Restoring Your Railway Fund: what ideas would you suggest?

[RT4038]

The trouble is, what significant settlements does that put back on the railway map? Market Weighton, and possibly Holme on Spalding Moor and Middleton on the Wolds - and where does it connect them to? Driffield and Selby. I can't see that that would ever wash its face.

Looks to me that the line has got potential, and stands up very well with many of the other lines on the list. It will:
1. Aside from the places that you mention, also serves Bainton, Foggathope and Bubwith, all ripe for development. I am assuming that the smaller former stations would not be re-opened.
2. facilitate the development of Filey, Bridlington and Driffield as commuter areas of Leeds (by through trains), potentially improving their economic fortunes.
3. facilitate tourism from Leeds/West Yorkshire to Bridlington and Filey (by through trains), currently a tortuous journey by rail.
4. provide a diversionary route when the direct line from Hull to Driffield via Beverley is not available.
5. improve links from this part of East Yorkshire to the wider country, by extending/diverting Cross-Country services from Leeds to Bridlington.
6. 'Fill in' a section of the railway map so cruelly removed in 1965.
7. Be easy to electrify as few overhead obstructions or limited clearances.

I think the line is relatively unobstructed by development (apart from in Market Weighton, where a deviation may be required), and there are not lots of main roads to be crossed or urban areas to be traversed.

30 miles @ £20m per mile = £600m.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I think the chance of people commuting to Leeds from Filey and Bridlington is very very low, and i think your chances of putting any more trains through the east side of Leeds is nigh on impossible. I also think as no cross country services terminate at Leeds, why in the slightest they would go to Bridlington.

A diversionary route, a business case does not make. I think section 6 goes a long way to saying why it has been considered "fill in a cruelly removed section"

 

[RT4038]

I think the chance of people commuting to Leeds from Filey and Bridlington is very very low, and i think your chances of putting any more trains through the east side of Leeds is nigh on impossible. I also think as no cross country services terminate at Leeds, why in the slightest they would go to Bridlington.

A diversionary route, a business case does not make. I think section 6 goes a long way to saying why it has been considered "fill in a cruelly removed section"

If there was a frequent direct train service, maybe many more commuters would.
There is a very high frequency of trains between Leeds and York. One or two of these per hour (including a Cross Country) could be diverted to Bridlington instead. Alternatively Leeds-Hull trains could split at Selby. Could be done without additional line capacity required.
Other line re-instatements throw in 'diversionary route' as part of their case, so this one could too.

 

[Ianno87]

If there was a frequent direct train service, maybe many more commuters would.
There is a very high frequency of trains between Leeds and York. One or two of these per hour (including a Cross Country) could be diverted to Bridlington instead. Alternatively Leeds-Hull trains could split at Selby. Could be done without additional line capacity required.
Other line re-instatements throw in 'diversionary route' as part of their case, so this one could too.

1) To be attractive as a daily commute, you need a Leeds-Bridlington journey time of 60-75 minutes tops.

2) Bridlington is never going to justify diversion of train paths that could be used to serve Darlington, Durham and Newcastle instead, which are much much bigger markets ad sources of demand.

 

[yoyothehobo]

Yes, but when diversionary route is brought up as a reason to reinstate a line, it generally means "scraping the barrel".

Answer this honestly, if there had never been a railway line there in the first place, would you consider putting a railway there? That is what the first assessment of all of these "reopenings" should be.

The east of the wolds primary settlements for employment are Scarborough and Hull, or a commute to York, anyone going to Leeds from there will be so few and far between. If there was a massive untapped demand for Bridlington, that didnt need Scarborough, then you could improve the route between Scarborough and York to have more trains on at once and put a curve at seamer and relocate the station to serve both. Would likely be a fraction of the cost of building a railway line through 30 miles of nowhere.

 

[RT4038]

1) To be attractive as a daily commute, you need a Leeds-Bridlington journey time of 60-75 minutes tops.

2) Bridlington is never going to justify diversion of train paths that could be used to serve Darlington, Durham and Newcastle instead, which are much much bigger markets ad sources of demand.

