Should money spent upgrading main lines be spent on reopening disused rural lines instead?

[Killingworth]

deltic08 said: ↑
A cut-off at Poppleton is not feasible and a ridiculous idea

Looking at the map it looks a highly feasible and sensible idea. It might still cost £25million.

 

[deltic08]

I am far poorer as a result of money being poured down the drain to prop up services that are maintained for political reasons even though capital expenditure would likely render them less of a money pit.
The Whitby Branch, or the Barton on Humber branch being obvious examples.
Or the Newquay branch.
None of these services are worth maintaining in their current joke of a form, but the BCR is then used as a reason why we shouldn't spend any capital money to try and make any of those railways worthwhile.
It's a city with a population of 12000.
Should we build a railway to St David's because it is a cathedral city?
Resilience is worth almost nothing.
Aerial photography kind of suggests otherwise.
Why?
How is it less feasible than gutting half of Ripon to get the railway through the town?

A chord at Poppleton would get Harrogate-Northern ECML direct trains at far lower cost than an alignment between Ripon and Northallerton, and would likely come out comparable in journey time terms.

You are just talking drivel. Get your facts straight before posting.
You are not much poorer. If it wasn't spent on railways it would be wasted on other things like roads( I can't drive since having a stroke but my taxes are used to prop up road users) defence (I am a pacifist but have to pay every time the RAF fire a £400,000 missile or a smart bomb) or the navy orders a £10 billion aircraft carrier (in this case two) and certainly contributed to Graylings billion pound cockups over the years. That alone is enough to reinstate many railways.
As for the Whitby branch haven't you heard "All for one and one for all"? Don't be such a miserable s*d. Do you never visit Whitby?
Ripon is 18,000 population and rising and is expected to make 25,000 by 2025 due to becoming a dormitory area for Harrogate, Leeds and Bradford because it is a nicer place to live. Isn't it better to put thousands of commuters onto trains? Harrogate already has congestion problems.
St Davids has never been rail connected and hasn't suffered a Beeching closure. You don't miss what you have never had.
So you are a lover of bustitution rather than diversion if a line is closed? Tell that to passengers that have been bussed. Slow and nasty. Why is so much being spent on Werrington Junction diveunder and why has so much been spent upgrading to Doncaster via Lincoln other than as a diversionary route to avoid bustitution and stop slow freight clogging up the ECML? Then why should it not be done here when York-Northallerton is closed completely in an emergency on average 7 times a year for the last 9 years. There is no route trains could take and hasn't been since 1967.
What is your point about aerial photos as it is not obvious to me?
You are very much over exaggerating the word "gutting" unnecessarily to aid your argument. How can Ripon be gutted if the line runs along the city boundary on the east side for half a mile and outside it for the remainder with no buildings demolished? Are you familiar with the area?
As I said before, your chord a Poppleton is a barmy idea and would be nowhere near in times between Harrogate and Northallerton
as via a direct route. A train could be in Northallerton via Ripon before a train from Harrogate could even get onto the ECML at York. Besides, operators would want to call at York and reverse and that is what the problem is with York. Skelton and Skelton Bridge Junctions are choked with traffic

 

[deltic08]

Route protected? Look at the maps.

Figures clutched from the air and almost certainly way below reality. Harrogate to outskirts of Ripon not too bad but residents at Wormald Green and Littlethorpe wouldn't be too happy to see demolitions. Round the east side of Ripon from the roundabout junction with the B6265 the old trackbed is now the A61.

I'm intrigued to know how any reinstated railway gets past that and through the development at Ure Bank. A tunnel? Assuming a big diversion were possible to pick up the old trackbed north-east of Ripon, getting across the A6055 and A1(M) would be expensive, under or over at the Butcher House Bridge roundabout. There is a modern development across the trackbed at Pickhill.

The land purchase costs, the compensation, all the level crossings, the construction cost would bring it to far more than £250m. There'd be public inquiries. The benefits of the line beyond a terminal platform south of Ripon would be way below an economic return, and even that limited line would probably cost too much.

