, I'd hope, extremely substantial for Wearside in slashing journey times to Durham and all points South and West (even Teesside, with running via Stillington), and could have a significant impact on traffic on the A690 corridor, which is heavily constricted at Durham/A1 and Doxford/A19.

The OP has a worthy point.

 

[route:oxford]

Just because a line existing in the past doesn't mean that it is worth reopening it as the nature of an area changes.

Also, if we start opening up lots of smaller lines there is a risk that it in turn increases the number of people travelling longer distance which then puts pressure on to build new long distance lines (or at the very least improvements to increase capacity).

Given how constrained many lines are reopenings should primarily be focused on providing passenger transport capacity relief rather than encouraging transport modal changes.

Essentially exactly the same argument that anti-road lobby use.

So if railway lines are re-opened or new ones built - people will use them...

 

[Bald Rick]

There are two different issues here which often get confused, economics and finance.

An economic assessment produces a BCR - a scheme which produces a BCR of less than 1 means that the economic benefits of the scheme are less than the cost and is therefore highly unlikely worth doing. There are lots or arguments about whether all the benefits are fully captured but that is a different issue. The benefits while quantified in monetary terms are not necessarily providing a financial benefit to the operator or government but to society as a whole (eg safety benefits)

If a scheme has a very high BCR it doesnt always mean it is financially viable and hence there may be a need for an increased level of on going support never mind covering the up-front capital cost hence why it doesnt proceed. There are hundreds of transport schemes with good BCRs but they will never happen because there is not enough money to pay for them.

To add to this, the BCR is a socio-economic assessment, which puts all social and economic costs into the same currency, which is £. There are set cash values for things like time, pollution, lives saved and so on. Some business cases are better than others at correctly assessing the values of these non financial elements.

What is more difficult to assess is the wider economic impact. It is difficult to assess for small schemes in particular, because whilst a new railway may have a significant impact on, say, business relocating to the local area, the cash and jobs brought in by these businesses is more than likely just diverted from somewhere else in the country, and therefore is not a net benefit to the economy.

New housing is one thing that usually has a great financial, economic, and wider economic impact though, as it is demonstrably additive to the economy. Any new scheme that is allied to significant new housing provision (in a region that needs it) will have a leg up the BCR chart.

 

[yorksrob]

Just because a line existing in the past doesn't mean that it is worth reopening it as the nature of an area changes.

Also, if we start opening up lots of smaller lines there is a risk that it in turn increases the number of people travelling longer distance which then puts pressure on to build new long distance lines (or at the very least improvements to increase capacity)

Given how constrained many lines are reopenings should primarily be focused on providing passenger transport capacity relief rather than encouraging transport modal changes.

It's true that just because a line existed in the past doesn't mean that it's worth reopening. That's probably the reason why nobody ever suggests reopening every line in the past that has ever been open. However, in terms of areas changing, that's more likely to affect the case positively as some areas that lost their railway previously will have experienced some development of one form or another.

I don't really agree with your philosophy. The whole point of increasing transport is that it increases economic and social activity which tend to be of benefit to society. It's how you achieve that growth, particularly in comparison with the differing negative impacts of different modes of transport to an area. An area without a railway line will still need transport.

As for increasing longer distance transport, it's been recognised that long distance transport is good for the country, otherwise, why are we encouraging it with high speed railways and motorways ?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There are two different issues here which often get confused, economics and finance.

An economic assessment produces a BCR - a scheme which produces a BCR of less than 1 means that the economic benefits of the scheme are less than the cost and is therefore highly unlikely worth doing. There are lots or arguments about whether all the benefits are fully captured but that is a different issue. The benefits while quantified in monetary terms are not necessarily providing a financial benefit to the operator or government but to society as a whole (eg safety benefits)

If a scheme has a very high BCR it doesnt always mean it is financially viable and hence there may be a need for an increased level of on going support never mind covering the up-front capital cost hence why it doesnt proceed. There are hundreds of transport schemes with good BCRs but they will never happen because there is not enough money to pay for them.

Quite, which is why ultimately you need someone to decide to provide the funding, which is what the Celts manage (but Westminster is incapable of).

 

[coppercapped]

Quite, which is why ultimately you need someone to decide to provide the funding, which is what the Celts manage (but Westminster is incapable of).

I refer, without comment, the Right Honourable gentleman to this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ain-holyrood-borrowing-could-hit-50bn-by-2020

Public sector debt in Scotland has mushroomed to record levels after an SNP government spending spree funded by billions of pounds’ worth of borrowing from pension funds, international banks and the Treasury.

 

[yorksrob]

I refer, without comment, the Right Honourable gentleman to this article:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...ain-holyrood-borrowing-could-hit-50bn-by-2020

Aren't we always being told that we have a huge debt mountain - yet where are our new railways ?