1) The journey time from Leeds-Bridlington would be about 85 min, assuming two additional stations between Market Weighton and Selby.
2) In the brave new 'normal' world (surely to be reached by the time this got built), we'll be running fewer, longer, trains so this shortage of paths will be relieved.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, but when diversionary route is brought up as a reason to reinstate a line, it generally means "scraping the barrel".

Answer this honestly, if there had never been a railway line there in the first place, would you consider putting a railway there? That is what the first assessment of all of these "reopenings" should be.

The east of the wolds primary settlements for employment are Scarborough and Hull, or a commute to York, anyone going to Leeds from there will be so few and far between. If there was a massive untapped demand for Bridlington, that didnt need Scarborough, then you could improve the route between Scarborough and York to have more trains on at once and put a curve at seamer and relocate the station to serve both. Would likely be a fraction of the cost of building a railway line through 30 miles of nowhere.

Yes, but this applies to many of the lines 'on the list'.
Leeds and West Yorkshire may become more prominent for employment if a direct railway was there.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I am not saying it doesnt apply to the list, i think it applies to nearly all of them.

I think it is very unlikely that we will be running fewer, longer trains and if we were, then it is very unlikely they would be used to cart fresh air in from the coast, they will just be used on the existing services.

If you had 1-2% of the entire working population of Bridlington commuting to Leeds, and that would be a large proportion, that would be 150-300 people, one train a day each way most likely. The numbers just dont stack up. This is exactly the sort of route rail is not built for. No freight demand, limited of no intermediate centres of population along the route. Its not like Bridlington doesnt have access to 2 reasonable centres of population much closer, so i just dont get the point of it all. This would be lower on the list than so many.

 

[Bald Rick]

Answer this honestly, if there had never been a railway line there in the first place, would you consider putting a railway there? That is what the first assessment of all of these "reopenings" should be.

Absolutely bang on. Why, for example, Skipton to Colne and not, Colne to Keighley? Or Uckfield - Lewes and not Uckfield to Hayward’s Heath (which would be much more useful). Etc.

 

[Ianno87]

1) The journey time from Leeds-Bridlington would be about 85 min, assuming two additional stations between Market Weighton and Selby.
2) In the brave new 'normal' world (surely to be reached by the time this got built), we'll be running fewer, longer, trains so this shortage of paths will be relieved.

4tph/5tph/6tph to Newcastle is *always* going to have a stronger case in path allocation than 3tph/4tph/5tph to Newcastle and 1tph to Bridington.

 

[Ianno87]

Absolutely bang on. Why, for example, Skipton to Colne and not, Colne to Keighley? Or Uckfield - Lewes and not Uckfield to Hayward’s Heath (which would be much more useful). Etc.

See Also: Burscough Curves. Of any, the most useful one could be argued to be one that has never existed; connecting Ormskirk to Manchester.

 

[Glenn1969]

Long distance to Bridlington would presumably be a leisure market. So would improved access from the South to Whitby if that is ever suggested

 

[RT4038]

4tph/5tph/6tph to Newcastle is *always* going to have a stronger case in path allocation than 3tph/4tph/5tph to Newcastle and 1tph to Bridington.

2tph of 10 carriages each should be more than sufficient for Leeds-Darlington-Durham-Newcastle, giving quite a choice of paths for an hourly Bridlington via Market Weighton train.

 

[IanXC]

As one who recalls tavelling on the line, and has walked the area of the route in recent times, I can confirm that the Market Weighton to Beverley section would be relatively simple, although crossing the A1035 at Beverley would add a few millions.

It's likely to be neither easy or cheap to divert around or go through the obstructing new building that's now on the old trackbed at Market Weighton.

Potential level crossings, new flyovers and farm crossings abound from there into York, the first being the A614.

Pocklington requires a wide swinging south-west diversion of almost 2 miles away from the old route, more multi-millions. What's been built there is hardly a little obstruction.

There's a nice housing estate across the old route at Stamford Bridge. It's not a little obstruction either, so another wide 2 mile south-west diversion needed there across the River Derwent and the A166. Kerching!!

Approaching York the A64 and A1237 are in the way, more flyovers needed, and the trackbed is obstructed at Huntingdon, including a link road across the River Foss.

So, that's my feasibilty study summarised - it would be VERY expensive, but certainly possible. What price do we put on the current economic need to reinstate?