Get out those Ordnance Survey and aerial maps. It's not a practical starter. It's a scheme to put in a portfolio of 10 projects so 9 can be rejected and one agreed.

Some one else with no local knowledge who thinks he knows better. You are the one clutching figures out of nowhere. It was fully costed in 2006 at £168m throughout assuming the land had been bought. Many of the larger landowners and those who had bought trackbed since closure were approached. Researching documents, it was found out that closure had not gone through Parliament and approved legally as it is still a public right of way that is now obstructed in many places. The trackbed should not have been sold off to individuals.
No buildings would be demolished at Wormald Green because no buildings are on the trackbed but the route is avoiding WG because there is no room for a bridge where the level crossing was.. Yes 10 buildings at Littlethorpe may have to be demolished but that is outside Ripon city boundary and less than on HS2 route. It was intended to build a cut and cover tunnel here to avoid the former level crossing but someone built two detached houses in the gap we intended to use. This might still be the solution. Two is better than ten.
Yes just under half a mile of the trackbed has been used by the bypass but the railway at this point was three tracks wide and the embankment is still wide enough for a two track railway and the bypass.
The gap at Ure Bank through the old goods yard is left for the railway. One industrial building does encroach on the alignment but the owner is familiar with the campaign. This slipped through planning after the route was given protection by the same planning department.
Yes the A1 would have to be crossed over or under. Is this a problem?
Pickhill village would have to be diverted around because too much has been built on the goods yard site to demolish. There was a dogleg through the village and a bad 40mph curve in crossing the River Swale and all this can be smoothed out.
See this is where you show your ignorance. Show me any levels crossings on the Borders line or Oxford-Bicester line? That is because there aren't any. Level crossings aren't allowed on new railways for safety reasons.
I don't need maps or aerial photos. I have walked the whole route many times in the last 30 years and have many photos.
How do you know the costs? Have you done a study of the route? I have been involved in two comprehensive studies in the last 15 years and there is very little I don't know about Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton reinstatement.
Now, any more silly questions?

 

[hooverboy]

I suspect that the abundance of level crossings is the main reason for the 50mph limit.

possible, but marton vale also has a lot of level crossings but gets a 60mph rating.

I would suspect the track grade is not great,(a lot of jointed track so probably very old),and also its proximity to the irrigation canal.
in between the two dead straight bits out of boston and then approaching wainfleet, you have firsby curve ,which is a 20mph limit-15mph on the inner radius.

I think boston-skeg through this section is about 30 minutes, but only around 15 miles long, giving an avaerage linespeed of 30mph.
Even if this cold be raised to 40mph it will gain quite a bit of time.
Such a project should be doable in the space of one winter timetable with whateve bus replacements/line closures necessary,so as to avoid the passenger flow in summer when it's really busy.

 

[DPWH]

Going back to Harborough, I understand it was done now as part of the electrification programme. If it had been electrified without straightening it would have been more difficult to straighten it out it in the future.

 

[yorksrob]

I am far poorer as a result of money being poured down the drain to prop up services that are maintained for political reasons even though capital expenditure would likely render them less of a money pit.
The Whitby Branch, or the Barton on Humber branch being obvious examples.

Or the Newquay branch.

None of these services are worth maintaining in their current joke of a form, but the BCR is then used as a reason why we shouldn't spend any capital to try and make any of those railways worthwhile.

The real terms interest rate on government debt is negative.
The government throws away huge amounts of public good every year by not borrowing additional money.

What happens to the BCR calculations if debt is assumed to be paid back over 60 years with a real interest rate of -1.6%?


It's a city with a population of 12000.

Should we build a railway to St David's because it is a cathedral city?


Resilience is worth almost nothing.

Aerial photography kind of suggests otherwise.

Why?
How is it less feasible than gutting half of Ripon to get the railway through the town?

A chord at Poppleton would get Harrogate-Northern ECML direct trains at far lower cost than an alignment between Ripon and Northallerton, and would likely come out comparable in journey time terms.



When BCRs for publically funded capital projects use the financial figures for actual gilts that would be issued to fund them in their calculations rather than arbitrary rates of return from another era plucked from a Treasury document, I will actually take them far more seriously.

