Reopening lines with marginal BCR and business case

[cuccir]

As has been pointed out, Durham-Sunderland would essentially require the construction of a new line across the Wear Valley, or a new terminus in East Durham. This isn't justifiable.

Leamside has more scope. The ECML capacity review is quite clear on the advantages:

reopening of the Leamside line between Tursdale Junction and Pelaw would be required if there is any increase in requirement for freight and passenger paths north of Northallerton

And later on

Re-opening the Leamside Line would be the best solution to provide additional capacity

The conclusion at the moment in that document is that under current projections, the case for reopening is marginal. However, if extra capacity is required for services that will run to the Leeds branch of HS2, this would strengthen the business case.

 

[TBY-Paul]

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

If Leamside was re-opened, there are a number of possible options.

a) A station at Washington.

b) A station just at the South side of the viaduct(Shiny Row area), you could even call it Sunderland Parkway if it was done right.
Because trains have to slowdown for the curve, having a station here would result in a smaller time penalty, and If the Metro was extended from South Hylton in to a bay platform at this new station it would create useful interchange on to the Metro System.

c) A Durham Parkway station beside the current Belmont Park & Ride site.
This again again would create a useful interchange station for those going into Durham, but would also avoid the need for those wishing to travel by train to other destinations having to travel into Durham it's self.

Having Leamside Open would vastly increase capacity and options in the area.
As an example anything going to EDB could continue to use the ECML, calling at Durham, but some services only going as far as Newcastle (KGX-NCL services) could use the Leamside line, calling at Durham Parkway & Sunderland Parkway.
Because you have now taken some trains off the ECML, it might be possible to send some local stoppers calling at Durham & Chester-le Street up the ECML without affecting Edingburgh trains.

These are just a few ideas to show some of the potential benefits, and usefulness of having Leamside re-opened.

 

[2392]

Indeed talking of the Leamside line [old ECML] the freight operators would be really interested in it's rebuilding. As with a bit of thought they could take quite a lot of their admittedly at moment dwindling services off the ECML 'tween York and Tyne Yard. In so much as they could come off the four track section in the Vale of York at Thirsk/Northallerton go round to Teeside/Tees Yard, reverse via Norton South to Ferry Hill contacting the ECML there and off at Tursdale onto Leamside and into Gateshead at Pelaw. Re-instating the chord off the Carlisle line and using the "post office" loop into Tyne yard. Also not forgetting Nissan in Washington having a private siding.........

 

[Lankyline]

The problem with potential line reopenings aside from the economic / cost factors etc is that we can have a tendency to view these "old lines" in the present when there has been new housing developments, new towns built, more road congestion etc etc none of which where a factor when the (sorry got to mention the B word) Beeching report was compiled.

As we know in their original state 50/60 years ago a lot of places served never generated the traffic volumes required to sustain the lines, now it is quite easy to identify a lot of places, that in some cases have expanded out of all recognition and would justify today a rail link and/or additional station(s) I appreciate this is a simplistic overview, but at a time of capacity/rolling stock issues, all of which have been mentioned, maybe the time has come to tighten up the BCR so that only "essential lines " qualify for consideration.

 

[yorksrob]

The problem with potential line reopenings aside from the economic / cost factors etc is that we can have a tendency to view these "old lines" in the present when there has been new housing developments, new towns built, more road congestion etc etc none of which where a factor when the (sorry got to mention the B word) Beeching report was compiled.

As we know in their original state 50/60 years ago a lot of places served never generated the traffic volumes required to sustain the lines, now it is quite easy to identify a lot of places, that in some cases have expanded out of all recognition and would justify today a rail link and/or additional station(s) I appreciate this is a simplistic overview, but at a time of capacity/rolling stock issues, all of which have been mentioned, maybe the time has come to tighten up the BCR so that only "essential lines " qualify for consideration.

I agree with your point that a lot of these areas were less busy when their lines closed, but surely that's more of an argument for reopening now, regardless of the situation when Beeching was in charge.

I'm also somewhat puzzled by your assertion that BCR's somehow need "tightening" particularly since they've pretty much managed to kill off any reopening in the past fifteen years. It's not as though we've enjoyed a bonanza of reopenings here in England over the past decade.

 

[Chris125]

Leamside has more scope. The ECML capacity review is quite clear on the advantages

Apologies if already noted, but the Leamside line was also mentioned in the recent 'Northern Transport Strategy' document from Transport for the North:

Leeds to Newcastle:

We will develop options both to increase capacity and speed for passengers and freight services, including 140mph running to take advantage of the capability of the latest generation of electric trains. When combined with transformed east-west links this has the potential to reduce journey times from Manchester to Newcastle by up to 35 minutes (representing a 25 per cent improvement on today). Amongst the options to be considered for relieving the two-track section of the East Coast Main Line between Newcastle and Northallerton is a possible re-opening of the Leamside Line through County Durham and Washington. ​

 

[bluenoxid]

I personally find it very frustrating to hear them mention that any rail link to Washington needs to serve the Galleries. I'm surprised that those who make transport planning decisions around there seem to fail to notice the traffic jams on all of the Tyne road crossings. The Washington line is ideally located for the A194M and the A1231. Both are busy roads.

 

[James_D]

I personally find it very frustrating to hear them mention that any rail link to Washington needs to serve the Galleries. I'm surprised that those who make transport planning decisions around there seem to fail to notice the traffic jams on all of the Tyne road crossings. The Washington line is ideally located for the A194M and the A1231. Both are busy roads.

On Page 94 of the Metro strategy 2030 document it says that:

Much of the existing road network has wide verges originally provided with future road-widening schemes in mind; in the majority of locations there appears to be sufficient space to accommodate Metro tracks.

I take it this means running a new alignment North to South-South East through the centre of Washington past the galleries following the A182 Washington Highway by cutting back the verges/banks beside the road. But when you look at it on Google Earth it looks like the spacings would be very tight for a double-tracked alignment without demolishing existing buildings next to the Galleries and just North of it, on the West side of Albany village. Unless they're planning to run it single tracked through there?

I think it's a great idea if it can be done, given that they foresee 70% more patronage than if they ran it on the existing Leamside trackbed. But i suspect they may go with the cheaper option, if they ever even decide to bring passenger rail back to Washington.

 

[deltic08]

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?

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

Come on, give credit where credit is due. Ripon-Harrogate never has been flat or slightly negative. It scored a BCR of between 1.11 and 1.33 depending on amount of trackwork and signalling in the 2005 study.

ATOC scored Harrogate-Northallerton at 4.6:1 in 2009 but that is a little excessive. More detailed examination will put it between 3.5 and 4.0 or slightly higher due to recent planning applications for over 1,000 houses in Ripon.

 

[muddythefish]

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

)

Money is never a problem if government makes it policy. The coalition in 2010 claimed the country was bust yet gave billions away in tax cuts to millionaires. Despite public sector cutbacks and years of austerity, money has never been a problem when it comes to funding wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria.

The biggest constraint to rail reopenings is not money but political will. Welsh and Scottish government policy is to increase investment in infrastructure, and rail in particular (though the M4 relief road in Wales is a disappointment). England is lagging because government is centralised in London - with the result that vast bulk of spending in recent years has been centred on the capital.

Devolution of power to the regions should help enormously the various campaigns to reopen old railway lines (and maybe build new ones). Politics, as always, is the key to increased investment.