Wisbech-March line reopening cost increase to £200m

[61248]

Just reading the latest Railwatch Mag
Apparently 5 years ago Notwork Rail's GRIP study said reopening would produce £4 in benefits for every £1 spent

 

[Kingham West]

Just reading the latest Railwatch Mag
Apparently 5 years ago Notwork Rail's GRIP study said reopening would produce £4 in benefits for every £1 spent

Even today it is 2.4 , the road lobby expected the taxpayer to fund the Oxford Cambridge expressway with a BCR ( revised and unpublished of .8)
Quite frankly this is a top 10 Scheme if it can be value engineered to a lower cost .
I am as a taxpayer and economist , getting annoyed at the failure to focus on BCR figures .

 

[Bald Rick]

Even today it is 2.4 , the road lobby expected the taxpayer to fund the Oxford Cambridge expressway with a BCR ( revised and unpublished of .8)
Quite frankly this is a top 10 Scheme if it can be value engineered to a lower cost .
I am as a taxpayer and economist , getting annoyed at the failure to focus on BCR figures .

The BCR isn’t 2.4.
As an economist, you’ll know that you must count the full costs of realising the claimed benefits. The BCR fails to do that (spectacularly) as it has a capital cost of half the estimate, and does not include any capital costs for creating the necessary capacity for the service south of March, which is assumed to be done ‘by others’. It also underestimated the operating costs. No doubt the revised and unpublished Business case for this project shows the true BCR, which is bound to be somewhat below 1.

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder to please ensure that ideas/suggestions are posted in the Speculative Ideas section.

Some posts have been moved here.

Thanks.

 

[HowardGWR]

There is a way t look at this question, which is to see if there is a similar location that has a similar population catchment area as Wisbech, which is already connected by a branch line to a junction that provides a fast service to places of employment. If it would be unthinkable that such a branch would be now closed, and is in fact well-used, even if subsidised, then one has to look at these capital costs of reinstatement in a new light, namely a strategic one.

That new light is an argument that says that as the line should patently never been closed and that a huge environmental and social benefit is to be obtained, then the BCR part of the argument needs to be put in its place. It's part of the argument, not the argument.

 

[Bald Rick]

There is a way t look at this question, which is to see if there is a similar location that has a similar population catchment area as Wisbech, which is already connected by a branch line to a junction that provides a fast service to places of employment. If it would be unthinkable that such a branch would be now closed, and is in fact well-used, even if subsidised, then one has to look at these capital costs of reinstatement in a new light, namely a strategic one.

That new light is an argument that says that as the line should patently never been closed and that a huge environmental and social benefit is to be obtained, then the BCR part of the argument needs to be put in its place. It's part of the argument, not the argument.

What if there is a similar sized town, a similar distance away from the rail network, that has never been connected to the rail network? Surely the same applies?

 

[HowardGWR]

What if there is a similar sized town, a similar distance away from the rail network, that has never been connected to the rail network? Surely the same applies?

Indeed. That's actually what I wrote. We deliver letters to remote places and pick up letters from remote places at enormous cost (think Postman Pat and what he costs per letter delivered in the Dales) for the same price as those picked up from city centres and delivered to them. Defending the Falklands isn't cheap, expensive sheep they are. It's a value judgement where national investments are concerned. It could be that in Wisbech case, the BCR of reconstruction is perhaps 90% of the argument, it is for politicians to decide, not accountants.

 

[RT4038]

There is a way t look at this question, which is to see if there is a similar location that has a similar population catchment area as Wisbech, which is already connected by a branch line to a junction that provides a fast service to places of employment. If it would be unthinkable that such a branch would be now closed, and is in fact well-used, even if subsidised, then one has to look at these capital costs of reinstatement in a new light, namely a strategic one.

That new light is an argument that says that as the line should patently never been closed and that a huge environmental and social benefit is to be obtained, then the BCR part of the argument needs to be put in its place. It's part of the argument, not the argument.

There is nothing 'patent' at all that the line should never have been closed. In 1968 the trains were carrying very few people at all. They were an anachronism. Commuting numbers by rail from Wisbech would have been very, very little. If you lived in Wisbech and got a job in Cambridge, you would have moved to Cambridge. Commuting to Peterborough would have been as fast, and not have the inconvenience of changing, by the no. 336 bus. The buses to King's Lynn were more frequent than the trains too.
It is easily forgotten that this kind of long distance commuting between provincial places, now commonplace, just did not happen much then. The situation 50 years later would not have been foreseen. I expect that some people in Wisbech now would like this £200m to be spent on re-opening the line so they can take jobs in Cambridge, or perhaps more importantly, it will enable others to and thereby increase the value of their properties.