Also, don't forget that capital investment is good whereas revenue spending is bad !

 

[Old Hill Bank]

Why though? Is it purely down to prioritization of funds to improvement of existing lines, or lack of funds for entirely new lines or a shortage of rolling stock to operate on them? Or a combination of all three?

I dread to think of the millions of man hours that are lost every year due to people being stuck in traffic jams, albeit yes that doesn't guarantee they would be better spent sitting on a train, but better and more trains equipped with wifi, going to more places quickly and efficiently is surely just a case of throwing money at the problem?

People argue that passenger rail travel didnt pick up after Beeching until the early 80's, but i wonder if it's any consequence that this also coinsided with the mass rollout of the HST, with better journey times and public perception.

It's amazing what you can do when you throw money at a problem!

This is a nationwide issue, our group have been campaigning to re-open Stourbridge-Dudley-Walsall but keep being beaten by differring and ever changing strategies from the many different local and national government agencies. At the moment there different plans on the table depending which document you read. Keep pluging away, do not be deterred.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I think you must mean DfT are reluctant. It wouldn't be Network Rail who made the final decision.

Network Rail have a large input on any schemes, to the extent that if they told the DFT no and give a valid reason for it the DFT would agree with them
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Its not as easy as just opening up a line, if NR told DFT that by opening up a particular would then have a knock on effect further down the line and it would then create a new problem that required a substantial amount of money then I would have thought the DFT would take it on board

 

[WatcherZero]

Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) aren't just the financial case for reopening a line, they try to estimate the whole benefit to the community in employment links, direct job creation, societal benefit, environmental benefit, time saving, etc... alongside the financial return on the investment. Sometimes they also include a broader measure of economic impact to a regional or national economy called Wider Economic Impact (WEI).

A project could be light years away from having a viable business case requiring massive ongoing subsidy but it could still have a large BCR ratio. Likewise something could be predicted to break even and return the investment made but have negligible societal impacts and so have only a marginal BCR ratio (1-1.5).

Generally things like roads where there isn't a direct financial return mechanism their BCR is solely made up of non-direct benefits, while something like public investment in a shipyard or factory could be almost completely based on the expected financial return and the prevention of redundancies and subsequent unemployment welfare bill.

 

[Argosy]

...... Given how constrained many lines are reopenings should primarily be focused on providing passenger transport capacity relief rather than encouraging transport modal changes.

But isn't that against 'climate change?' From research undertaken a few years ago the balancing emissions in CO2 terms for a class 156 is about 20 people, i.e. the set will emit 20 peoples worth of car born CO2 on the assumption that there are 1.33 people per car. Thus 15 cars need to be taken off the road just to cover the emissions the set makes. If the number of people per car is raised then you need to take more cars off the road.

Above that figure the set is a net saver of CO2 when measured against cars.

The trouble is that is 20 cars per service right across the day, so although in the peak that should be no problem at other times it might not be, particularly in rural areas. Nevertheless I can't agree with the modal change argument!

 

[HSTEd]

Of course if we were to electrify everything than the carbon emissions fall through the floor.

A Class 456 or equivalent will have far lower carbon levelling requirements.

 

[The Ham]

It's true that just because a line existed in the past doesn't mean that it's worth reopening. That's probably the reason why nobody ever suggests reopening every line in the past that has ever been open. However, in terms of areas changing, that's more likely to affect the case positively as some areas that lost their railway previously will have experienced some development of one form or another.

I don't really agree with your philosophy. The whole point of increasing transport is that it increases economic and social activity which tend to be of benefit to society. It's how you achieve that growth, particularly in comparison with the differing negative impacts of different modes of transport to an area. An area without a railway line will still need transport.

As for increasing longer distance transport, it's been recognised that long distance transport is good for the country, otherwise, why are we encouraging it with high speed railways and motorways ?

Personally I would like to see lots of new lines and reopenings, the problem is how do they fit within the bigger picture (and of course the ever present issue of what do we have funding for not only to build but to support long term).