I'd agree it should never have been closed, but that alone's not a valid reason to reinstate from the position we're in now.

My 70 minutes journey time was a bit off the mark, the proposed journey time Hull to York and vice versa is 56 minutes.

The route is much less problematic than you make out, for instance the proposed route diverges after the existing railway passes under the A1035 on the outskirts of Beverley, so avoiding all the problems of that section the route.

The last full investigation of this project found a BCR of 1.26 to 2.06. Clearly that report is out of date however I'd suggest it at least shows that a.more detailed investigation of the project is worthwhile.

I note your repeated suggestion of items costing multiple millions of pounds. This is inevitable in almost all of these schemes, and particularly those which are not existing freight lines. Pointing to things on these types of schemes and stating they'll cost millions is a given!

 

[furnessvale]

Absolutely bang on. Why, for example, Skipton to Colne and not, Colne to Keighley? Or Uckfield - Lewes and not Uckfield to Hayward’s Heath (which would be much more useful). Etc.

On some, but by no means all of these routes, the presence of a previous formation makes a big difference to potential costs.

 

[Bald Rick]

On some, but by no means all of these routes, the presence of a previous formation makes a big difference to potential costs.

A difference, yes, but I wouldn’t say big, unless the line is in use or has been within the last 10-15 years. Even then it’s not clear cut - Oxford to Bicester was £25m-£30m a mile at current prices, and that was with the railway already there to help with construction.

 

[Killingworth]

My 70 minutes journey time was a bit off the mark, the proposed journey time Hull to York and vice versa is 56 minutes.

The route is much less problematic than you make out, for instance the proposed route diverges after the existing railway passes under the A1035 on the outskirts of Beverley, so avoiding all the problems of that section the route.

The last full investigation of this project found a BCR of 1.26 to 2.06. Clearly that report is out of date however I'd suggest it at least shows that a.more detailed investigation of the project is worthwhile.

I note your repeated suggestion of items costing multiple millions of pounds. This is inevitable in almost all of these schemes, and particularly those which are not existing freight lines. Pointing to things on these types of schemes and stating they'll cost millions is a given!

About 70 minutes was the journey time for 43 miles York - Hull via Market Weighton in 1961 (Bradshaw Table N18, 9 trains a day in each direction), about the same as the 44 miles via Selby - and that hasn't improved much since! There were more trains via Selby so consolidating on the route that also supported other services made sense. I know, the frequency and timings via MW were too poor to attract custom, but I was put on the train at York and picked up at Market Weighton in steam days and it suited my relatives. After it closed I was picked up by car in York - a congested journey even in the early 1960s.

OK, I said millions, but it would be several hundred millions at today's prices, and with all costs added in possibly approaching a billion in total by the end. There's a lot of expensive contracting work needed and some compensation would be required. Any feasibility study may put estimated figures on all this, but once the serious design and build work is put out to tender another story would likely emerge. Factor in consultations and public inquiries and it will take a long time. I'm at a loss to see where all the extra paying traffic is to come from to justify this level of spending. I see no potential freight traffic to help. I hope the Minsters Rail Campaign has stamina.

However the Restoring Your Railway Fund scheme has had most unfortunate timing. All TOCs are in financial difficulties and requiring bail outs. All public transport is in severe crisis. Money will be needed to preserve them before even a token two or three of these projects.

 

[furnessvale]

A difference, yes, but I wouldn’t say big, unless the line is in use or has been within the last 10-15 years. Even then it’s not clear cut - Oxford to Bicester was £25m-£30m a mile at current prices, and that was with the railway already there to help with construction.

I must disagree. I am talking embankments, cuttings, possibly viaducts, bridges and even tunnels, none of which are present on virgin ground for a new route.

 

[Bald Rick]

I must disagree. I am talking embankments, cuttings, possibly viaducts, bridges and even tunnels, none of which are present on virgin ground for a new route.

Yes... but ... for almost all ‘reopenings’ where these features exist, they must be assessed and remediated, often at great cost. Bletchley flyover for example. For every structure that can be reused, there will be other that can’t, and it obviously costs more to remove the old and then build new than simply to build new.