 

[FenMan]

I do think in cases such as this there should be a trial with a bus service, as part of the rail franchise / concession, linked to the rail ticketing system, and with a bus frequency at least as frequent as any proposed rail service. For at least 5 years. That would give a good indication of what demand there is (numbers, times of day / week / year), destinations, demographic profile etc, which would help provide much better info for a business case (which could be under development in parallel).

If the bus service doesn’t work, then the cost ‘sunk’ would be rather less than even the design cost for a new railway. But if it does work, then works well enough to retain it; and if it works really well then there’s the evidence for a new line. I can’t think of any downside.

I can buy a through ticket to Wisbech (Coach) from certain LNER stations, using the X1 service for the connection at Peterborough. I'm pretty sure the railway and the bus company know how many such tickets are sold. NRE reports end-to-end journey times to King's Cross in the 1h45m to 2h15m range. Not bad at all.

Also, as someone who used to live in the general area, I really don't get the notion that Wisbech looks towards Cambridge. It really doesn't. Peterborough and King's Lynn? Yes it does.

 

[Class 170101]

Also, as someone who used to live in the general area, I really don't get the notion that Wisbech looks towards Cambridge. It really doesn't. Peterborough and King's Lynn? Yes it does.

If the transport links improved it might well do.

 

[berwicksfinest]

I can buy a through ticket to Wisbech (Coach) from certain LNER stations, using the X1 service for the connection at Peterborough. I'm pretty sure the railway and the bus company know how many such tickets are sold. NRE reports end-to-end journey times to King's Cross in the 1h45m to 2h15m range. Not bad at all.

Also, as someone who used to live in the general area, I really don't get the notion that Wisbech looks towards Cambridge. It really doesn't. Peterborough and King's Lynn? Yes it does.

I do live in the area and this all day long, I also work in Peterborough !

With all the talk of Cambridge, Perhaps someone with more knowledge than I can comment on the success or not of Cambridge North which was supposed to serve the Science Park etc !!

 

[Bald Rick]

It's a value judgement where national investments are concerned. It could be that in Wisbech case, the BCR of reconstruction is perhaps 90% of the argument, it is for politicians to decide, not accountants.

Three points here:

1) Politicians take the decision on all projects such as this (and those that are much smaller).

2) they take their advice from Transport Planners and Transport Economists, not accountants.

3) Wisbech would not be a ‘national investment’, as it has no national strategic importance (unlike, say, East West Rail).

 

[Bald Rick]

I can buy a through ticket to Wisbech (Coach) from certain LNER stations, using the X1 service for the connection at Peterborough. I'm pretty sure the railway and the bus company know how many such tickets are sold. NRE reports end-to-end journey times to King's Cross in the 1h45m to 2h15m range. Not bad at all.

Indeed, I was being slightly sneaky, in that you can buy a ticket to Wisbech (coach) from any station, AIUI.

So if it can be done for trips that require a coach trip via Peterborough, why not for trips that need a coach trip via March? (Rhetorical question).

 

[Fleetwood Boy]

Indeed, I was being slightly sneaky, in that you can buy a ticket to Wisbech (coach) from any station, AIUI.

So if it can be done for trips that require a coach trip via Peterborough, why not for trips that need a coach trip via March? (Rhetorical question).

There are simply not enough of these through-ticketing opportunities set up - and they are inadequately marketed. And sometimes quite hard to get rail planners to offer for ticketing.

It would be really simple to meet the calls for every town over (say) 30,000 population to have a rail link by setting up more of these types of arrangements. I don't think there's been any new ones in years, from a cursory glance they are mostly fossilised arrangements from BR days? But with a simple revenue sharing agreement, they could be universal. And with the growth of e-ticketing, etc they can now be accessible from the "non-rail" location just as easily as from a rail station (ie for journeys starting at places like Wisbech, where getting your hands on physical rail tickets might be challenging). In places where there's a proper bus station, you could even stick in a standard, cheap rail ticket machine for sales and TODs.

Providing services like the Wisbech-Peterborough link has actually been one of the bus sector's biggest success stories of recent years, with a lot of their investment focused on them. With just a little bit of joined-up thinking, the inter-urban travel market could be readily integrated.