I'm not convinced that you're much poorer due to the support provided to the Whitby branch than for any other public service you may or may not use.

That line is supported because many people use it (as would many more, if they could physically fit onto the train).

 

[yorksrob]

Much as I rely on the MML, I can't help but feel a twinge of irony regarding the enhancements taking place, given that according to some quarters, we might not even have the rolling stock to run the service we have now.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the improvement to the MML (infact I'm even inclined towards the view that they should get on and finish electrifying the thing). But as others on here have said, to get the real improvements, you will need a few Market Harborough type projects, and taken together, that will be very expensive indeed.

Given that this funding will improve what is already a very good railway service, it is only right and proper that some crumbs from the table are set aside to improve rail links to those towns which don't already have them.

 

[class26]

If it's not a catastrophic failure, then was it really that big of a waste of money?
The waste of "tens of millions" becomes the waste of "millions" because some benefits were accrued.

Unless its a literal railway to nowhere, the amount of money actually wasted in any of these schemes is truly negligible.


Projecting what is the best possible use of money in advance is rather hard, verging on impossible.

A more realistic criteria is "not likely to be a horrendous waste".


It's like people decrying the Humber bridge as a white elephant.... I very much doubt the UK is worse off for having built it. It might not have been the best use of money but is certainly not a terrible use of money.

EDIT:

On the Skegness line..... there is a 22km dead straight section between Boston and Firsby, with a 50mph speed limit according to the sectional appendix.....

Even 60mph would significantly reduce journey times......

Boston - Firsby IS 60 MPH . Firsby to Skegness is 50 mph but that stretch is considerably shorter.

 

[Killingworth]

We seem to be taking a number of diversions in discussing the upgrading of curves, even to the reopening of long closed lines that would require attention to quite a few more curves.

Most of our lines are still using trackbed laid down in the Victorian age and not what we'd plan today. The two exceptions are the ECML Selby diversion, a massive step in the right direction dictated by coal mining that didn't last long, and HS1 pointing the way that HS2 will follow.

We need more lines to go more directly than most do. Resolving bottlenecks in tight urban locations can save a lot but costs a fortune. It's a fact that anything going beyond existing railway owned land is very likely to trigger expensive and time delaying public inquiries. It's also a fact that it takes many years before the idea moves to a fully costed plan, through to completion.

Ideally we would replan and build an entirely new national network. It would be cheaper in the long run than patching up our crumbling old infrastructure and reusing what's already decaying. It might even include a brand new line sweeping past Ripon, on a totally new alignment that would generate much local opposition.

 

[yorksrob]

We seem to be taking a number of diversions in discussing the upgrading of curves, even to the reopening of long closed lines that would require attention to quite a few more curves.

Most of our lines are still using trackbed laid down in the Victorian age and not what we'd plan today. The two exceptions are the ECML Selby diversion, a massive step in the right direction dictated by coal mining that didn't last long, and HS1 pointing the way that HS2 will follow.

We need more lines to go more directly than most do. Resolving bottlenecks in tight urban locations can save a lot but costs a fortune. It's a fact that anything going beyond existing railway owned land is very likely to trigger expensive and time delaying public inquiries. It's also a fact that it takes many years before the idea moves to a fully costed plan, through to completion.

Ideally we would replan and build an entirely new national network. It would be cheaper in the long run than patching up our crumbling old infrastructure and reusing what's already decaying. It might even include a brand new line sweeping past Ripon, on a totally new alignment that would generate much local opposition.

Some might call this the TGV approach, but away from a few major cities, has this really left most of France with a much better train service ?

The reality is that unless your enhancements are going to make a very substantial increase in terms of speed, or more importantly capacity where it's lacking, the existing alignment will serve perfectly well for most people.

 

[Starmill]

Now, any more silly questions?

Yeah. When are you going to give it a rest? Or maybe that's the silliest question of all

 

[Starmill]

But as others on here have said, to get the real improvements, you will need a few Market Harborough type projects, and taken together, that will be very expensive indeed.

