Which re-opening would have the best Business Case?

[tbtc]

As far as I am aware there are only 2 current significant re-openings in delivery rather than 'pie in the sky'

1. Borders Rail and
2. East-West Rail.

If the Business Cases have stacked up for these, what other re-openings make the most sense and why?

Matlock to Buxton? Woodhead? A no-brainer for me must be the Ivanhoe line from Leicester to Burton. Most of the infrastructure is there already and it connects quite a number of towns that need economic regeneration that are a long way from existing stations.

I'm not convinced that the Waverley Line was ever about the BCR - it was about the tokenism of serving a political area without a train station rather than because it had a better business case than (say) Alloa to Dunfermline, Thornton to Leven, redoubling other lines...

...but, since you mention the Business Cases, it's funny how we've heard nothing from the SELRAP people since they were trumpeting benefits that were "6.5 times the total costs" of reopening the Skipton - Colne line - a truly astonishing figure if true. If...

(I did ask a few times what level of reopening they were talking about - a simple Parry People Mover style shuttle built on the cheap, a Network Rail standard line that'd allow the Colne Pacers to extend on a single track to Skipton, a double track electrified line for longer distance services from Liverpool to Hull.. but nobody seemed to know what the 6.5:1 ratio was actually in relation to)

A lot of the suggestions you'll get will be "solutions in need of a problem" - like Woodhead (which became fairly pointless once the heavy freight went) - if we want new lines then we shouldn't restrict ourselves to following old lines.

Not a chance.

Cross City to Burton and Ivanhoe if councils properly got behind it and sorted out a chord at the Leicester end. A big section 106 agreement would help both although the Cross City extension is more likely.

Interesting - hadn't heard of that plan

To have a good business case you need:
A: lots of passengers
B: low cost of restoration
C: low cost of operation

The schemes that will deliver this usually have the following features:
1: Serve a town(s) of 10,000 population not currently connected by rail.
2: Connect that town(s) with a major city that provides good employment opportunities (broadly the UK cities with 300,000+ populations but also some smaller places with very strong economies).
3: Utilise a disused line or broadly unobstructed disused alignment
4: Operate as an extension of an existing service to minimise stock requirement and terminal capacity usage.

Once you know these factors you can work out within 10 minutes that your proposed reopening is not viable if it does not meet A, B, C, 1, 2 and 3. You can get away without 4 if you are serving a terminal with spare capacity but it will impact the business case.

The other reopening that can work is where you connect an existing rail served town to a different major employment centre from its current connections or by a significantly quicker route. Otherwise the same rules apply.

Plus "Z" - politics?

That's why we're getting the Waverley Line re-opened to Galashiels (the LibDem's price for going into coalition with Scottish Labour) but we aren't getting the Leamside Line re-opened to serve Washington (a much bigger place, prime commuter belt, but a less emotive cause!).

Indeed. Benefit:cost ratios only seem to be used to trash proposals.

Pesky meddling facts

the Peak line, potentially opening up local tourism, providing a new faster inter-regional route between the North West and the East Midlands, an alternative route from Manchester to London, relieving the Hope Valley etc.

Since the Hope Valley generally sees two/three/four coach DMUs (but Sheffield/ Stockport/ Manchester Piccadilly can obviously accommodate *much* longer trains), it strikes me that there's a simpler way to provide more seats on the Hope Valley line?

An "alternative" route to Manchester? What use would that be most of the time? It's a fairly flimsy case, sorry.

The Tottenham South Curve maybe ?

I thought that these threads were for impractical reopenings through scenic areas, rather than practical suggestions!

Seriously though, a direct link from Tottenham Hale (on the Liverpool Street - Stansted/ Cambridge line) to South Tottenham (on the GOBLIN) sounds a good idea - especially as the GOBLIN has insufficient links to the rest of the lines in London. Sounds reasonable

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Finally a new line as follows. New Chord from Bedford Bletchley line facing north to Midland Main slows line facing south, north of Ampthill Tunnel, then leaving the Midland Main line slows facing south immediately after Luton Airport Parkway, into a tunnel with a station under the airport terminal at Luton then along a new route east and under the East Coast Main line to join the Hertford - Stevenage line just south of Stevenage.

That's pushing the definition of 're-opening' a bit, surely

 

[CockneySparrow]

There's a big local campaign to get Cambridge-Haverhill reopened, partly as Haverhill has plans to double in size.

Not in a million years, track bed built on and a giant supermarket at Haverhill, oh not forgetting a motorway across the track
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
March to Wisbech, Kings Lynn to Swaffham, Kings Lynn to Hunstanton/Wells and March to Spalding should re open but with exception of the Bramley line all the rest are like the Haverhill situation

The Coalville line might be viable

 

[adrock1976]

The Glasgow Central Railway from Exhibition Centre station (formerly Finnieston) to Maryhill Central.

This would provide somewhere for the additional services that are proposed to run through Glasgow Central low level (I believe from Whifflet via the Rutherglen & Coatbridge Railway - both the R&CR and GCR became part of the Caledonian) avoiding the congestion at Partick.

Furthermore, Kelvinbridge and Botanic Gardens stations could be reopened, which would provide an interaction with the Glasgow Underground at Kelvinbridge, and provide those parts of the Great Western Road corridor with access to rail services (the first station along Great Western Road out of the city is Anniesland, at least 4 miles away from the reference point of the former GPO building in George Square). Additionally, central Maryhill, the Wyndford (birthplace of Robert Carlyle), and maybe Ruchill (birthplace of Jimmy Sommerville) would have better access to the rail network too.

Eastwards, the GCR could be reopened from Bridgeton Cross through the tunnels underneath London Road, with the station reopened at Springfield Road near the stadium. Furthermore, it could join up with the R & CR at Carmyle. Again, this would provide those parts of the city with better access to the rail network.