Come on politicians - be innovative - every town of 30,000 upwards to have a link to the national rail system by 2022?

 

[HowardGWR]

Three points here:

1) Politicians take the decision on all projects such as this (and those that are much smaller).

2) they take their advice from Transport Planners and Transport Economists, not accountants.

3) Wisbech would not be a ‘national investment’, as it has no national strategic importance (unlike, say, East West Rail).

I agree with all that, except 2). I am not quibbling about nomenclature - no insult to your profession was intended by my use of 'accountant', which is a noble profession, but advice is also given by environmental experts and social experts. There are thus three prongs to political decisions: economical, environmental and social. I once served with a Religious expert representative on the Regional Assembly who would contend there was also a spiritual component too, but I will leave that aside if you don't mind!

The difficulty of costing environmental and social influences will be well known to you but that doesn't mean that there aren't any. Indeed they could be overwhelming. We don't build new roads and railways in AsONB or NPs any more, which is why the HS2 is in tunnel through the Chilterns AONB, just as an example. In the case of Wisbech, I am certain the project (better connectivity for Wisbech) looks better solved by other means than reinstatement but we shall see.

 

[bspahh]

I think the budget for new bits of railway, is about to be spent on public health, unless the business case is compelling.

 

[D365]

I think the budget for new bits of railway, is about to be spent on public health, unless the business case is compelling.

Not strictly relevant to Wisbech, but we can’t slash infrastructure investment if we want to get the economy moving again in the future.

 

[A0wen]

Not strictly relevant to Wisbech, but we can’t slash infrastructure investment if we want to get the economy moving again in the future.

However Wisbech falls firmly in the 'nice to do' category, not essential. There were already many things higher up the priority list - the priority list won't have changed, simply that things may be progressed sooner as part of getting the economy moving.

 

[cle]

I think it begs the issue of Ely, which is of strategic importance to the region (and beyond, given freight) - which is essential before more trains are threaded through there and to Cambridge, which may also need capacity. Similarly, Cambridge South needs to happen, Stansted tunnel and Soham doubling etc... before freuqncies can rise and things like Wisbech can be properly considered.

The point about longer distance commuting is an important one, the folks of 50 years ago were a lot more 'parochial' and not meant negatively. Equally, Cambridge has really taken off as an economic centre of opportunities too (and a better hub for rail) - so that wouldn't have been the case prior, either.

Not the same economic mix, but still a robust regional one; Peterborough's population has grown hugely in 50 years, and again, it has grown further as a rail hub too. So the demand would have changed that way also.

 

[70014IronDuke]

In much of Europe branch line shuttles work very well and are well patronised because they are timetabled to both provide good connections and maintain them. In the UK we have non existent connection policy and a down right dont care when the services are provided by different operators. ....

I fully agree with what you say (and the rest), sadly.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The £200m proposal is for a station at Wisbech with a platform for 2 car trains. A rush hour 2 car train that runs from Cambridge to Wisbech will be rammed solid until Ely.

Surely that would depend on how close it's following the previous train. Would not apply if it was a few minutes behind a KX - Lynn working.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Maybe so - but at what cost ? And I don't just mean financial cost.

Every train going further than March needs a path to run in - and that needs to be set against other demands. Already there are demands to increase the frequency to Kings Lynn (currently hourly). the Cambridge - Norwich service is growing - it saw a 3% increase 2017 - 2018, a service which not that many years ago was an infrequent 2 car Met Camm DMU - expect to see a demand to increase that. The bi-hourly Ipswich - Peterborough service is another where growth may see demands to increase that to hourly. That's before you factor in freight from Felixstowe that the demand is to route north via Ely and Peterborough rather than south along the GEML and North London Line as at present. Wisbech needs to be factored in among all of those.

All fair points. I agree. Whatever the ideal solution, Wisbech just seems to have been one of those towns that just got a rough deal from the 19th century railway building, the 1960's closures (yes, I know it only closed later, I mean the culture) and now it's just too damned expensive to put it all right. Whereas, some silly place, I don't know, Pinhoe say, just had the inverse good fortune. (Sorry, Pinhovians - not meant personally.)

 

[yorksrob]

The BCR isn’t 2.4.
As an economist, you’ll know that you must count the full costs of realising the claimed benefits. The BCR fails to do that (spectacularly) as it has a capital cost of half the estimate, and does not include any capital costs for creating the necessary capacity for the service south of March, which is assumed to be done ‘by others’. It also underestimated the operating costs. No doubt the revised and unpublished Business case for this project shows the true BCR, which is bound to be somewhat below 1.

