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

[DavidSM]

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.

i think you need to look at the original line route as was closed in 1969 and then say how except
maybe Wormwold Green residents would benefit from your suggestion above.
as i say the bus number 36 does a reasonable job and goes from the Centre of Ripon (the rail station never was in the centre)
and takes 37 minutes to get to Harrogate bus station which iS next to the train station and central to city centre.

If i had a money tree in my garden then yes lets build a line on a new alignment but lets have some financial prudence

 

[Clip]

A third of commuters from Ripon commute to Teesside.

And how many is that because you state

Ripon is 18,000 population

So thats around 6k people and I wouldnt say they all go to Teeside so you are looking at a rough estimate of half that. so 3000 people per year travelling to Teeside with around 270 days they are doing that and your figures and case have just fallen down terribly as thats about 11 people per day.

Now i know you will go on about tourism but it would have to be stupendous amounts of people to justify it wouldnt you say?

 

[Bald Rick]

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.

No - what I’m saying is that in building new railways, of which I have done a few, the difference in cost between a twin track high speed railway, and a twin track “regular” railway, is surprising little.

All the pre-construction costs are essentially the same: feasibility, development, consents, design, land purchase - it doesn’t matter what sort of railway you build, these are to all intents and purposes identical on a per mile, like for like basis. This can represent between a quarter and a third of total costs.

Within construction, many of the costs are the same - site compounds, project management, drainage, utilities, highways, traffic management, earthworks, over bridges, environmental mitigation. This is another quarter of the costs or so.

More of the construction costs have, frankly, small increments for high speed - under bridges, formation, track (essentially a little more ballast), electrification (if provided, obvs), signalling.

At the end of construction, testing, commissioning, entry into service an demobilisation is no different for high speed rather than regulars railways. This is about 10% of costs.

All told, around 70% of the costs are the same, and the remaining 30% have an extra 10-30% for high speed. So about 10% difference overall.

 

[Bald Rick]

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

In terms of ’open country’ the intactness (or otherwise) of the trackbed is almost irrelevant. It is the ownership and current use of the land, how many near neighbours there are (in France, Spain, and for Borders, almost none), and the state of the major civil engineering works en route. In the latter case, look how much Crossrail had to spend on the Connaught tunnels, and they had only been out of use for a few years.

 

[Bevan Price]

£50m has been spent upgrading Market Harborough reverse curves increasing linespeed from 65 to 85mph to save about 20 seconds of running time for non-stop passenger trains and nil for freight trains. That is about £2m per second!
There are closed railways crying out for reinstatement where this money would have more impact. For an example as I have study figures at hand, reinstating a line between Harrogate and Ripon, 10 miles by rail, 11 miles by road, at £100m would reduce journey time by 20 minutes not 20 seconds. That is £83,300 per second! Reinstating from Ripon to Northallerton, 15 miles by rail, 4 miles longer by road , would reduce journey time by 45 minutes from Ripon, that is £55,800 per second and a saving of 55 minutes for Harrogate passengers using a through train to the North and Scotland instead of travelling via York and a change of trains there.
.

But that 20 seconds benefit at Market Harborough will be gained permanently for the future - the track will probably not need renewal for at least 20-30 years - and spread over that period, £50m is "peanuts".

And yes, I think that closure of Harrogate / Ripon / Northallerton was a mistake that (sometime) needs to be rectified, even if that means removing things built on the trackbed.

 

[yorksrob]

In terms of ’open country’ the intactness (or otherwise) of the trackbed is almost irrelevant. It is the ownership and current use of the land, how many near neighbours there are (in France, Spain, and for Borders, almost none), and the state of the major civil engineering works en route. In the latter case, look how much Crossrail had to spend on the Connaught tunnels, and they had only been out of use for a few years.

Look at Snow Hill tunnel in Birmingham. Out of use for almost twenty years. I bet it didn't cost anything near as much (taking account of inflation) as the Connaught tunnels to bring back to use.

 

[Bald Rick]

Look at Snow Hill tunnel in Birmingham. Out of use for almost twenty years. I bet it didn't cost anything near as much (taking account of inflation) as the Connaught tunnels to bring back to use.

Probably right. But that’s the point, all the assets are different, need assessing, and repairing / bringing up to standard where required.

Also worth pointing out that if the Snow Hill tunnels had failed, a rather significant (and expensive) part of Birmingham City Centre would have disappeared in a big hole. Not the case with Connaught, where the Royal Docks would have just got a bit deeper (as they almost did).

 

[yorksrob]

Probably right. But that’s the point, all the assets are different, need assessing, and repairing / bringing up to standard where required.

Also worth pointing out that if the Snow Hill tunnels had failed, a rather significant (and expensive) part of Birmingham City Centre would have disappeared in a big hole. Not the case with Connaught, where the Royal Docks would have just got a bit deeper (as they almost did).

But if you were building from scratch across France or Spain, you'd have to build all the infrastructure from scratch. With a reopened route, there's a chance that at least some infrastructure can be reconditioned.

 

[Bald Rick]

But if you were building from scratch across France or Spain, you'd have to build all the infrastructure from scratch. With a reopened route, there's a chance that at least some infrastructure can be reconditioned.

Yes, but as I said earlier, in France and Spain there are a lot fewer neighbours to worry about, and generally it’s pretty easy to build a trace across open land.