Good job two major projects have been recently completed then eh? With more in progress?

 

[yorksrob]

Good job two major projects have been recently completed then eh? With more in progress?

It is. But it still adds up to a lot of money.

There should be some money set aside to connect towns to the railway that aren't currently connected.

 

[Starmill]

It is. But it still adds up to a lot of money.

There should be some money set aside to connect towns to the railway that aren't currently connected.

The problem with this is that fundamentally there are almost no schemes that could be completed within the funding that has been spent on the Market Harborough and Derby projects that would have anything like the benefits. Most of the small projects have already been started anyway e.g. Kenilworth, Horden, Low Moor etc. These all count as new towns connected to the railway, but for some reason you don't seem to like them as much!

The benefits brought by progressive upgrades for the route for long-distance trains are much more obvious.

 

[Bald Rick]

How can costs go from £3.6 million per mile in 2006 to £300 million per mile just 13 years later and £14m/mile in 2015 only four years ago?
My pension is index linked but hasn't increased that much in the last 12 years. Should I complain to the Treasury?

Perhaps because the £3.6m a mile was just plain wrong? (And nobody said £300m/mile).

And, as has been stated previously, repeatedly, the Borders Railway was rather fortunate in the circumstances it was built, and therefore very cheap on a per mile rate.

Finally, construction price inflation always runs ahead of Consumer Price inflation. Check it out on the ONS website. The former for ‘new work’ was 3.8% in February, and at that rate prices double every 19 years.

Perhaps look at it another way - why does every new construction rail project in planning and development assume rates of £30m / mile + (noting that they have detailed plans, estimates and in some cases have priced tenders from construction companies, managed by teams of people who do this for a living with years of experience).... but you don’t?

 

[yorksrob]

The problem with this is that fundamentally there are almost no schemes that could be completed within the funding that has been spent on the Market Harborough and Derby projects that would have anything like the benefits. Most of the small projects have already been started anyway e.g. Kenilworth, Horden, Low Moor etc. These all count as new towns connected to the railway, but for some reason you don't seem to like them as much!

The benefits brought by progressive upgrades for the route for long-distance trains are much more obvious.

On the contrary, I like those projects so much, I'd like to see the Wellingtons and Collumptons of this world also added to the list.

The new stations fund was an excellent example of what can be achieved when funding is set aside for the specific purpose of linking settlements to the railway. We just need a "new lines fund" to make sure that places such as Wisbech and Tavistock aren't left behind.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Now, any more silly questions?

I have one: why re-instate to Northallerton instead of to Thirsk?

 

[Killingworth]

I have one: why re-instate to Northallerton instead of to Thirsk?

Still got to get round Ripon, but sounds a much shorter route and less difficult plan. New bridge across the Swale and a tunnel under the A1. Still very expensive. Possibly over £500m just from Thirsk to Harrogate. I base that on the suggested final costs for the Hope Valley Capacity Scheme that's been in planning for decades and requires minimal work compared with by-passing Ripon, a new bridge across the Swale, resolving Wormald Green and tunnelling beneath the A1. Several weeks of public inquiries in all that!

 

[HSTEd]

You are just talking drivel. Get your facts straight before posting.
You are not much poorer. If it wasn't spent on railways it would be wasted on other things like roads( I can't drive since having a stroke but my taxes are used to prop up road users) defence (I am a pacifist but have to pay every time the RAF fire a £400,000 missile or a smart bomb) or the navy orders a £10 billion aircraft carrier (in this case two) and certainly contributed to Graylings billion pound cockups over the years.

I am as critical of the CVF programme as anyone, but they certainly don't cost ten billion pounds each.

That alone is enough to reinstate many railways.
As for the Whitby branch haven't you heard "All for one and one for all"? Don't be such a miserable s*d. Do you never visit Whitby?

The problem is we are still living in a world with a government that thinks capital is expensive and operational costs are cheap.
We no longer live in this world.
Thanks to the hilariously low real rate of return on government debt, capital costs are cheap and operational costs are expensive.

So we should either close these railways or spend the money necessary to make them something close to self sustaining.
This no mans land in the middle is a major issue.

