If it's treated like Portishead, the hurdles will be even greater........
the first hurdle is “where does the train service go, and is there capacity for it?”
If it's treated like Portishead, the hurdles will be even greater........
Indeed, no doubt the politicians will want a through service to Manchester Airport, but there isn't capacity for that. Most likely end up being a shuttle to Preston or part of the Ormskirk/Colne/Blackpool South group. What will be interesting is if the Blackpool South line gets the passing loop to increase frequency to every 30 minutes, then there will probably be a fight between Fylde and Wyre about who should get trains to where!the first hurdle is “where does the train service go, and is there capacity for it?”
Indeed, no doubt the politicians will want a through service to Manchester Airport, but there isn't capacity for that. Most likely end up being a shuttle to Preston or part of the Ormskirk/Colne/Blackpool South group. What will be interesting is if the Blackpool South line gets the passing loop to increase frequency to every 30 minutes, then there will probably be a fight between Fylde and Wyre about who should get trains to where!
This goes back to trade offs - heavy rail will provide through services to Preston and perhaps beyond but only every 30 minutes at best and the station at Fleetwood won't be convenient. Tram or tram train will allow services to reach the centre of Fleetwood and run every 15 minutes but will involve a change at Poulton on to the main network.
The MP and media local to the proposed station at Haxby had the same problem (I seem to recall) - confusing funding for development work ie studies / business cases and so on, with funding for physical development.Optimistic reporting or is this where it's really at?
Fleetwood Poulton rail link: Plans to reopen line approved
The Department for Transport agrees to fund the development of the line after years of campaigning.www.bbc.co.uk
Join / divide at Kirkham?well this is one of them.
AIUI it’s a straight choice between: an hourly train to fleetwood or doubling the South branch. No capacity at Preston for anything else.
Alternatively serve Fleetwood by diverting existing services from Blackpool North, but that would surely cause a net revenue loss and a net economic disbenefit.
But the main hurdle is the business case, which is appalling, AIUI.
Are you suggesting that an electrified branch might be built? For one train per hour?Join / divide at Kirkham?
Only if Blackpool South is electrified, otherwise no need. Two trains per hour from Preston, for which @Bald Rick has stated there is capacity, dividing at Kirkham to run to Blackpool South / Fleetwood.Are you suggesting that an electrified branch might be built? For one train per hour?
It was in reply to a comment about a through service to Manchester. A through service to Preston is very easily delivered by simply not increasing the frequency on the South Fylde.Only if Blackpool South is electrified, otherwise no need. Two trains per hour from Preston, for which @Bald Rick has stated there is capacity, dividing at Kirkham to run to Blackpool South / Fleetwood.
Why would you need a railway for that though? Why wouldn't a bus suit? Indeed, why doesn't the 74 suit? Also how would you get the train onto the branch? Would you build a new platform too?Or a simple shuttle from Poulton to Fleetwood, no physical connection required ar Poulton so no resignalling/ pway costs
Things which already have a full business case are likely to go ahead, including the Northumberland line and the new stations that have already started construction.Total pie in the sky that Treasury will approve any of this.
It’s a very good question, ie what is wrong with an express bus serving only Fleetwood and Poulton. Operstionsl cost would be about 20% for twice the frequency, and it wouldn‘t cost c£100m.Why would you need a railway for that though? Why wouldn't a bus suit? Indeed, why doesn't the 74 suit?
The huge costs for EWR over an existing formation to Bletchley show that anything that involves a greenfield site hasn't really got much hope. The additional stations on existing routes are more certain if track capacity exits for services.Total pie in the sky that Treasury will approve any of this. Our interest payments are going up and rail revenue has gone down, a lot. We need to stabilise the existing railway.
Don’t get me wrong, there is lots I would like to see reopen but this is just expensive window dressing.
A couple of reopenings have managed to sneak through central approval as Tory bribery but that will be it for now unless there is a massive strategic need or the relevant regional authorities manage to piece something together. The latter is of course possible but it will mean that money not being spent on something else. As these things tend to be pretty capital hungry and have difficult opex lines even with before Covid, I really do question spending anything much on developing them without clearly explaining where the reserved pot of cash for implementation is coming from.
If we are going to reopen anything, my fave pie in the sky would be Malton to Pickering so that NYMR can run steam, diesel and hydrogen/battery services all the way to Whitby. Ideally a morning and evening service with full restaurant car and an ironed newspaper.