It is usually misunderstood where the major costs of new railways are, at least in open country. It’s not the building of the formation(which is often there for a reopening). The big cost is literally everything else.

 

[yorksrob]

i think you need to look at the original line route as was closed in 1969 and then say how except
maybe Wormwold Green residents would benefit from your suggestion above.
as i say the bus number 36 does a reasonable job and goes from the Centre of Ripon (the rail station never was in the centre)
and takes 37 minutes to get to Harrogate bus station which iS next to the train station and central to city centre.

If i had a money tree in my garden then yes lets build a line on a new alignment but lets have some financial prudence

I've got the number 189 that goes from the bottom of my road to Leeds. It takes the same route as the train, but takes twice as long. I assume your 36 would be in a similar situation.

So you don't think Ripon is a suitable candidate for funds. OK then. Let that proposal compete on its merits against the other reopening proposals for a new lines fund. There are plenty of good proposals out there, but never anyone prepared to cough up the money.

 

[Western Lord]

And how many is that because you state


So thats around 6k people and I wouldnt say they all go to Teeside so you are looking at a rough estimate of half that. so 3000 people per year travelling to Teeside with around 270 days they are doing that and your figures and case have just fallen down terribly as thats about 11 people per day.

Now i know you will go on about tourism but it would have to be stupendous amounts of people to justify it wouldnt you say?

People usually misunderstand population figures. If the population of Ripon is 18,000, that figure includes babies and children and retired people. The working population will be much lower (it is much the same with the EU being a market of half a million, far fewer than that will actually be economically active). Basic population figures are only a rough guide to the actual numbers who might find a railway service useful (yes, I know children and retired people might use a railway service, but the question here was commuters).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The reopening to regular passenger train services from Blackburn to Clitheroe quite some years ago seems to have been a success, as the line itself was already opened for freight train use.

 

[Clip]

People usually misunderstand population figures. If the population of Ripon is 18,000, that figure includes babies and children and retired people. The working population will be much lower (it is much the same with the EU being a market of half a million, far fewer than that will actually be economically active). Basic population figures are only a rough guide to the actual numbers who might find a railway service useful (yes, I know children and retired people might use a railway service, but the question here was commuters).

yes it was a really basic answer based solely on the pop numbers but it was the answer that the post quoted deserved.

 

[Chester1]

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%?

The Newquay branch is a good example where big capital investment on a branch line would be worthwhile. The line should be closed or handed over to a heritage group between Par and St Dennis Junction. The freight line should be reopened to passengers and rebuilt from St Dennis to St Dennis Junction (3 miles). Some small villages that generate few passengers would lose out but Newquay would have a direct service to St Austell instead of Par and probably a faster journey time.

 

[Killingworth]

Most of them were on his list though. Dr B was instrumental in forming the policy.

It wasn't just routes, the policy subsequently followed led to a massive reduction in rolling stock, large tracts of railway land being sold, smaller stations closed, station buildings boarded up and tracks simplified so we've now lost diversionary routes and resilience. But it seemed necessary on the trends seen at that time.

 

[yorksrob]

There is already a line being rebuilt (Bicester-Bletchley) and look at the cost and time taken for this. Used as a yardstick, I wouldn't hold out much hope for the Tavistocks of this country!

True, but they are building that more or less as a mainline.

One would hope that there was scope for some savings for a single line route with minimal signalling.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Most of them were on his list though. Dr B was instrumental in forming the policy.

As always, wrong. The closing of little used stations and branch lines began in the 1920s and that process was accelerated in the 1950s, long before Dr. Beeching took command of British Railways. Example No 1: The Midland & Great Northern Joint Railway. Example No 2: On the Welsh Marches Line between Hereford and Ludlow; Moreton-on-Lugg, Dinmore, Ford Bridge, Berrington & Eye, Woofferton, all closed in the 1950s.

After Dr. Beeching was sacked, lines which he had decided to keep open were closed. Example No 3: the Varsity Line, now called East West Rail.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Newquay branch is a good example where big capital investment on a branch line would be worthwhile.

Worthwhile by what measure?

 

[Chester1]

Worthwhile by what measure?

It would cut back the amount of track NR are responsible for maintaining, cut journey times between Newquay and the mainline and provide a more useful terminus than Par. The end result should be a service that can compete with buses. I think it was proposed in the 80s and again in the early 2000s. It is worth doing GRIP 1. Upgrading a freight line to passenger standards and 3 miles of new track is more viable than most suggested reopenings.

 

[Bald Rick]

It would cut back the amount of track NR are responsible for maintaining, cut journey times between Newquay and the mainline and provide a more useful terminus than Par. The end result should be a service that can compete with buses. I think it was proposed in the 80s and again in the early 2000s. It is worth doing GRIP 1. Upgrading a freight line to passenger standards and 3 miles of new track is more viable than most suggested reopenings.

OK, how much are all those benefits likely to be worth, and how much would it cost to do the work?

That is surely the way to determine if it is worthwhile.

 

[6Gman]

But if you were building from scratch across France or Spain, you'd have to build all the infrastructure from scratch. With a reopened route, there's a chance that at least some infrastructure can be reconditioned.

And, in some circumstances, past works can actually mean more work, and therefore more expense.