St Davids has never been rail connected and hasn't suffered a Beeching closure. You don't miss what you have never had.

So it's not actually about serving people and providing transport services, it's about some halcyon past that must be restored?

So you are a lover of bustitution rather than diversion if a line is closed? Tell that to passengers that have been bussed. Slow and nasty.

Yes, because it very rarely happens and the money spend on diversions can be spend on something useful. That is useful day in and day out. An dmost diversionary routes are so slow and roundabout to be almost useless.

Why is so much being spent on Werrington Junction diveunder and why has so much been spent upgrading to Doncaster via Lincoln other than as a diversionary route to avoid bustitution and stop slow freight clogging up the ECML? Then why should it not be done here when York-Northallerton is closed completely in an emergency on average 7 times a year for the last 9 years. There is no route trains could take and hasn't been since 1967.

Werrington is being justified pretty much entirely on the benefits to freight operations.
7 times a year is virtually nothing.

What is your point about aerial photos as it is not obvious to me?
You are very much over exaggerating the word "gutting" unnecessarily to aid your argument. How can Ripon be gutted if the line runs along the city boundary on the east side for half a mile and outside it for the remainder with no buildings demolished? Are you familiar with the area?

Aerial photography shows numerous houses and roads on the alignment.

 

[TheBigD]

possible, but marton vale also has a lot of level crossings but gets a 60mph rating.

I would suspect the track grade is not great,(a lot of jointed track so probably very old),and also its proximity to the irrigation canal.
in between the two dead straight bits out of boston and then approaching wainfleet, you have firsby curve ,which is a 20mph limit-15mph on the inner radius.

I think boston-skeg through this section is about 30 minutes, but only around 15 miles long, giving an avaerage linespeed of 30mph.
Even if this cold be raised to 40mph it will gain quite a bit of time.
Such a project should be doable in the space of one winter timetable with whateve bus replacements/line closures necessary,so as to avoid the passenger flow in summer when it's really busy.

It's been a while since I had a trip to Skegness but most, if not all(?), jointed track east of Boston was replaced about a decade ago. If I remember correctly there were 3 consequtive winter closures late 2000's/early 2010's to replace most of the life expired jointed rail. Prior to the large scale track replacement locos were limited to 30mph East of Boston.

 

[DavidSM]

going back to the OP ;as someone who lives between Ripon and Harrogate the
idea of reinstatement of the line flies in the face of financial prudence.
The fact that nominally only those living in Ripon could gain advantage
to travel by train to Harrogate while the remaing villages that were on the original route
stand very little chance IF the line was rebuilt.
It makes better sense for Transdev to run the 36 bus as at present between centre of Ripon and centre of Harrogate on a
20 minute frequency (calling at Wormwold Green, Killinghall and Ripley) and continuing on to Leeds every 10 minutes.
The number 20 BUS runs Bishop Monkton, Burton Leonard and Littlethorpe between Ripon and Harrogate obviously it aint
very frequent BUT it is there.

There are plans floated much to the angst of varying groups for a road bypass for Killinghall and a road bypass for Harrogate in near proximity
of Nidd Bridge

 

[yorksrob]

going back to the OP ;as someone who lives between Ripon and Harrogate the
idea of reinstatement of the line flies in the face of financial prudence.
The fact that nominally only those living in Ripon could gain advantage
to travel by train to Harrogate while the remaing villages that were on the original route
stand very little chance IF the line was rebuilt.
It makes better sense for Transdev to run the 36 bus as at present between centre of Ripon and centre of Harrogate on a
20 minute frequency (calling at Wormwold Green, Killinghall and Ripley) and continuing on to Leeds every 10 minutes.
The number 20 BUS runs Bishop Monkton, Burton Leonard and Littlethorpe between Ripon and Harrogate obviously it aint
very frequent BUT it is there.

There are plans floated much to the angst of varying groups for a road bypass for Killinghall and a road bypass for Harrogate in near proximity
of Nidd Bridge

There shouldn't be any realistic reason why WY Metro style wooden halts couldn't be built for those settlements, with a path to the nearest road.

