Fantasy thread: What would you do if money was no object...

[yorksrob]

I think I would set up a fund which could be drawn down upon to pay for the business cases and feasability studies of various deserving re-opening projects. I might also use it to match fund the building phase of some (to make the money go further). I'd start with the ones that already have local political support.

 

[swcovas]

Aberystwyth to Carmarthen. Could be VERY useful if built on slightly different alignment and also very scenic. And while we're at it throw in Carmarthen to Llandeilo as well!

 

[Tiny Tim]

Somerset and Dorset would be nice.

Yep, that's the one.

Plus, as we're talking fantasy, the Midland & South Wsstern Junction Railway and the Devizes Railway.

 

[RichmondCommu]

I would extend the Wensleydale railway to Garsdale and connect it to the S&C. At the same I would re-build the NER engine shed, construct a new water tower (complete with village community centre) and provide a new turntable. However I would do away with a sleeper stockade to see if I could recreate what happened all those years a go!

 

[stanley T]

Money no object: reopen Oxford-Cambridge E_W link.
Within € jackpot limit: reopen Matlock-Buxton, can't cost all that much, given that Monsal tunnel is in good shape.

 

[tbtc]

Within € jackpot limit: reopen Matlock-Buxton, can't cost all that much, given that Monsal tunnel is in good shape.

A significantly more useful suggestion than most on this thread - forcing all traffic through the Hope Valley has really stifled services.

A direct service from Manchester/ Stockport to Matlock/ Derby/ Nottingham would beat the parallel A-roads hands down and be a very attractive service.

 

[Hove Heretic]

Best use of £££ for me would be to get GRIP standard information to support BML2. No-one at Brighton Town Hall or Chamber of Commerce has any clue as to how much Brighton line closures cost the city. A wierd way to treat such a key tourism centre, especially with so much PW occupation being at weekends - just right for discouraging the punters!

Dreamland vote - Douglas-Peel. 17km. Using WRC figures from the Ennis - Athenry re-opening and sensible contract letting, about £25m (not a lot if you say it quickly!)

 

[HSTEd]

BML2 is a stupid idea.

The amount of money it would cost to do all that would probably buy you a brand new Shinkansen line to Brighton.

 

[Hove Heretic]

£315m for the Sussex phase wouldn't even scope a Shinkansen project, it certainly wouldn't break the bank. If BML2 is a stupid idea, how would you describe leaving the 14th busiest station in the UK - Brighton - without a link to London each time the one remaining viable route is shut?

 

[jopsuk]

25th busiest. Or 9th, if you exclude stations within London (not just terminals- Vauxhall, Clapham, East Croydon etc)

 

[HSTEd]

£315m for the Sussex phase wouldn't even scope a Shinkansen project, it certainly wouldn't break the bank. If BML2 is a stupid idea, how would you describe leaving the 14th busiest station in the UK - Brighton - without a link to London each time the one remaining viable route is shut?

If you read the articles on the BML2 website, they seem to propose that once you add in all the extraneous costs the £315m proposal would cost something more like £865m.

For comparison the recently comitted Kyushu Shinkansen Nagasaki route project has a total pricetag in the vicinity of 500bn yen, which is roughly £3.97bn at current exchange rates.

This project includes 118km of new route, large amounts of which is in tunnels and all extraneous services as well as some minor other works. Japan is one of the few countries in the world where construction costs even more than it does in western europe, so the costs should transfer relatively well.

Brighton-London is only ~75km so we could either cut the price roughly 40%, or extend the line along the coast all the way to somewhere in the vicinity of Portsmouth.
As improved service to Portsmouth is not included in the BML plan I will chose the former.
This gives us a price for the project of roughly ~£2.4bn.

Now let us compare the benefits of the stated "BML project phase 1" and its £865m pricetag and this South Coast Shinkansen and its £2.4bn.

The differences are striking, both offer "diversionary capability" but is highly likely that during closures only a token service would be available under BML whereas a rather large fraction of the normal service could be provided by either of the routse under the SCS project, this is impossible to quantify so I will ignore it.

Travel times are clearly in favour of the SCS project since it would be able to average a higher speed than the maximum speed rated on the BML/BML (which is limited to 100mph due to third rail and signal sightings, and the need for capacity), again this is rather hard to quantify properly so I won't attempt it.

