Road and rail building plans under review after Covid

[jfowkes]

Neither Leicester or Derby ever had a rail 'network' that supported a significant modal share of commuting. Both suffered from having multiple 'central' stations not connected with each other as they were built by separate companies. In both cities the 'centre' is now separated from the surviving station by 'ring roads' that paradoxically make them easier to access by road (car, taxi and some bus routes) for longer distance journeys.

Better urban transport may have existed in the past with trams (Leicester) and trolleybuses (Derby) and something along those lines is needed now to get maximum benefit from decongestion and reduced emissions. Not inappropriate investment in heavy rail.

Oh yeah, my comments are all in the vein of increasing public transport use generally, whatever mode is most appropriate (plus walking and cycling) not heavy rail per-se.

 

[Horizon22]

This style of development emerged long before the car.

See Metroland and large parts of Sydney.

These areas can have affordable high intensity public transport, it just costs a bit more.
I would argue that that the lifestyle benefits of living in suburbia more than make up for the downsides in paying a bit more for transport.

Yes but much of Metroland has pretty good access now to public transport such as the Met line and Jubilee. In fact many of these places were latterly planned to be such as Queensbury / Kingsbury.

 

[HSTEd]

Yes but much of Metroland has pretty good access now to public transport such as the Met line and Jubilee. In fact many of these places were latterly planned to be such as Queensbury / Kingsbury.

Well then the course is clear, no densification is necessary.

Indeed post coronavirus I would expect a desire for more suburbia, not less.

 

[AM9]

Yes, but you're travelling once or twice a year and have the choice whether to travel. Commuters travel a hundred times more often and in many respects don't have a choice about doing so (on the basis they need a job to pay the bills).

In post #40, you said: "The commuters will continue to be the main source of revenue for the rail industry even post covid." That isn't true. The high cost of providing services for for just a few hours per weekday is largely borne by public subsidy. A privatised railway would run them at a considerable loss.
Whether passengers travel for leisure or as one of the options for getting to work is irrelevant to the fares that are charged. Travel outside the peak is far more profitable for the railway which should be reflected in the cost of fares.

 

[snowball]

The fact that one of the government's flagship policies to do with railways is actually called "Reversing Beeching" might give the more savvy reader a slight hint as to what they feel about the historic closure programme.

No, it only shows what the government wants naive unthinking voters to believe the government is intending to do now.

The scale of reopenings will be very small compared with the scale of Beeching closures.

 

[Mikey C]

Yes those places in Metroland have great access to central London by the Underground. BUT for other journeys like going around London, public transport is far less attractive.

 

[philosopher]

In post #40, you said: "The commuters will continue to be the main source of revenue for the rail industry even post covid." That isn't true. The high cost of providing services for for just a few hours per weekday is largely borne by public subsidy. A privatised railway would run them at a considerable loss.
Whether passengers travel for leisure or as one of the options for getting to work is irrelevant to the fares that are charged. Travel outside the peak is far more profitable for the railway which should be reflected in the cost of fares.

I would have thought business travellers are the most lucrative of all as they are the ones most likely to buy expensive peak time fares. Perhaps the railways should encourage them back with things such as improved WiFi, larger tables and perhaps even dedicated meeting rooms.

 

[Wtloild]

Pre-covid, I worked in a pattern that is likely to be increasingly common going forward - 3 days a week in the office, 2 days from home (now likely to change to 1 in & 4 home when the office reopens).
I'd always go via car to the office, as a rail travel is extremely uneconomical if your commuting is irregular and/or unpredictable. Season tickets aren't an option & non-advance fares are extortionate. I'd only ever used the train for business trips (where work are paying the fare).
If I'd previously been a season-ticket holder & now had the option of partial home working, in the absence of a new approach to ticketing, I'd probably be planning on switching to a car.
It'd be nice to see carnet-style bundles of tickets that you can use at your leisure become a thing, but have seen no evidence of that as yet (my commute would be on Northern and possibly also TPE).