For instance the Cranleigh to Guildford line (suggested above), would that be:
- a shuttle (meaning a lot of people change at Guildford and potential platform capacity issues at Guildford)
- tie it in with the Portsmouth services up to London (which mean less people changing but could cause capacity issues on the long distance services, at least in the peak hours)
- tie it in with the services towards Aldershot (a lot of people still need to change still, but less of an issue for station capacity, but would either mean DMU's over electric lines or the new line needing to be electrified from day one)
- run it up to Woking into Platform 6 with works to ensure that it can be accessed without going onto the SWML (still a lot of people change but at a station with more London bound trains and options to head west without using capacity between Guildford and Woking, however again DMU's or the new line needs to be electrified).
- tie it in with the Woking stoppers after the Woking junction is sorted (still a lot of people would change at Guildford and/or Woking for fast trains to London and would require the new line to be electrified from day one)
- tie it in with the Via Cobham services (still a lot of people would change at Guildford for fast trains to London and would require the new line to be electrified from day one)
- tie it in with the Reading services splitting services at Guildford (still a lot of people would change at Guildford for fast trains to London and would probably require platform lengthening between Guildford and Reading - although on the plus side would provide more capacity between Guildford and Reading and would mean the new line wouldn't need to be electrified quite so quickly)

That's before you consider how to cater for the extra passengers who would almost certainly want to head to London on services which are already very busy over lines which basically used to their full potential.

 

[Senex]

Benefit Cost Ratios (BCR) aren't just the financial case for reopening a line, ...

Somewhat OT. When did cost-benefit ratios come to be known (ceratin ly more logically) as benefit-cost ratios? The formulation I always remember hearing in earlier years was cost-benefit analysis/study etc and cost-benefit ratio.

 

[glbotu]

Somewhat OT. When did cost-benefit ratios come to be known (ceratin ly more logically) as benefit-cost ratios? The formulation I always remember hearing in earlier years was cost-benefit analysis/study etc and cost-benefit ratio.

Well, I assume it's a means of making it "a bigger number is better" for the general public to understand.

It's just more intuitive for the general public.

As for specifics, the Durham - Sunderland re-opening would be great from a travel point of view (probably as a Metro extension - it would be much less effective as a South Hylton - Durham DMU service).

The problem is how do you get the train to Durham? Yes, the original line had a junction at Newton Hall, but this would cross the ECML on the flat. At today's frequencies, a 50 mph metro on a 90 mph stretch of mainline railway, crossing the ECML on the flat is not acceptable, because you're eating into some very valuable paths. Having an extra pair of Metro-only tracks is problematic, because you have to either eat into some fields (as well as a new bridge over the A691 Framwellgate Peth), which requires CPO, plus land works, or you slew over the ECML tracks and remove the functionality for looping trains north of Durham, which removes flexibility from the network with some incredibly disruptive engineering work. We're talking a month's closure of a 5tph (now) section of the ECML. You'll probably have to drop the line speed from 90mph to 70 mph to cope with the curvature as well. Even with a fast DMU (say we have a regular Class 158 DMU, or hell a Class 365 EMU), that still has to cross the ECML on the flat twice as it terminates at Durham in a North facing bay. None of this is acceptable.

Anyway, where at Durham would it terminate? You could probably make a bay platform in the long stay car park on the east of the station which could fit a double metro-car, but that reduces the car-park capacity of Durham station, as well as being more engineering works.

All these things fit into the problem of re-opening the line.

As for Leamside, other than Washington, it just doesn't go anywhere useful. It's kind of OK as a diversionary freight route, but it's just not useful (other than Washington as I say). Maybe some sort of re-opening to Consett via Washington and Annfield Plain might be worthwhile, but I haven't looked into that in any detail.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The Leamside Line is lifted, but the trackbed is wholly intact.

Whilst the trackbed is protected, I wouldn't say it is "intact", especially around Fencehouses and the back of Belmont.

The Sunderland to Durham line crossed the Leamside Line, ran across the (extant) Belmont Viaduct and joined the ECML at Newton Hall Junction. Services terminated at the current Durham Station in a north facing bay, and through services ran South to various destinations including Barnard Castle.

I'm not originally from the north east so I didn't realise that; the only line to Sunderland I was aware of was the line from Elvet via Pittington and Hetton-le-Hole. I'm happy to be corrected.

The OP has a worthy point.

On which bit?

The line to Elvet has been built on by the University.

The line to the ECML may be mostly extant- although there's no bridge over the A1(M), Belmont Viaduct allegedly isn't safe to cross, and the A19 bridge doesn't look suitable for rail traffic, not to mention land grab from various farmers that would need to be reversed- but what would you do with it when it got to Newton Hall? There's no longer the room for four tracks, you can't run a Metro on the ECML, there's no room for a bay on the south side of the station, and crossing the ECML on the flat to terminate in a bay on the north side of the station is completely impractical. It also misses the biggest town in the area, Houghton-le-Spring, and one of the bigger traffic draws at Doxford Park.

The Leamside Line doesn't go near anywhere of any significance; trying to claim the edge of Barmston is "Washington" is stretching it a bit.

 

[northwichcat]

I think you must mean DfT are reluctant. It wouldn't be Network Rail who made the final decision.

I thought DfT consider whether a reopening or a new station has the support of Network Rail, local councils and current operator(s) (if applicable) whenever they are making a decision.