Then the big issue. Main civils, tunnelling aside, rarely form more than 30-40% of the total cost. There is so much more to a new railway than earthmoving and concrete. So, even if the formation was in pristine condition - and none of them are - you’d still be paying at least 60-70% of the full cost plus the cost of all the assessments necessary to prove the pristine-ness. And that’s a best case, which none of them are (even where the railway is open as a freight line). Oxford - Bicester being an excellent example.

 

[si404]

Best example of reopening being rebuilding is Croxley - the line saw it's last train in '96 (a lot later than a lot of these proposals), but just 20 years later they found that the only thing going for building a railway along the disused railway alignment was that the land was easy to obtain as it had no housing on it - the earthworks needed a lot of redoing: so much that they were going to replace an embankment with a viaduct because it would be cheaper.

 

[Tobbes]

Yes... but ... for almost all ‘reopenings’ where these features exist, they must be assessed and remediated, often at great cost. Bletchley flyover for example. For every structure that can be reused, there will be other that can’t, and it obviously costs more to remove the old and then build new than simply to build new.

Then the big issue. Main civils, tunnelling aside, rarely form more than 30-40% of the total cost. There is so much more to a new railway than earthmoving and concrete. So, even if the formation was in pristine condition - and none of them are - you’d still be paying at least 60-70% of the full cost plus the cost of all the assessments necessary to prove the pristine-ness. And that’s a best case, which none of them are (even where the railway is open as a freight line). Oxford - Bicester being an excellent example.

Sage words. For me, beyond the heartstrings argument, the main reason of looking at whether two points that have a sizeable flow between them (think regular express buses) were formerly rail connected is that an old formation shows that a suitable route has existed, and therefore a reinstatement is at least theoretically possible - ie, there are no impossibly silly gradients or swamps. This is not the same at all as a saying an existing solum from 1965 that has had no maintenance and that may not have met modern standards is ready to have some track and ballast slapped down on it and hey presto, insta-railway.

 

[Bald Rick]

Best example of reopening being rebuilding is Croxley

Yes, a great example.

 

[Ianno87]

2tph of 10 carriages each should be more than sufficient for Leeds-Darlington-Durham-Newcastle, giving quite a choice of paths for an hourly Bridlington via Market Weighton train.

Capacity and frequency both have value for stimulating demand and economic output.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

UPDATED 20 May 2020: as of relevant information: please feel free to inform me about any other bids that may have been or have been submitted.

Ideas Fund: Bids for March submitted (or may have been submitted) and due to be announced in May: Second bidding in June and third in November 2020

1. Leicester-Burton
2. Stockport to Stalybridge
3. Stocksbridge-Sheffield
4. Sheffield to Chesterfield via Barrow Hill
5. Doncaster to Knottingley
6. Doncaster to Shireoaks
7. Stafford to Wellington
8. Buxton to Matlock
9. Gobowen to Oswestry
10. Rhyl to Corwen
11. Tavistock to Bere Alston
12. Tavistock to Okehampton
13. Brent to Kingsbridge
14. Heathfield to Newton Abbot
15. Stratford to Honeybourne
16. Lostwithiel to Fowey
17. Part of Northampton to Bedford
18. Uckfield to Lewes and Eridge to Tunbridge Wells (as part of the BML2 bid)
19. Bourne End to High Wycombe
20. Sandall and Agbrigg to Barnsley
21. York to Beverley
22. Penrith to Keswick
23. Silloth to Carlisle
24. Afon-wen to Bangor
25. Totton to Fawley
26. Newport to Smallbrook Junction
27. Shanklin to Ventor
28. Burscough Curves
29. Grazebrook to Baguely
30. Shirebrook to Ollerton
31. Poulton-le-Fylde to Fleetwood (not included in the 60)
32. Station: Cullompton
33. Station: Wellington
34. Station: Methley
35. Station: Little Deeping
36. Station: Donnington Road
37. Station: Standish
38. Devizes Parkway
39. Ironbridge branch line
40. Rossendale to Manchester
41. Barnstaple to Braunston
42. Melksham Single Track Capacity Enhancement
43. Westbury 4th Platform
44. Station: Strensall

Ideas Fund: June 2020:

1. Consett to Newcastle

Ideas Fund: November 2020:

1. Wortley Curve

Potential Bids for Ideas Fund?