 

[yorksrob]

No, it only shows what the government wants naive unthinking voters to believe the government is intending to do now.

The scale of reopenings will be very small compared with the scale of Beeching closures.

Make no mistake, Reversing Beeching is a good popular policy with voters, but it wouldn't in any way shield the government from the negative backlash from a closure programme. If anything, it would serve to highlight the absurdity of instituting a closure programme whilst proclaiming that it was reversing Beeching.

 

[Glenn1969]

But the point is it's political spin and 99% of schemes in reality have no chance of happening because they will decide none of them are viable. I wish I could be more positive but have a habit of not trusting politicians to do anything more than waffle

 

[A0wen]

In post #40, you said: "The commuters will continue to be the main source of revenue for the rail industry even post covid." That isn't true. The high cost of providing services for for just a few hours per weekday is largely borne by public subsidy. A privatised railway would run them at a considerable loss.
Whether passengers travel for leisure or as one of the options for getting to work is irrelevant to the fares that are charged. Travel outside the peak is far more profitable for the railway which should be reflected in the cost of fares.

Not quite true - as the spreadsheet on this page explains https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/stati...-subsidy-per-passenger-kilometre-by-operator/

It's a bit difficult to get a clear picture because some TOCs such as GWR or GA run London commuter services, rural services and Inter city services, but if I've read the figures correctly, in 2018/19 C2C were a net contributor and of the other London commuter providers Chiltern, GTR, GA and SWR received relatively small subsidies. The highest subsidies went to ATW/TFW, Scotrail, Northern and Merseyrail.

London commuters will still be providing a significant proportion of the rail network's income even post Covid and far more so than people using Northern or Scotrail for example.

But the point is it's political spin and 99% of schemes in reality have no chance of happening because they will decide none of them are viable. I wish I could be more positive but have a habit of not trusting politicians to do anything more than waffle

Not quite true if the DfT have actually short-listed them and are analysing them.

Definitely true of the various wibble schemes often peddled around here under the 'reversing Beeching' banner.

The simple reality is rail building is expensive (see Bald Rick's £ 30-40m / mile posts for evidence), takes many years to complete (because you can't just skip the planning process, you can't just round up a bunch of navvies and tell them 'start on Monday boys') and there is every chance that some schemes won't cover their cost at the farebox, so they become an ongoing expense requiring more money in future years which has to come from somewhere.

The problem is too many crayonistas and heavy rail enthusiasts don't understand a few basic realities of life - a good example is the oft peddled example of Wisbech. Allegedly it has a "positive benefits case" - yet as our learned fellow poster Bald Rick has pointed out virtually all of those benefits could be realised by running a second Cambridge - March service, not a metre of new track needed. A dedicated bus link from March station to Wisbech could be put in place tomorrow with through ticketing and timed to meet the trains at March, the cost would be a fraction of even 1 mile of track, let alone the 10 or so which March - Wisbech would be. And that's before you have to start dealing with the hardcore nutters, like the ones suggesting building a line which never existed between Harringworth and Luffenham which would enable a Kettering - Wisbech service for which there is precisely no demand.

 

[BayPaul]

Make no mistake, talking about Reversing Beeching is a good popular policy with voters,

Corrected that for you!

I genuinely believe that politically there is far more capital to be made in nearly building lines than in actually building them. The consultants are relatively cheap, you get loads of coverage, can trot out 'reversing Beeching' headlines, make lots of exciting speeches, sound focussed on the environment, blame nationalisation / privatisation / unions / bosses / health and safety gone mad (delete as applicable depending on political party) as required when costs double, then when things start to slow down come up with an even more elaborate scheme to excite people even more, and then make even more speeches about saving hundreds of millions of pounds when you cancel it. Five years later, repeat the whole process, replacing the name of the scheme with something new.

Loads of political brownie points, minimal spend, no evil compulsory purchase stories or frustrating and noisy construction, and no pesky trains to annoy people when they run late / less frequent / less far than originally planned.