I agree with Bald Rick that there is zero chance of many of these happening. I also think the 2019 election was so much based on Brexit that the Tories could lose 50 seats in 2024 inc all the ones mentioned here. But I know that is for a different discussion
This is just a guess, but the imminent opening of Reading Green Park station is going to cause some delays. As I recall, it turns the Reading-Basingstoke services from barely viable turnaround to not really viable, although the 769s might help? Perhaps Bramley was identified as the bottleneck on this route.Also, the Unsuccessful Bids is quite brutal this time, with a number of proposals in the South West turned down - Possibly the biggest loser this time? One did catch my eye though, as a local to this area, can anyone tell me what the "To unlock capacity and services through Bramley (Hants)" idea was about please?
Network Rail’s 2015 Western Route Study suggested the provision of a grade separated junction at Southcote, with a third track to be provided between there and the Oxford Road Junction at Reading West to provide additional capacity for container trains. There was also talk of grade separation at Basingstoke, but that (and Southcote) would be eye-wateringly expensive and out of scope for this funding, I would guess. So maybe just the third track between Southcote and Reading West?Also, the Unsuccessful Bids is quite brutal this time, with a number of proposals in the South West turned down - Possibly the biggest loser this time? One did catch my eye though, as a local to this area, can anyone tell me what the "To unlock capacity and services through Bramley (Hants)" idea was about please?
Was there not at one time a shunting loop at the South end of Bramley station, giving access to the former military railway? I can't remember which side of the line it was on but, if the solum still exists, it could perhaps be utilised for a new - possibly bi-directional - running loop. It would have to be considerably longer, however, than the original loop in order to be able to recess freightliner services....and as these run at the maximum permitted line speed of 75 mph, there would be no real pathing advantage.If a strictly railway intervention were suggested, there might be room for passing loops just to the south of Bramley station, where there's a stand of trees to the east of the line. I don't think it would solve the problem if the bottleneck is the crossing. It also couldn't be described as 'restoring' since I don't think passing loops have ever existed here.
The timetable has already been changed to take into account the new station, by using 3 trains instead of 2.This is just a guess, but the imminent opening of Reading Green Park station is going to cause some delays. As I recall, it turns the Reading-Basingstoke services from barely viable turnaround to not really viable, although the 769s might help? Perhaps Bramley was identified as the bottleneck on this route.
There's some more informed speculation at https://anonw.com/2020/08/14/beechi...-capacity-and-services-through-bramley-hants/
It's absolutely typical that we could get a new station opened with no trains to actually serve it. Although the May working timetable does have Reading Green Park down as an unadvertised 1-minute stop, according to RealTimeTrains. The timing load is shown as 'diesel locomotive, trailing load 769 tonnes', which I think is code for 'Class 769', rather than the 165s currently running the route. The 165s don't seem to be having trouble keeping to time, though, mostly dwelling at either Reading West or Mortimer (the stations at either side) for a couple of extra minutes, or arriving early at the terminus.
Looking at the satellite view, I think the most practical way to get rid of the level crossing would be to run a new road north of Clift Meadow Park, cross the railway on a bridge, and connect up with Browns Close. The Street, having been bypassed, could be closed to vehicular traffic, with a foot/cycle bridge crossing the railway at the present level crossing. That's probably not cheap - and doesn't have much to do with 'Restoring Your Railway'!
If a strictly railway intervention were suggested, there might be room for passing loops just to the south of Bramley station, where there's a stand of trees to the east of the line. I don't think it would solve the problem if the bottleneck is the crossing. It also couldn't be described as 'restoring' since I don't think passing loops have ever existed here.
8 seconds a mile for 90 over 75, 4 minutes is going to need 30 miles so unless someone is moving Basingstoke you ain't getting that.Is there no scenario where they will look at upping the line speed on this line?
75mph for such a long, relatively simple route seems so low - especially with express XC services on it. Even 90mph would likely negate these turnaround issues by knocking 3-4 mins off. Wires might save 2-3 also, and again, benefit future bi-mode running.
As someone is from the area: maybe. Though I'm not sure who it panders to given that the line is going to move a lot more in and out of the constituency under the new boundaries, with Roche and Bugle both moving out of the St Austell constituency. There's also the recently approved bypass that will take a ton of traffic out of Roche and Bugle, which is well overdue (and the former Lib Dem council got positive noises and funding for initial planning from gov) but still feels a bit "political"It is nearly 40 miles Newquay to Truro by rail via Par, yet Mr. Google tells me it 13.2 miles (26mins) by car. I believe the proposal involves reinstating the second platform at Newquay and the passing loop at Goss Moor (ripped out in the 1980s) plus upgrading level crossings. This is welcome if XC can be bothered to serve the resort again, but it is difficult to see how it can be competitive for local journeys. The main flows from Newquay are to Truro and St Austell (both served by direct buses). Maybe its all about the threat of a LD revival in Cornwall?