• Gainsborough Central to Cleethorpes (Potentially, but guess work)
• Northampton to Market Harborough
• Sharpness to Berkeley Road (Potentially, but guess work)
• Burley-in-Wharfedale to Weeton via Otley (potentially but guess work)
• Brokenhurst to Ringwood (Potentially but guess work)
• Millhouses and Heeley stations (shown interest, but no confirmation of bidding?)

Accelerating Existing Proposals: Separate Bidding process to the other two

1. Skipton to Colne
2. Corsham
3. Wilton Parkway
4. Northumberland Park to Ashington
5. Wisbech to March
6. Skelmersdale Spur

New Stations Fund Confirmed Bids: Separate bidding process to the other two

1. Edingswell
2. Marsh Barton
3. Haxby

New Updated based on sources from various areas including here and various news articles: https://trundleage.co.uk/funding-schemes/restoring-your-railway-fund/

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Best example of reopening being rebuilding is Croxley - the line saw it's last train in '96 (a lot later than a lot of these proposals), but just 20 years later they found that the only thing going for building a railway along the disused railway alignment was that the land was easy to obtain as it had no housing on it - the earthworks needed a lot of redoing: so much that they were going to replace an embankment with a viaduct because it would be cheaper.

To be fair, a big part of the budget for Croxley was for the new build section to link the Metropolitan to the former BR Croxley branch, so wasn't really a case of an old line being beyond repair- on that section at least.

 

[Bald Rick]

To be fair, a big part of the budget for Croxley was for the new build section to link the Metropolitan to the former BR Croxley branch, so wasn't really a case of an old line being beyond repair- on that section at least.

To be fair, it wasn’t. It’s a 500m viaduct, cost £100m tops. The other £200m was for reinstating the existing formation, repairing / replacing existing bridges, etc etc. (All 2 miles of it).

 

[ChiefPlanner]

To be fair, it wasn’t. It’s a 500m viaduct, cost £100m tops. The other £200m was for reinstating the existing formation, repairing / replacing existing bridges, etc etc. (All 2 miles of it).

Signalling - the "WS" signals off the DC line are "lost" , plus the single lead junction at Watford High Street was Network Cjanged out eons ago , plus the interfaces with Rickmansworth remote interlocking would have been fairly , not so now with the new sub-surface equipment.

Sorry to be a realistic pessimist. (£40m ?)

 

[si404]

To be fair, a big part of the budget for Croxley was for the new build section to link the Metropolitan to the former BR Croxley branch, so wasn't really a case of an old line being beyond repair- on that section at least.

The new-build section wasn't the cause of the massive cost increases - the reinstating the old line section was.

They thought it would be cheap and easy to do, but then they looked at the formation and found that they basically had to replace it with a new-build section.

 

[yoyothehobo]

I fear that any extant formation on any of the lines suggested above would be similar to the same problems. Embankments home to rabbits, structures requiring a lot of work to bring back up to scratch.

In a lot of cases a new formation would be easier from an engineering stand point (obviously things like cuttings are helpful but would likely need regrading back after 50 years of no maintenance). It would only take one line with a marginal case in the first place to be blown out of the water by unforseen engineering difficulties which were priced cheaply because there was a line there 60 years ago, and then there goes all enthusiasm for reopenings.

 

[Bald Rick]

I fear that any extant formation on any of the lines suggested above would be similar to the same problems. Embankments home to rabbits, structures requiring a lot of work to bring back up to scratch.

In a lot of cases a new formation would be easier from an engineering stand point (obviously things like cuttings are helpful but would likely need regrading back after 50 years of no maintenance). It would only take one line with a marginal case in the first place to be blown out of the water by unforseen engineering difficulties which were priced cheaply because there was a line there 60 years ago, and then there goes all enthusiasm for reopenings.

One only has to look at the number of lines that have had extensive closures over the last 6 months due to embankments / cuttings deciding to relocate themselves, despite being subject to regular inspection and maintenance over the past 6 decades. It is absolutely clear that any reuse of extant track formation, earthworks or structures for New lines must be subject to rigorous and detailed assessment, and are certain to require significant remedial works, that in some locations will be more expensive than a completely new build.