So we turn to capacity.
The BML 2 Phase 1 project would offer an increase in seats available in each hour on the Uckfield line from 1759 to 4680 according to the article listed above, assuming that all these seats are filled this translates to a net increase of 2921 passengers per hour per direction (as you have to account for the Uckfield passengers continuing to travel).

The capacity of a N700 Shinkansen set is 200 "1st" class and 1123 "Standard" seats, although it does use 2+2 and 2+3 seating for this, the trains are wider than the standard on network rail (3.36m versus 2.8m) and the journey time end to end would probably be under 30 minutes, so it is almost certainly acceptable. They also provide services that would not be required in this project, such as smoking rooms and vending machines which could be eliminated to further increase the seating capacity.

This translates to 1323 seats per trainset, and if it were to run at a relatively low 8tph to allow for further extensions to the route, this would translate to some 10584 additional seats per hour added to the corridor. Note this figure could be even higher if you chose to embrace double decker trains, but I have not because there are no very fast accelerating double deck trainsets currently available and I wanted an "off-the-shelf" comparison.

This is 3.62 times the capacity provided by the BML Phase 1 project, and it carries all the ancillary benefits of reducing the travel time from London to Brighton from 1hr to roughly 30 minutes as well as potential for expansion of the route to serve other places.

All at a cost that is roughly 2.78 times that of the actual cost of said Phase 1 project.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

If the chief argument for building BML2 is that it gives Brighton access to London if the current mainline is shut, why not build a north-east curve at the Arundel Jns and route services via Worthing, Horsham then either Gatwick Airport or Epsom if need be? Would take longer but it'd be a damn sight cheaper than £315,000,000!

 

[yorksrob]

If you read the articles on the BML2 website, they seem to propose that once you add in all the extraneous costs the £315m proposal would cost something more like £865m.

To be fair, that cost does include quite a bit of upgrading of the existing line from Hurst Green, something that would have benefits to the local area over and above an additional London - Brighton route.

 

[HSTEd]

To be fair, that cost does include quite a bit of upgrading of the existing line from Hurst Green, something that would have benefits to the local area over and above an additional London - Brighton route.

Indeed, but they would be even harder to quantify than the benefit of cutting Brighton-London travel times in half and probably making the (Gatwick) Express services redundant. (Depending on where the intermediate station(s) that are almost compulsory on all Shinkansen routes are).

 

[Eagle]

If BML2 is a stupid idea, how would you describe leaving the 14th busiest station in the UK - Brighton - without a link to London each time the one remaining viable route is shut?

I'd do it the same way they're doing it tomorrow, when there's a blockage in the Haywards Heath area: via Littlehampton. (And if the blockage is further north than Three Bridges, the usual route is via Littlehampton and Dorking.)

 

[Aictos]

I would reopen the route between March and Spalding for freight services which would avoid the need to go via Peterborough - if they HAD to go via Peterborough then a flyover at Werrington Junction would enable freights on and off the Joint Line to access the Stamford lines to Peterborough and onto March without having to crossover the fast lines at Peterborough.

I would also reinstate the old avoiding line for Lincoln and divert all freights onto it, by this only passenger trains would use the existing line meaning a reduction in the times that the level crossing barriers need to be in the down position and making it easier on the locals.

Platform Loops would also be built at Hertford North and Gordon Hill with the track work at Hertford North being fully bi directional within station limits.

Also a new track would be laid between Langley Junction and a new bay platform at Stevenage.

 

[HSTEd]

How about building the aforementioned South Coast Shinkansen and then extending it to Penzance via Portsmouth, Southampton, Weymouth and Exeter?

Perhaps even detouring the line for a direct stop at Newquay....

