Wisbech-March line reopening cost increase to £200m

[yorkie]

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

I have moved some posts to that section (again! )

Thanks.

 

[NBC Soap Oper]

I hope (though it is a way way heavy cost) that this line gets approved

I love oddments of lines (sort of dis-connected places) like Wisbeach and March and would nip down to Wisbeach to sample it if on Holiday in Skegness as it is so near (but also use connecting Bus Routes too)

More "Lines" are needed to re-open like this to reverse Beaching's terrible terrible "railway crimes"!!!

 

[A0wen]

I hope (though it is a way way heavy cost) that this line gets approved

I love oddments of lines (sort of dis-connected places) like Wisbeach and March and would nip down to Wisbeach to sample it if on Holiday in Skegness as it is so near (but also use connecting Bus Routes too)

More "Lines" are needed to re-open like this to reverse Beaching's terrible terrible "railway crimes"!!!

Two questions -

Who pays for it ?
Who covers the ongoing cost when such lines make a huge loss and require a massive subsidy ?

The latter was the reason why many such "disconnected" places lost their rail link, often long before Beeching.

In fact the year BEFORE the Beeching report was published, 1962 saw 780 miles of closures. Post Beeching that number was higher on only ONE year - 1964 which saw 1058 miles closed.

 

[MarkRedon]

As you very well know, much of the pre-Beeching system made a "loss" - albeit at tiny sums of money even inflated to current day terms.

Big surprise: the current UK rail system taken as a whole needs subsidy; very few lines make a "profit"... I doubt Borders covers all its money costs.

There are many issues:

Would Wisbech reopening, even with a minimal-disruption March - Wisbech shuttle, yield net social benefits? When?

How long will it take for the net annual social benefits to amortise the capital costs? (If within 60 years, why not re-invest? if not: then value-engineering, a.k.a. no gold-plating, bring the costs down, think outside the box: basic heavy rail spec, but absolutely minimal infrastructure, lightweight tram-train, even 750V DC OLE?)

Which person signed off the original withdrawal of passenger, then freight, service? Did they make the right decision then? Does that decision look right now?

 

[37424]

If you want lines like this reopened then network rail need to start looking at ways of producing less gold plated more value for money schemes as has been suggested otherwise there will be very few reopening schemes, and as already suggested for the sort of money that's being suggested is using the existing route the best option.

The potential ongoing cost of adding to the subsidy burden is an important one and I'm of the view that improved bus services combined in some cases with road improvement may be a better way forward than schemes such as this.

 

[Ianno87]

As you very well know, much of the pre-Beeching system made a "loss" - albeit at tiny sums of money even inflated to current day terms.

Big surprise: the current UK rail system taken as a whole needs subsidy; very few lines make a "profit"... I doubt Borders covers all its money costs.

There are many issues:

Would Wisbech reopening, even with a minimal-disruption March - Wisbech shuttle, yield net social benefits? When?

How long will it take for the net annual social benefits to amortise the capital costs? (If within 60 years, why not re-invest? if not: then value-engineering, a.k.a. no gold-plating, bring the costs down, think outside the box: basic heavy rail spec, but absolutely minimal infrastructure, lightweight tram-train, even 750V DC OLE?)

Thinking outside the box as you suggest, you could fund a bus route with high-spec buses every 15 minutes on a part-guided segregated route with through ticketing for a fraction of the cost of rebuilding heavy rail as a shuttle and running it every 30 or 60 minutes.

 

[swanhill41]

So do I !!! its my home !!!

To answer this (again) the prime use of a railway is to move people or goods.

Firstly lets look at goods, Currently there is arguably no industry large enough to sustain regular freight service. Baring in mind Spillers (now Nestle) used to have a shared service with Metal Box (Now Crown) and latterly John G Russell at Grantham. This was not sustainable and finished. wagonloads are not wanted these days its more bulk services.

Secondly Passenger.

Wisbech to March. Back in the day you could not fill a Emblings Bus (52 seater)to March. so how on earth will you sustain a train service. Wisbech to further a field look to the east.
Ely North rears its ugly head again (thats why the new Aberdeen - Spalding Colas slurry, goes to Spalding and not to King's Lynn where its wanted !!)