Is that actually achievable? I don't know, but if line speed is increased but no trains can accelerate to the new limit, there is no sense in spending money on changing the limit. Don't forget, the faster you go the lower the rate of acceleration; you don't get an instantaneous benefit.I made it up, but the principle remains. Could, and really should be 100mph+ - it's on a core intercity route and is sustained at low speed.
Why would it need 2 platforms if it only has a single track? Surely there wouldn’t need enough trains heading that way to need it? No idea about the geography, could the tram use it to make a decent interchange?The feasibility study suggested a single line with two platforms at the Fleetwood end.
Alloa says, "Hello".Are you suggesting that an electrified branch might be built? For one train per hour?
Rough translation: large hole into which lots of nuclear waste will be dumped.All to do with a proposed nuclear processing site outside Mablethorpe
It is a bit of a Jack of Trades cheap and nasty scheme.As someone is from the area: maybe. Though I'm not sure who it panders to given that the line is going to move a lot more in and out of the constituency under the new boundaries, with Roche and Bugle both moving out of the St Austell constituency. There's also the recently approved bypass that will take a ton of traffic out of Roche and Bugle, which is well overdue (and the former Lib Dem council got positive noises and funding for initial planning from gov) but still feels a bit "political"
If it actually happens, I wonder if it'll induce some other improvements. Roche in particular is not a desirable station to use, despite the name it's actually a couple hundred metres outside the village and has no safe pedestrian/cycle access from the village itself. The aforementioned bypass might help a lot but currently you'd have a death wish to want to walk there at present, and if you're waiting for a bus you might as well just go to St. Austell station anyway.
I guess it also depends on how long those buses take. We lost the through service to Truro but when it was there you'd be on the bus for something like 2 hours vs bus 20 minutes to St Austell and then 15 minutes on the train.
This is just a guess, but the imminent opening of Reading Green Park station is going to cause some delays. As I recall, it turns the Reading-Basingstoke services from barely viable turnaround to not really viable, although the 769s might help? Perhaps Bramley was identified as the bottleneck on this route.
There's some more informed speculation at https://anonw.com/2020/08/14/beechi...-capacity-and-services-through-bramley-hants/
It's absolutely typical that we could get a new station opened with no trains to actually serve it. Although the May working timetable does have Reading Green Park down as an unadvertised 1-minute stop, according to RealTimeTrains. The timing load is shown as 'diesel locomotive, trailing load 769 tonnes', which I think is code for 'Class 769', rather than the 165s currently running the route. The 165s don't seem to be having trouble keeping to time, though, mostly dwelling at either Reading West or Mortimer (the stations at either side) for a couple of extra minutes, or arriving early at the terminus.
Looking at the satellite view, I think the most practical way to get rid of the level crossing would be to run a new road north of Clift Meadow Park, cross the railway on a bridge, and connect up with Browns Close. The Street, having been bypassed, could be closed to vehicular traffic, with a foot/cycle bridge crossing the railway at the present level crossing. That's probably not cheap - and doesn't have much to do with 'Restoring Your Railway'!
If a strictly railway intervention were suggested, there might be room for passing loops just to the south of Bramley station, where there's a stand of trees to the east of the line. I don't think it would solve the problem if the bottleneck is the crossing. It also couldn't be described as 'restoring' since I don't think passing loops have ever existed here.
Network Rail’s 2015 Western Route Study suggested the provision of a grade separated junction at Southcote, with a third track to be provided between there and the Oxford Road Junction at Reading West to provide additional capacity for container trains. There was also talk of grade separation at Basingstoke, but that (and Southcote) would be eye-wateringly expensive and out of scope for this funding, I would guess. So maybe just the third track between Southcote and Reading West?
Was there not at one time a shunting loop at the South end of Bramley station, giving access to the former military railway? I can't remember which side of the line it was on but, if the solum still exists, it could perhaps be utilised for a new - possibly bi-directional - running loop. It would have to be considerably longer, however, than the original loop in order to be able to recess freightliner services....and as these run at the maximum permitted line speed of 75 mph, there would be no real pathing advantage.
Is there no scenario where they will look at upping the line speed on this line?
75mph for such a long, relatively simple route seems so low - especially with express XC services on it. Even 90mph would likely negate these turnaround issues by knocking 3-4 mins off. Wires might save 2-3 also, and again, benefit future bi-mode running.