 

[gerryuk]

We need better connections between our towns and cities particularly between Glasgow, Sheffield, Nottingham and Peterborough. So here is my new cross country plan -

Trans Pennine south - Liverpool to Norwich via Sheffield axed completely.
All MML services, Sheffield - London to run via Derby only. Nottingham removed from this line.
The currant MML high speed fleet to be based in Sheffield, Glasgow and Kings Cross when the MML is electrified and they have their new fleet. If they put their mind to it they can get a few more years service from this fleet?
There would be a hourly HST service, London Kings Cross to Glasgow Central or Liverpool Lime Street via Nottingham and Sheffield calling at - Kings Cross, Stevenage, Peterborough, Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester Piccadilly, with one train every 2 hours going to Liverpool and the other calling Bolton, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow.
Lots of pros and cons with my plan but it cant be right that cities like Nottingham, Peterborough and Sheffield have no direct trains to places like Preston, Carlisle and Glasgow. (Sheff has a few to Glasgow)
Although Nottingham would loose electric trains to St Pancras, would running diesels down to Kings Cross speed up the currant service to London? and of course they would gain direct trains to Glasgow.
HST would stop the overcrowding on the Sheffield to Manchester leg.
Place like Norwich would see a hourly service to Nottingham using the currant TPE fleet for connections on this new service.
Now I believe that everyone is going to hit back saying that there is not the capacity on the lines, particularly at Kings Cross to implement this service but I am sure they can squeeze in another train each hour.
I believe that this new service will be a financial gold mine for cross country and will be heavily used on all sections by the public, so much so that I can see them electrifying Grantham to Manchester with a brand new electric fleet within 15/20 years of this service starting.

If I had the money I would pay for it myself and take the profits of course, but alas -

 

[Kneedown]

I would relay the Woodhead route and wire it at 1500v dc, building a new fleet of 76's to original spec. When that was done i'd electrify the North Wales coast line at 25kv ac to Man Picc, building new 81's-85's inclusive to work the route. New build 45's and 50's would run a service from Notts to a new Sheffield Vic, where a Tommy would take over to Man Picc before handing over to a Roarer for the run to Holyhead.
This would enable me to travel to Ynys Mon, my favorite place, behind all my fav traction.

.....Well the OP said money no object!

 

[Hove Heretic]

If the chief argument for building BML2 is that it gives Brighton access to London if the current mainline is shut, why not build a north-east curve at the Arundel Jns and route services via Worthing, Horsham then either Gatwick Airport or Epsom if need be? Would take longer but it'd be a damn sight cheaper than £315,000,000!

...a lot longer. I've done the Arun Valley tour, lovely in daylight but interminable after dark.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
"Japan is one of the few countries in the world where construction costs even more than it does in western europe, so the costs should transfer relatively well.

Brighton-London is only ~75km so we could either cut the price roughly 40%, or extend the line along the coast all the way to somewhere in the vicinity of Portsmouth.
As improved service to Portsmouth is not included in the BML plan I will chose the former.
This gives us a price for the project of roughly ~£2.4bn."

Looking at the furore surrounding the HS/2 route, I can only imagine the outcry at a total new build in southern England. One of the key points in favour of BML2 is that, other than Ashcombe (SW of Lewes), it utilises existing or moribund infrastructure as far north as the proposed dive underground just south of Lewisham. The tunnelling costs indicated on the BML2 website, I know, are based on figures for HS/1, and whilst I can't comment on tunnelling specifications, or the geology in Japan, an earlier proposal to tunnel into the centre of London from Coulsdon doesn't bear out tunnelling being a cheap option as you suggest - neither does the Bakerloo extension scheme, so I can see no valid basis for comparing the Japanese case with the UK. A bore though the South Downs would be in chalk, marle, gravels and clay. The northern tunnel would present broadly the same geology as the DLR extension.

Insofar as BML2 does nothing for Portsmouth, I wouldn't disagree, but would say I think it's rather beside the point in a scheme designed to address capacity problems from East Sussex, Kent and East Anglia (which equally, any scheme designed to meet requirements in Hampshire couldn't reasonably be expected to achieve). There's also an issue with congestion on the cross country A27/A26 route between Brighton and Tunbridge Wells, a route which becomes possible with BML2. Another point overlooked is the assumption that only the towns I've already mentioned could benefit from the scheme. The number of paths potentially released towards London would allow improved access from the West Coastway line.

I see there is discussion of improvements in the SW London rail network, and would suggest any improvements on the Hampshire lines would be better treated in conjunction with these. BML2 can't pretend to be a panacea for all shortcomings south of the Thames, but with Docklands and now Olympic Legacy redevelopments, the centre of gravity in London has shifted eastwards, and lack of infrastructure here is addressed by the scheme.