To the West. I personally work at Peterborough. would i use it ?? No because I would anytime between 00.01 and 23.59 chances are the service won't be available when I want, Also do I want to wait x amount of minutes after my shift, when now I can get in my car and to be fair the A47 isn't that bad.
Most big employers over Peterborough (amazon etc) provide a workers bus (Blue Fox) so really where is re-instatement going to boost the economy.

If you know Wisbech so well, undoubtely you are aware that roughly 30% are East European and work in the local factories such as Moy Park, Lamb and Weston etc. I don't know the pecentage of retirement age people. and then people like me that it wouldn't be suitable for, but really the actually patronage would not make this a viable option.

THATS BEFORE you get me started on the actual trackbed !!

That reply is the sort of one that gets below the guff and into the real world...Based on a modicum of what is stated,it would appear that the costs of reinstating a long siding is way out of kimbo to reality..Post Covid ,blue sky schemes needs damping down,and money putting into viable schemes...But I could be wrong ?

 

[RT4038]

As you very well know, much of the pre-Beeching system made a "loss" - albeit at tiny sums of money even inflated to current day terms.

Big surprise: the current UK rail system taken as a whole needs subsidy; very few lines make a "profit"... I doubt Borders covers all its money costs.

There are many issues:

Would Wisbech reopening, even with a minimal-disruption March - Wisbech shuttle, yield net social benefits? When?

How long will it take for the net annual social benefits to amortise the capital costs? (If within 60 years, why not re-invest? if not: then value-engineering, a.k.a. no gold-plating, bring the costs down, think outside the box: basic heavy rail spec, but absolutely minimal infrastructure, lightweight tram-train, even 750V DC OLE?)

Which person signed off the original withdrawal of passenger, then freight, service? Did they make the right decision then? Does that decision look right now?

Yes, the railways do not make a 'profit' or anything like. However, just because the existing lines don't, doesn't mean that we should go re-opening more lines to make the loss even larger!
When the line closed originally, the railways, and the country were in a completely different place, and I am sure that the decision (taken ultimately by our elected representatives in voting for the Beeching Plan) was the correct one at the time.
We need a debate about the cost of building new railway lines, as much as we need debate about the cost of operating them once built. We also need a reasoned debate about the roles of road and rail public transport modes.

 

[Bald Rick]

As you very well know, much of the pre-Beeching system made a "loss" - albeit at tiny sums of money even inflated to current day terms.

Big surprise: the current UK rail system taken as a whole needs subsidy; very few lines make a "profit"... I doubt Borders covers all its money costs.

There are many issues:

Would Wisbech reopening, even with a minimal-disruption March - Wisbech shuttle, yield net social benefits? When?

How long will it take for the net annual social benefits to amortise the capital costs? (If within 60 years, why not re-invest? if not: then value-engineering, a.k.a. no gold-plating, bring the costs down, think outside the box: basic heavy rail spec, but absolutely minimal infrastructure, lightweight tram-train, even 750V DC OLE?)

Which person signed off the original withdrawal of passenger, then freight, service? Did they make the right decision then? Does that decision look right now?

I think it is very unlikely that the net annual social benefits + the net financial beenfits* of this project would pay off the capital cost over 60 years.

*the net financial benefits would of course be negative.

 

[DerekC]

Thinking outside the box as you suggest, you could fund a bus route with high-spec buses every 15 minutes on a part-guided segregated route with through ticketing for a fraction of the cost of rebuilding heavy rail as a shuttle and running it every 30 or 60 minutes.

Don't go away with the idea that guided busways are cheap. Cambridgeshire Guided Busway cost £180M for 16 miles - so the Wisbech-March version might cost £100M on that basis. Buses are cheap as long as they use existing roads - and then they are slow. So you either upgrade existing roads, in which case they encourage more people to drive cars, or you spend money on a public transport solution with its own infrastructure. I thought the Gosport - Fareham "Ecllpse Busway" might be a cheap solution, but it seems to have cost over £20M for 3.4km of converted railway line so it's in the same order per mile as Cambridgeshire.

 

[ashkeba]

Thinking outside the box as you suggest, you could fund a bus route with high-spec buses every 15 minutes on a part-guided segregated route with through ticketing for a fraction of the cost of rebuilding heavy rail as a shuttle and running it every 30 or 60 minutes.

But what fraction? This is 8 miles and the 16 miles of Cambridge bus way cost at least £180m twenty years ago, and I think that line was in a much better state to start with, only having been closed 9 years at the project start, so this would cost at least as much per mile in real terms.