Or am I a cynic.

 

[yorksrob]

Corrected that for you!

I genuinely believe that politically there is far more capital to be made in nearly building lines than in actually building them. The consultants are relatively cheap, you get loads of coverage, can trot out 'reversing Beeching' headlines, make lots of exciting speeches, sound focussed on the environment, blame nationalisation / privatisation / unions / bosses / health and safety gone mad (delete as applicable depending on political party) as required when costs double, then when things start to slow down come up with an even more elaborate scheme to excite people even more, and then make even more speeches about saving hundreds of millions of pounds when you cancel it. Five years later, repeat the whole process, replacing the name of the scheme with something new.

Loads of political brownie points, minimal spend, no evil compulsory purchase stories or frustrating and noisy construction, and no pesky trains to annoy people when they run late / less frequent / less far than originally planned.

Or am I a cynic.

True maybe, but people eventually cotton on if you string them along too long.

 

[Bald Rick]

True maybe, but people eventually cotton on if you string them along too long.

A few people do, particularly those interested in transport. Most don’t have a clue.

 

[zwk500]

Or am I a cynic.

You're not wrong, but in my experience most politicians who campaign on a transport issue genuinely do want the route to reopen. The majority of the time I suspect the reason these things fall at the final hurdle is that the politician realises it won't be built in time for him/her to get any benefit at the next election, so it gets kicked down the road in the hope that it can be rescoped/replanned to be built in less than 1 full term. Actually opening a route will carry far more political capital than just having it as a talking point but only for the MP who gets to cut the ribbon, so no MP is going to sign off on a project if they think their opponent will be the one in the photo.

Make no mistake, Reversing Beeching is a good popular policy with voters

It's a very popular policy, but is focusing on old routes really a good policy given the changes that have happened since the early 70s? It's a quick win for the middle Englanders, who have this completely rose-washed view of how it 'used to be', but economically a lot of the proposals are on very shaky grounds.

 

[yorksrob]

A few people do, particularly those interested in transport. Most don’t have a clue.

But the ones who do are more likely to kick up a fuss. I can imagine the "whatever happenned to that new station we were promised" angle could be quite tricky.

It's a very popular policy, but is focusing on old routes really a good policy given the changes that have happened since the early 70s? It's a quick win for the middle Englanders, who have this completely rose-washed view of how it 'used to be', but economically a lot of the proposals are on very shaky grounds.

It's the nature of how the railway network developed that most places that need a station will have had one somewhere in the vicinity previously (thinking of somewhere like Skelmersdale where any new station is likely to be in a different location to the previous one).

Therefore almost any proposal could be characterised as a "reopening"

 

[Mikey C]

Make no mistake, Reversing Beeching is a good popular policy with voters, but it wouldn't in any way shield the government from the negative backlash from a closure programme. If anything, it would serve to highlight the absurdity of instituting a closure programme whilst proclaiming that it was reversing Beeching.

Is it?

It'll get positive headlines in the tabloids vibes from a few older voters, but most young people will never have heard of Beeching

And other than a few rail enthusiasts and a few local residents, who would be that bothered if the branch line from Little Snodbury to Acockthwaite is reopened, as everyone else will probably never use it? It's no different to a local road scheme, which may help the local MP, but have no national impact.

A better service or lower prices on the main railways people use would be far more popular.

 

[yorksrob]

Is it?

It'll get positive headlines in the tabloids vibes from a few older voters, but most young people will never have heard of Beeching

And other than a few rail enthusiasts and a few local residents, who would be that bothered if the branch line from Little Snodbury to Acockthwaite is reopened, as everyone else will probably never use it? It's no different to a local road scheme, which may help the local MP, but have no national impact.

A better service or lower prices on the main railways people use would be far more popular.

Those other things would be useful and popular (particularly the lower fares) but make no mistake, the Beeching issue resonates with a sizable proportion of the voter base.