On the question of electrical supply, I confess to looking at things differently from the BML2 project. I view the adoption of OHLE across the old Southern as inevitable and as BML2 links with 25Kvac lines north of the Thames, and bearing in mind that the line via Gatwick would eventually be converted, see the project as able to mitigate the inevitable chaos of conversion. I'm no S&T expert, so I can't comment on the difficulties this would cause, or how they would be overcome.

Your £2.4bln estimate (cheaper by far than figures being bandied about for the Barkerloo extension - and the Hayes branch would do better as part of the BML2 scheme) I haven't the specific information to confirm or deny. Until the scheme warrants full costing, we're all just estimating and HS/1 aside, I'm not aware of many estimates for capital schemes than have been particularly accurate - especially in the rail industry!

What I (and every commuter from the south coast) do know is that the present line is running at capacity for large parts of the day. NR identify key bottlenecks which will have to be addressed. I can't see the Japanese (or French) approach being politically possible here, so new formation is out of the question. Quadrupling the Brighton line south of Three Bridges, leaving cost aside, does nothing to solve problems at East Croydon and nothing to lessen the vulnerability of the route overall. Any solution to capacity issues at existing London terminals does nothing to improve services to the regenerated east end. No other scheme I'm aware of answers the fundamental capacity issues raised by NR, DfT (or Gatwick Airport's management) concerning rail capacity.

True, it's not a cheap scheme, neither is the work at Reading nor is Crossrail. BML2 is a major infrastructure investment with major benefits in the most populous and congested corner of the country. I recall similar arguments against Thameslink, and that's the sort of project BML2 needs to be compared with.

 

[Requeststop]

The lines I'd re-open
Okehampton - Tavistock - Plymouth.
Portbury - Bristol
Somerset & Dorset

Not in the OP's question but

Upgrade Truro-Penzance signaling and buy a 2-3 coach DMU and run a halfhourly service between the two with a stations at Pool an Marazion/Long Rock. (My Money)

 

[HSTEd]

Looking at the furore surrounding the HS/2 route, I can only imagine the outcry at a total new build in southern England.

Part of the reason HS2 causes so much outcry is that intermediate people end up being exposed to the route without gaining very much from it at all, with Shinkansen you put a station every ~30km anyway, so you could just plonk a station somewhere where locals can easily reach it and say "from here trains will be in central london in 15 minutes".

That would probably make a lot of the objections dissapear.

One of the key points in favour of BML2 is that, other than Ashcombe (SW of Lewes), it utilises existing or moribund infrastructure as far north as the proposed dive underground just south of Lewisham.

The problem with reusing existing infrastructure is that it costs a fortune, you have to arrange line closures and speed restrictions and the like and you have to the work in an order determined by whatever method minimises network disruption.

An all new line doesn't have this problem and thus can do things in a cheaper way.

The tunnelling costs indicated on the BML2 website, I know, are based on figures for HS/1, and whilst I can't comment on tunnelling specifications, or the geology in Japan, an earlier proposal to tunnel into the centre of London from Coulsdon doesn't bear out tunnelling being a cheap option as you suggest - neither does the Bakerloo extension scheme, so I can see no valid basis for comparing the Japanese case with the UK. A bore though the South Downs would be in chalk, marle, gravels and clay. The northern tunnel would present broadly the same geology as the DLR extension.

The reason why the Bakerloo line scheme and the DLR extension cost so much is nothing to do with the tunneling conditions, digging tubular bores is suprisingly cheap these days, and with the exception of building slightly more expensive TBMs is similar in cost for all reasonable geological conditions.

THe expensive part in underground railways is the construction of the stations, as they cannot be built with simple TBM drives and require huge amounts of more manual excavation, especially in sites where you can't simply skylight the entire box and build it up again as they did at Westminster.

Remember one of the Crossrail stations alone is projected to cost something on order of a billion pounds.

A high speed rail tunnel out of London on the hand would be a simple TBM drive.

Insofar as BML2 does nothing for Portsmouth, I wouldn't disagree, but would say I think it's rather beside the point in a scheme designed to address capacity problems from East Sussex, Kent and East Anglia (which equally, any scheme designed to meet requirements in Hampshire couldn't reasonably be expected to achieve).