 

[Class 170101]

Buses also don't seem to attract as many people to use them compared to trains / trams.

 

[Ianno87]

Don't go away with the idea that guided busways are cheap. Cambridgeshire Guided Busway cost £180M for 16 miles - so the Wisbech-March version might cost £100M on that basis. Buses are cheap as long as they use existing roads - and then they are slow. So you either upgrade existing roads, in which case they encourage more people to drive cars, or you spend money on a public transport solution with its own infrastructure. I thought the Gosport - Fareham "Ecllpse Busway" might be a cheap solution, but it seems to have cost over £20M for 3.4km of converted railway line so it's in the same order per mile as Cambridgeshire.

But what fraction? This is 8 miles and the 16 miles of Cambridge bus way cost at least £180m twenty years ago, and I think that line was in a much better state to start with, only having been closed 9 years at the project start, so this would cost at least as much per mile in real terms.

The ongoing costs of running buses are considerably less. And you get a more frequent service in return.

In passenger numbers, the Cambridgesire guided busway has been a roaring success. Far more passengers carried than heavy rail would have managed. Some of the costs were specific to it - e.g. moving signalling equipment adjacent to Cambridge signal box.

 

[Taunton]

You have to wonder why a (presumably) hourly single-track local service, between two places most people in Britain have never heard of, has to have no level crossings, while on the other side of Peterborough quite significant roads continue to cross the 125mph multi-track ECML without any change planned. Or the railway glibly says "close them" without any thought on the issues created for those who actually use them at present.

It's great for the civil engineering industry to see the costs of projects skyrocket, but they have to make the judgement when their gold plating makes the works just unaffordable, and so nothing gets done at all.

 

[Ianno87]

You have to wonder why a (presumably) hourly single-track local service, between two places most people in Britain have never heard of, has to have no level crossings, while on the other side of Peterborough quite significant roads continue to cross the 125mph multi-track ECML without any change planned. Or the railway glibly says "close them" without any thought on the issues created for those who actually use them at present.

It's great for the civil engineering industry to see the costs of projects skyrocket, but they have to make the judgement when their gold plating makes the works just unaffordable, and so nothing gets done at all.

Keeping existing level crossings open is not worsening existing historic risks.

Opening new ones is adding new risks.

That's the difference.

 

[Bald Rick]

You have to wonder why a (presumably) hourly single-track local service, between two places most people in Britain have never heard of, has to have no level crossings, while on the other side of Peterborough quite significant roads continue to cross the 125mph multi-track ECML without any change planned. Or the railway glibly says "close them" without any thought on the issues created for those who actually use them at present.

It's great for the civil engineering industry to see the costs of projects skyrocket, but they have to make the judgement when their gold plating makes the works just unaffordable, and so nothing gets done at all.

Three things:

1) there’s things called engineering standards, which apply to all walks of life. There’s millions of houses in the U.K. that have their mains water supplied by lead piping, with no plans to replace them, but that doesn’t make it right for new houses.

2) there are plans to remove the level crossings on the ECML

3) there has been business case work which demonstrates that on a socio-economic basis, for new railways the business case is better to have bridges or alternatives (usually a fence) rather than level crossings. The upfront cost is higher for a bridge, but the ongoing maintenance, operation and renewal costs are lower (for bridges and fences, almost non existent). The performance ‘cost’ of a level crossing is significant - there’s a crossing in West Sussex that has caused so much train delay over the past 20 years it could have paid for a bridge several times over. Then there is the cost to motorists, principally in time but occasionally and very sadly, in their lives.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The performance ‘cost’ of a level crossing is significant - there’s a crossing in West Sussex that has caused so much train delay over the past 20 years it could have paid for a bridge several times over. Then there is the cost to motorists, principally in time but occasionally and very sadly, in their lives.

At the risk of going off-topic, if that is true, shouldn't NR be pushing plans to replace the crossing with a bridge? If the crossing costs that much to keep, then I would imagine, that even if (worst case scenario) you had to pay for a bridge by getting a commercial loan at commercial interest rates, it would still be be financially worthwhile to do so.