 

[HSTEd]

There shouldn't be any realistic reason why WY Metro style wooden halts couldn't be built for those settlements, with a path to the nearest road.

If you slow the train down by stopping you might have to provide a passing loop that will significantly increase the cost of the scheme.

A nonstop run to Ripon just requires a ten mile long siding and a couple of crossovers at Harrogate.
That scheme is far more likely to get built than one that tries to build a brace of intermediate stations.

Perhaps look at it another way - why does every new construction rail project in planning and development assume rates of £30m / mile + (noting that they have detailed plans, estimates and in some cases have priced tenders from construction companies, managed by teams of people who do this for a living with years of experience).... but you don’t?

Given that £30m/mile buys you a high speed railway line on the continent.... it shows there is something seriously wrong with the British construction industry.

How can what amounts to a siding have that kind of cost? If so we might as well pack up and go home, the railway is finished.

 

[Bald Rick]

There shouldn't be any realistic reason why WY Metro style wooden halts couldn't be built for those settlements, with a path to the nearest road.

Physically, no, but socio economically, yes. If the extended journey time from calling at various wayside halts (typically 2-3 minutes each) was such that the Ripon to Harrogate time was less competitive than alternatives, then it would destroy the case for the line as a whole.

Also the actual cost of stopping a train is not insignificant - fuel, brake wear, additional resource time. Given that some of these stations would generate passenger numbers in the realms of single figures a day at best, it’s a non-starter.

But then the whole thing is a non starter.

 

[yorksrob]

Physically, no, but socio economically, yes. If the extended journey time from calling at various wayside halts (typically 2-3 minutes each) was such that the Ripon to Harrogate time was less competitive than alternatives, then it would destroy the case for the line as a whole.

Also the actual cost of stopping a train is not insignificant - fuel, brake wear, additional resource time. Given that some of these stations would generate passenger numbers in the realms of single figures a day at best, it’s a non-starter.

But then the whole thing is a non starter.

In the context of alternative transport methods, a bus service stopping at those places would be slowed down by stopping there, so the railway wouldn't lose it's competitive edge. But then again, if they're only generating one passenger a day, there's not much point stopping a bus there either.

 

[yorksrob]

Given that £30m/mile buys you a high speed railway line on the continent.... it shows there is something seriously wrong with the British construction industry.

How can what amounts to a siding have that kind of cost? If so we might as well pack up and go home, the railway is finished.

Indeed. The railway needs to find ways of controlling its construction costs.

Perhaps we should find ways of recreating those peculiar circumstances that @Bald Rick says existed on the Waverly route.

 

[Bald Rick]

Given that £30m/mile buys you a high speed railway line on the continent.... it shows there is something seriously wrong with the British construction industry.

How can what amounts to a siding have that kind of cost? If so we might as well pack up and go home, the railway is finished.

Two things

1) there really isn’t much difference in cost between a high speed railway line and a conventional speed one. A high speed line basically has an extra few mm of ballast and underbridge beams that are slightly thicker; everything else is much the same.

2) £30m/mile buys you high speed rail in some European countries, in some conditions, with certain accounting methods. Also note that the main proponents of high speed rail in Europe - France and Spain, have essentially built their lines almost entirely through open country. We live in a much more crowded isle.

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed. The railway needs to find ways of controlling its construction costs.

Agreed, but it’s not just the railway. It’s the same for all construction - roads, airports, power stations, schools, houses.

 

[HSTEd]

1) there really isn’t much difference in cost between a high speed railway line and a conventional speed one. A high speed line basically has an extra few mm of ballast and underbridge beams that are slightly thicker; everything else is much the same.

So all reopenings should be specced for high speed operation as a matter of course then?
Paying for overhead line equipment and Class 395s won't significantly increase the cost of a scheme that will inevitably cost £30m/mile anyway.

 

[yorksrob]

Also note that the main proponents of high speed rail in Europe - France and Spain, have essentially built their lines almost entirely through open country. We live in a much more crowded isle.

Is that not analogous to somewhere like the Tavistock branch where most of the track bed remains intact.