 

[zwk500]

But the ones who do are more likely to kick up a fuss. I can imagine the "whatever happenned to that new station we were promised" angle could be quite tricky.

The easy answer is 'I'm still working on it but it's Westminster's fault for not signing the cheque.'

It's the nature of how the railway network developed that most places that need a station will have had one somewhere in the vicinity previously (thinking of somewhere like Skelmersdale where any new station is likely to be in a different location to the previous one).

Therefore almost any proposal could be characterised as a "reopening"

But as ever on most routes not quite everything has survived to be put back, and development has changed the nature of corridors. So while there might have been a route from Town A to Town B, nowadays it makes sense to use a new route serving an intermediate settlement between the two. Bedford-Cambridge is one example, because the old route has been built on and there is a new town to be usefully served. So while it is restoring a lost link, it is not reopening the old line as was.

 

[yorksrob]

The easy answer is 'I'm still working on it but it's Westminster's fault for not signing the cheque.'

But as ever on most routes not quite everything has survived to be put back, and development has changed the nature of corridors. So while there might have been a route from Town A to Town B, nowadays it makes sense to use a new route serving an intermediate settlement between the two. Bedford-Cambridge is one example, because the old route has been built on and there is a new town to be usefully served. So while it is restoring a lost link, it is not reopening the old line as was.

Indeed, but it's Westminster that's trying to achieve the political capital from the policy, so they will be on the hook if it doesn't happen.

I take your point about deviations to routes etc, but to the general public they will be "having their station reopened after it was closed in the Beeching cuts" (regardless of whether it was actually on Beeching's list in the first place).

 

[quantinghome]

It's a quick win for the middle Englanders, who have this completely rose-washed view of how it 'used to be', but economically a lot of the proposals are on very shaky grounds.

And middle-Walesers too, judging by Plaid's noises about Carmarthen-Aberystwyth. Same appeal to the 'good old days' base.

 

[jfowkes]

The best way to "reverse Beeching" for a lot of places would be to provide a modern, cheap, reliable bus service every 15 minutes, linked with train connections where appropriate and possible, and with bus lanes and bus-prioritising lights/junctions etc. to ensure smooth running. That kind of stuff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The best way to "reverse Beeching" for a lot of places would be to provide a modern, cheap, reliable bus service every 15 minutes, linked with train connections where appropriate and possible, and with bus lanes and bus-prioritising lights/junctions etc. to ensure smooth running. That kind of stuff.

There were the railway-connected "RailLinks" services in the 90s, but they mostly didn't really work in that form - I'm not wholly sure why. They weren't fully in the railway fares system, but you could buy tickets for them at stations (and early on the then-VT99 MK-Luton Airport had a SPORTIS as the ticket machine!)

On the other hand, one of them very much did work - the Kettering-Corby one proved the demand for a railway.

 

[24Grange]

I am amazed with "reverse Beeching" reopening Okehampton, how quickly they are getting on with it ( comparing the snails pace other schemes - OK the rails exist already not starting from scratch). Whether this would have happened so quickly, without Covid and effectively government run railway ( more joined up thinking and talking to each other), I'm not sure.

Also re more than one major station in a city. Exeter's Central station is the more conveniently placed one for the city centre, you have to climb a hill from Exeter St Davids. But, Central is the one that was run down - all " intercity"(except Waterloo) through Exeter St Davids.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am amazed with "reverse Beeching" reopening Okehampton, how quickly they are getting on with it ( comparing the snails pace other schemes - OK the rails exist already not starting from scratch). Whether this would have happened so quickly, without Covid and effectively government run railway ( more joined up thinking and talking to each other), I'm not sure.

Also re more than one major station in a city. Exeter's Central station is the more conveniently placed one for the city centre, you have to climb a hill from Exeter St Davids. But, Central is the one that was run down - all " intercity"(except Waterloo) through Exeter St Davids.