 

[RT4038]

You have to wonder why a (presumably) hourly single-track local service, between two places most people in Britain have never heard of, has to have no level crossings, while on the other side of Peterborough quite significant roads continue to cross the 125mph multi-track ECML without any change planned. Or the railway glibly says "close them" without any thought on the issues created for those who actually use them at present.

It's great for the civil engineering industry to see the costs of projects skyrocket, but they have to make the judgement when their gold plating makes the works just unaffordable, and so nothing gets done at all.

Well that's good - a proposal to re-open a railway costing £200m between two places that most people in Britain have never heard of (so presumably would never have any reason to use), with virtually no local traffic, to connect a place (Wisbech) to the one place (March) that very few of them want to go to. Yes, it connects them to the national railway network, but with a circuitous route to the places of desire (Peterborough and King's Lynn) which are much better served by bus. And this local train service will be extremely expensive to provide, with rolling stock costing 3 times as much as a bus and a two man crew with expensive terms and conditions. All because there happens to be a (long) disused track formation in place. Reality check please!

Losses being incurred on other (current) lines does not give excuse to re-open more loss making lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

At the risk of going off-topic, if that is true, shouldn't NR be pushing plans to replace the crossing with a bridge? If the crossing costs that much to keep, then I would imagine, that even if (worst case scenario) you had to pay for a bridge by getting a commercial loan at commercial interest rates, it would still be be financially worthwhile to do so.

You’d think so wouldn’t you! The local authority aren’t interested, and of course the train delay costs are difficult to forecast, and there’s other much cheaper ways of preventing the delay. (Except they generally don’t seem to work).

However, there are a few other places where public highway crossings have been closed on a financial basis, usually where it is cheaper to build a simple diversion than to pay for a new crossing at renewal time. I’ve done a few myself, but sadly there have been lots of missed opportunities, paticulsrly in the east of the country.

 

[37424]

Three things:

1) there’s things called engineering standards, which apply to all walks of life. There’s millions of houses in the U.K. that have their mains water supplied by lead piping, with no plans to replace them, but that doesn’t make it right for new houses.

2) there are plans to remove the level crossings on the ECML

3) there has been business case work which demonstrates that on a socio-economic basis, for new railways the business case is better to have bridges or alternatives (usually a fence) rather than level crossings. The upfront cost is higher for a bridge, but the ongoing maintenance, operation and renewal costs are lower (for bridges and fences, almost non existent). The performance ‘cost’ of a level crossing is significant - there’s a crossing in West Sussex that has caused so much train delay over the past 20 years it could have paid for a bridge several times over. Then there is the cost to motorists, principally in time but occasionally and very sadly, in their lives.

All well and good, but perhaps a more reasonable assessment needs to be applied, it seems to me there's a difference between say a 75mph branch running 1 or 2 trains per hour and a busy mainline railway.

Also for 200 million I think I would certainly be looking at the potential cost of alternate new routes, a tram train scheme, or even a guided busway.

 

[tbtc]

This thread seems split between people who think £200m+ is too much money to spend on this project and the people who think that we should build it regardless ("because Beeching" or "because regeneration" or whatever).

Do any of the "supporters" have an upper price limit at which they'd feel that it'd be too expensive for ten miles through fairly open countryside (on a route that struggles to sustain much of a commercial bus service)?

Would £300m be too much? £400m? £500m? Or are you just so in favour of re-opening abandoned lines that the price tag/ business case doesn't come into it?

(given all of the other things that £200m could be spent on locally, e.g. extending the two coach DMUs that make up a large proportion of the trains in the area)

 

[Rail Ranger]

A key justification for the scheme is the plan to build a large number of new houses in Wisbech, many of whose occupants will be commuting to jobs in the burgeoning life sciences and knowledge-based economy in Cambridge. How Covid will affect the numbers commuting is of course an unknown at this stage.

 

[Bald Rick]

All well and good, but perhaps a more reasonable assessment needs to be applied, it seems to me there's a difference between say a 75mph branch running 1 or 2 trains per hour and a busy mainline railway.

Also for 200 million I think I would certainly be looking at the potential cost of alternate new routes, a tram train scheme, or even a guided busway.

Perhaps I was too subtle with my third point. Projects are not judged on their total cost alone. They are judged on value for money, ie how much benefit you get for the cost. Not having level crossings make the case better. More expensive, yes, but the extra benefits outweigh the extra costs. Therefore a project has a better chance of being built without level crossings.