Indeed, all I was saying was that I would spec a project that would have similar effects to BML2, not slighting the concepts behind BML2 in anyway. It would be reasonable to include an extension to Southampton in the comparison South Coast Shinkansen project.

There's also an issue with congestion on the cross country A27/A26 route between Brighton and Tunbridge Wells, a route which becomes possible with BML2. Another point overlooked is the assumption that only the towns I've already mentioned could benefit from the scheme. The number of paths potentially released towards London would allow improved access from the West Coastway line.

Indeed, but improved accessf rom the Coastway line would happen anyway because as I already stated, the "Express" workings to Gatwick and Brighton could be withdrawn as they could not hope to compete with the SCS services.
Giving you four paths an hour to play with.

But yes, as you say we have little information to do a proper comparison on, since this most emphatically is not Japan, and we haven't let Network Rail get a hold on the project with its gold plating equipment yet....

 

[MidnightFlyer]

All MML services, Sheffield - London to run via Derby only. Nottingham removed from this line.
...
There would be a hourly HST service, London Kings Cross to Glasgow Central or Liverpool Lime Street via Nottingham and Sheffield calling at - Kings Cross, Stevenage, Peterborough, Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester Piccadilly, with one train every 2 hours going to Liverpool and the other calling Bolton, Preston, Lancaster, Carlisle and Glasgow.

hock:

Any idea of times on the route via Stevenage to Nottingham? I always thought Nottingham had poor enough times to London without their fast HST being removed and service halved!

Also, how would you cover the lost services and connections on the MML? Up the service to 4tph from Derby? Surely from that Nottingham deserves at least 1tph along there? It would be rather poor that from a conurbation the size of Nottingham you wouldn't be able to get further south than Leicester direct to places like Kettering, Bedford and Luton Airport. Your plans would also leave only 1tph (an all stations too!) to Leicester...

 

[Class172]

For me, I would reopen the South Stafforshire Line, then freight can be diverted away from Birmingham city centre/Camp Hill and a new passenger service can be operated with 3tph between Stourbridge Junction and Walsall, with 1tph extended to form a service between Worcester and Lichfield TV via Dudley.

 

[Whistler40145]

I would reopen the Leamside line electrified @ 25kV.

Also, Woodhead, but controversially electrified @ 25kV

Definitely reopen Oxford to Cambridge.

Reopen Ditton Junction to Skelton Junction for freight.

 

[steevp]

I'd like to put in a bid for the line from Penrith to Keswick and Cockermouth. A picturesque journey and a much better way to travel to the Lake District than the overcrowded roads! I know there is a missing bridge over the A66, but it's my (unlimited?) money and I'd love to spend it this way.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

I'd get the West Bay branch line back open. Double track electrified, so why not do the same to Weymouth-Maiden Netwton? I'd also get the Lyme Regis branch back open while I'm there for 1tph to Salisbury/London, and 1tph to West Bay via Yeovil (both stations, operated by leftover 150s from Weymouth electrification, FGW operated)
West Bay however, would receive one SWT from London via Salisbury, one FGW from Bristol and one from Lyme Regis an hour. That would suffice, considering the main port of call would be Bridport but services reversing at West Bay, might as well call there.

 

[Whistler40145]

I think Penrith to Keswick should reopen & maybe through to Cockermouth.

 

[HSTEd]

Further to my earlier comments, I would suggest Shinkansen style routes to Norwich, Brighton, Swansea via Oxford and Bristol and probably in the Scottish Central belt.

Tunneled within central london, allowing the currnet main lines to carry additional local trains and perhaps enabling LO style services along them. (if everything on the fast lines is removed, the slow line trains move to the fast lines and the slow lines become new LO lines).

 

[SS4]

Introduce a local service between Water Orton and Birmingham New Street with new, barriered stations at Castle Vale and for Fort Shopping Centre with a footbridge across the A47.

Divert the Cross City Line into a new, subterranean station (like tube stations) underneath or nearby the existing New St (not sure how feasible it is) with an exit directly to the street bypassing New Street Main.

Speaking of the Cross City quadruple track the core section (Four Oaks - Longbridge) and double track the rest so services can run in case of problems on the line and may enable more Chase Line services to Walsall at least.

edit:

Quad track Birmingham to Coventry/Rugby to free up paths.