The capacity situation South of March needs to be sorted out, with or without the Wisbech scheme.

Why count a cost that needs to be expended anyway - unless the aim is to sabotage that scheme.

 

[yorksrob]

There is a way t look at this question, which is to see if there is a similar location that has a similar population catchment area as Wisbech, which is already connected by a branch line to a junction that provides a fast service to places of employment. If it would be unthinkable that such a branch would be now closed, and is in fact well-used, even if subsidised, then one has to look at these capital costs of reinstatement in a new light, namely a strategic one.

That new light is an argument that says that as the line should patently never been closed and that a huge environmental and social benefit is to be obtained, then the BCR part of the argument needs to be put in its place. It's part of the argument, not the argument.

It seems that BCR's get wheeled out as the be-all and end-all if they are low and can cast a new local railway project in a poor light.

If the BCR is good for such a project, they are mysteriously no longer important !

 

[mwmbwls]

However Wisbech falls firmly in the 'nice to do' category, not essential. There were already many things higher up the priority list - the priority list won't have changed, simply that things may be progressed sooner as part of getting the economy moving.

"Nice" is not a term I recognise since it is a value judgement in the eye of the beholder. The conventional decision cascade that I was taught to apply was the MoSCoW consensus - Must do, Should do, Could do, Would like to do. I am not familiar with the Wisbech project but from the brief details - I believe the project falls into Could do/Would like to do end of the spectrum. I also think that the spectrum shifts in line with the overall economic climate. Unlike a post war transport policy- characterised by remediation of war damage and life expired infrastructure - the current crisis will hopefully not tear holes in our key infrastructure but may result in further delay as a result of competing demand - unless and until a project becomes a manifest "Must do",

 

[bspahh]

All fair points. I agree. Whatever the ideal solution, Wisbech just seems to have been one of those towns that just got a rough deal from the 19th century railway building, the 1960's closures (yes, I know it only closed later, I mean the culture) and now it's just too damned expensive to put it all right. Whereas, some silly place, I don't know, Pinhoe say, just had the inverse good fortune. (Sorry, Pinhovians - not meant personally.)

Investing in a railway could make financial sense, if you can build more houses

However, Wisbech is in the middle of a red bit for areas that are predicted to be below sea level by 2050.

*-
https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/environment/flood-risk-in-norfolk-higher-than-feared-1-6379578
That is based on work from this paper in Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12808-z

Wouldn't it be better to target new house building to somewhere that is not going to need a load of sea defences?

 

[Bald Rick]

The capacity situation South of March needs to be sorted out, with or without the Wisbech scheme.

Why count a cost that needs to be expended anyway - unless the aim is to sabotage that scheme.

Ok, fair point.

There are various options to sort the capacity south of March, some much cheaper than others. Clearly priority should go to increasing capacity where it is most needed, and most valuable (in socio-economic terms) ie cross country freight and the Lynn services. To go beyond that needs further expenditure, which if Wisbech services were to go south of March, would have to be allocated to that project.

 

[yorksrob]

Ok, fair point.

There are various options to sort the capacity south of March, some much cheaper than others. Clearly priority should go to increasing capacity where it is most needed, and most valuable (in socio-economic terms) ie cross country freight and the Lynn services. To go beyond that needs further expenditure, which if Wisbech services were to go south of March, would have to be allocated to that project.

Only to a limited extent.

You can only replace the level crossings, or eliminate the single track bottleneck once, regardless of whether Wisbech is reopened or not.

Even with resignalling, I strongly suspect that the lions share of the cost is in resignalling full stop, rather than enabling an additional path to allocate to Wisbech.

 

[Bald Rick]

Only to a limited extent.

You can only replace the level crossings, or eliminate the single track bottleneck once, regardless of whether Wisbech is reopened or not.

Even with resignalling, I strongly suspect that the lions share of the cost is in resignalling full stop, rather than enabling an additional path to allocate to Wisbech.

I agree with the first part, sort of. But eliminating the single track bottleneck comes in various flavours - Lynn line, Norwich line, both, grade separation. Each is progressively more expensive. Even then, there is obviously a capacity limit.

For the resignalling - between March and Ely it’s relatively straightforward. The level crossings are another matter, and having additional passenger trains on that section (as opposed to freight) makes a big difference.

 

[Class 170101]

having additional passenger trains on that section (as opposed to freight) makes a big difference.

Why do you say that?