Also, don’t be under the illusion that reopening a line without level crossings means a new bridge wherever there was formerly a level crossing. It is quite conceivable that you would need many fewer - perhaps 30-50%. Given that new level crossings cost upwards of £2-3m; more if you have to add in extra signals (which you would do on the Wisbech line), and that simple highway bridges in open country are in the region of £10m, the capital cost actually wouldn’t be that much different anyway.

A key justification for the scheme is the plan to build a large number of new houses in Wisbech, many of whose occupants will be commuting to jobs in the burgeoning life sciences and knowledge-based economy in Cambridge. How Covid will affect the numbers commuting is of course an unknown at this stage.

Ah, a fundamental point here. You have a job in Cambridge, and are looking for a new place to live. Would you really consider a new home in Wisbech? I’m sure some people will. But not many. Much higher more likely that you would move there if you had a job locally, or in Kings Lynn, Peterborough or Spalding. For which a railway to March is next to no use.

 

[bspahh]

Ah, a fundamental point here. You have a job in Cambridge, and are looking for a new place to live. Would you really consider a new home in Wisbech? I’m sure some people will. But not many. Much higher more likely that you would move there if you had a job locally, or in Kings Lynn, Peterborough or Spalding. For which a railway to March is next to no use.

For someone who is moving to the area, they move go to Downham Market, get a direct train every 30 minutes, including stops at Cambridge North, Cambridge and London, which will have 8 cars in the next year.

They could also move to Wisbech, hope this line gets built, and then rely on the occasional direct trains to Cambridge, and rely on connections to Cambridge North or London.

House prices are a bit cheaper in Wisbech than Downham Market (for a modern 2 bed end of terrace its ~ £130k compared to £165k).

 

[A0wen]

Buses also don't seem to attract as many people to use them compared to trains / trams.

Except for the fact far more people make far more journeys by bus than by rail.

So buses aren't as unpopular as you think.

 

[HSTEd]

Except for the fact far more people make far more journeys by bus than by rail.

So buses aren't as unpopular as you think.

Well that's just a factor of buses picking up huge numbers of incredibly short journeys in city centres.
In terms of passenger kilometres buses get absolutely crushed (81v35 billion passenger-km).

If a handful of urban centres had metros that would change rather rapidly.

EDIT:

And it turns out that according to this buses not in london get 33 trips per year per person, buses in london get 13, giving 46 total for buses.
22 for surface rail and 11 for London Underground, so 33 total for rail.

So buses' advantage is not as large as you might think, and shrinking each year, if not for coronavirus pretty soon rail would overtake it.
In 2002, it was 64 vs 24.
In 2018 it had shrunk to 47 vs 33

 

[ashkeba]

(on a route that struggles to sustain much of a commercial bus service)?

Is the Wisbech-March bus service commercial? I assumed it was council contract because it makes no sense in paper: starts late, finishes early, uses a slow road into Wisbech and avoids March railway station!

 

[Megafuss]

Is the Wisbech-March bus service commercial? I assumed it was council contract because it makes no sense in paper: starts late, finishes early, uses a slow road into Wisbech and avoids March railway station!

The 46 service is supported. According to Cambridgeshire County Council, it costs them just over £108,000 per year on a minimum subsidy basis.

 

[Bald Rick]

The 46 service is supported. According to Cambridgeshire County Council, it costs them just over £108,000 per year on a minimum subsidy basis.

Interesting. That’s roughly a tenth of the subsidy that a reopened line would need to operate (at an educated guess).

With some highly dubious leaps of logic, it follows that you could run five times as many buses as today, for half the subsidy that a rail service would need, and save over £200m building the line.

Or perhaps more pertinently, treble the bus service *for the next decade* for the price of the studies that have been done / are being done into this line.

 

[Megafuss]

Interesting. That’s roughly a tenth of the subsidy that a reopened line would need to operate (at an educated guess).

With some highly dubious leaps of logic, it follows that you could run five times as many buses as today, for half the subsidy that a rail service would need, and save over £200m building the line.

Or perhaps more pertinently, treble the bus service *for the next decade* for the price of the studies that have been done / are being done into this line.

That is broadly right, but it would depend if it would be an extra service to compliment the 46 or a replacement. You could probably do March to Wisbech each way in 60 minutes with just one bus. But you'd have to miss the villages out.