Okehampton is a bit of a "perfect storm":

• Already run as a weekend service
• Kept well-fettled by a preserved operator
• Said preserved operator has collapsed due to COVID and so has gone away without any controversy, leaving the line for NR use

 

[AM9]

Not quite true - as the spreadsheet on this page explains https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/stati...-subsidy-per-passenger-kilometre-by-operator/

It's a bit difficult to get a clear picture because some TOCs such as GWR or GA run London commuter services, rural services and Inter city services, but if I've read the figures correctly, in 2018/19 C2C were a net contributor and of the other London commuter providers Chiltern, GTR, GA and SWR received relatively small subsidies. The highest subsidies went to ATW/TFW, Scotrail, Northern and Merseyrail.

London commuters will still be providing a significant proportion of the rail network's income even post Covid and far more so than people using Northern or Scotrail for example. ...

So let's look at a typical very busy commuter set of operations, GTR (in network terms the Thameslink/Southern/Great Northern routes):
for 2018/19:
Total TOC subsidy: c. £230m
Network Grant: c. £375m (another subsidy paid to Network rail for the GTR part of the network)
Premium Payment back to DfT: c. £145m
payment towards £6-7bn Thameslink Programme (that is entirely to increase capacity for commuter peaks) - ?
The investment of course is hidden from the true cost of running the railway as it would make the 'privatisation' of the railway look even more of a sham than it is. If commuters had to pay fares representative of the cost of providing the level of service that they get, the railway might truly be self sufficient.

 

[A0wen]

I am amazed with "reverse Beeching" reopening Okehampton, how quickly they are getting on with it ( comparing the snails pace other schemes - OK the rails exist already not starting from scratch). Whether this would have happened so quickly, without Covid and effectively government run railway ( more joined up thinking and talking to each other), I'm not sure.

Also re more than one major station in a city. Exeter's Central station is the more conveniently placed one for the city centre, you have to climb a hill from Exeter St Davids. But, Central is the one that was run down - all " intercity"(except Waterloo) through Exeter St Davids.

Okehampton was already open for passengers though - albeit only on Sundays. And freight had sustained the reason for keeping the branch in situ. You can't really count that as a 'Beeching reversal' as such.

 

[willgreen]

Okehampton was already open for passengers though - albeit only on Sundays. And freight had sustained the reason for keeping the branch in situ. You can't really count that as a 'Beeching reversal' as such.

I'm not sure that's entirely true - plenty of stations were closed by Beeching on lines that remained open. Rebuilding those stations is a Beeching reversal, and rebuilding a station and reintroducing a regular passenger service on a freight line is a 'proper' Beeching reversal. I'd agree that neither of these fit the bill of what the public may see as a proper reopening (like Borders, for example) but I think it can be counted as a Beeching reversal.

 

[A0wen]

I'm not sure that's entirely true - plenty of stations were closed by Beeching on lines that remained open. Rebuilding those stations is a Beeching reversal, and rebuilding a station and reintroducing a regular passenger service on a freight line is a 'proper' Beeching reversal. I'd agree that neither of these fit the bill of what the public may see as a proper reopening (like Borders, for example) but I think it can be counted as a Beeching reversal.

Perhaps it would be better to say there's no such thing as a 'typical' re-opening, but instead two or three variations ?

Okehampton's at the simple end of the scale having been kept open for freight and sustained an infrequent passenger service.

Somewhere like Corby the next step along where it was a station reinstatement on a diversion line.

And then you've got the full re-build.

 

[Mikey C]

Perhaps it would be better to say there's no such thing as a 'typical' re-opening, but instead two or three variations ?

Okehampton's at the simple end of the scale having been kept open for freight and sustained an infrequent passenger service.

Somewhere like Corby the next step along where it was a station reinstatement on a diversion line.

And then you've got the full re-build.

EWR has several different types of reopening as an example

Oxford to Bicester was a rebuilding of an existing passenger service line (albeit led by Chiltern)
Bicester to Bletchley was reinstating the railway on a previously closed route
Bedford to Cambridge is a brand new railway on a previously closed route