In peace

Adam

 

[yorksrob]

I'm not convinced that the Waverley Line was ever about the BCR - it was about the tokenism of serving a political area without a train station rather than because it had a better business case than (say) Alloa to Dunfermline, Thornton to Leven, redoubling other lines...

Probably something about having a Government that's prepared to invest in the railway as a network serving the whole country, rather than just a high speed inter-city race track and London.

 

[Altnabreac]

I'm not convinced that the Waverley Line was ever about the BCR - it was about the tokenism of serving a political area without a train station rather than because it had a better business case than (say) Alloa to Dunfermline, Thornton to Leven, redoubling other lines...

Plus "Z" - politics?

That's why we're getting the Waverley Line re-opened to Galashiels (the LibDem's price for going into coalition with Scottish Labour) but we aren't getting the Leamside Line re-opened to serve Washington (a much bigger place, prime commuter belt, but a less emotive cause!).

Borders Rail has an excellent business case from Gorebridge northwards and will thus be a success in terms of filling the trains.

The Galashiels bit is happening for 3 reasons, none of which are captured by a traditional BCR:

Firstly as you mention the 2003 coalition agreement between Labour and the Lib Dems ensured the development of the Bill that developed the line. Worth noting that other projects of this era that passed at Bill stage such as EARL, GARL and Edinburgh Trams were not subsequently supported by the SNP government so this was no guarantee of it being built on its own.

Secondly Scottish Borders suffered from structural employment decline (especially in Textiles) during this period and the rail link was prioritised as an important part of accessing new job opportunities.

Thirdly the Edinburgh & Lothian's Structure Plan identified the need for new housing outside Edinburgh but accessible by public transport. Borders Rail in both Midlothian and Gala can help to deliver this housing growth but traditional BCRs are poor at capturing these benefits. These things can be chicken and egg as Business Cases refuse to take into account patronage from unbuilt homes as they might never be built. Developers on the other hand don't want to build homes until the transport infrastructure is in place.

This Edinburgh commuting demand can also be seen in other schemes such as Winchburgh station or for one which is already operational see the rapid housing growth in Armadale around the new station.

As you say political considerations are important too. A supportive funder is essential as is an enthusiastic local authority. Clackmannanshire, West Lothian and Scottish Borders have all banged the pro-rail drum, helping their rail projects advance while by contrast Falkirk have been ambivalent about projects such as Grangemouth or Bonnybridge which have made less progress.

As regards English reopenings they are a completely different political situation, as with no powerful regional funding body to drive them forwards they will always struggle. I tend to think the failed Elected Assembly vote for the NE was a missed opportunity for transport schemes especially.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Not a chance.

Cross City to Burton and Ivanhoe if councils properly got behind it and sorted out a chord at the Leicester end. A big section 106 agreement would help both although the Cross City extension is more likely.

I think the other issue with the Ivanhoe line is that the track would need to be re-laid between Burton and Leicester due to its poor condition. At the moment it resembles the kind of ride that you would find at a fun fair.

Given the number of diversions that run between Wichnor Junction and Lichfield I'm guessing that the track is in pretty good nick. In which case surely the only significant cost would be electrification of the route and re-opening the bay platform at Burton.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Since the Hope Valley generally sees two/three/four coach DMUs (but Sheffield/ Stockport/ Manchester Piccadilly can obviously accommodate *much* longer trains), it strikes me that there's a simpler way to provide more seats on the Hope Valley line?

An "alternative" route to Manchester? What use would that be most of the time? It's a fairly flimsy case, sorry.

Reopening the line between Matlock and Peak Forest Junction would improve journey times between the East Midlands and Manchester. However I accept that it would be difficult to make a case for reducing existing levels of service to Sheffield.

 

[physics34]

Uckfield to Lewes, or at the very least, re double tracking the current route.

 

[Bishopstone]

Guildford to Cranleigh?

 

[stanley T]

Matlock to Buxton. As far as I know, the trackbed and tunnels are all in good nick.

The biggest benefit would be Bedford to Cambridge, or at least to join the ECML slow lines at Sandy and then via Hitchin. Some of the trackbed is built over, at Sandy especially, and nothing seems to be happening.

 

[Morgsie]

What about the Birmingham Camp Hill Lines?

 

[bussnapperwm]

What about the Birmingham Camp Hill Lines?

Or Walsall to Stourbridge via Dudley (but with a junction for trains to serve the intu centre at Merry Hill following the old monorail alignment between the Waterfront and Merry Hill in lieu of a station at Round Oak? Or a PPM shuttle?)

 

[Bald Rick]

Abertillery - Aberbeeg, combined with improvements further south. 2 miles, and hooks up one of the most deprived towns in the country to the jobs and opportunities in Cardiff and (hopefully) Newport.

 

[theageofthetra]

Not a reopening as such but a complete rebuilding of Brixton to allow interchange with LO and Victoria line with one combined underground concourse and full accessability. Full barriers to both LO and the SE line would help to stop the rampant fare evasion at this station

 

[northwichcat]

From what I've heard, NR didn't really want it open as it's too useful as a diversionary route when the Crewe to Chester line is closed for whatever reason.

If the line was re-opened for regular passenger use it would likely be upgraded to have 50mph running which could cut over 15 minutes off Crewe-Holyhead diversions. If that's done alongside the planned improvements to the Leftwich viaduct then Crewe-Holyhead via Middlewich would be 20 minutes faster than it is currently.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

nothing from the SELRAP people since they were trumpeting benefits that were "6.5 times the total costs" of reopening the Skipton - Colne line - a truly astonishing figure if true.

When I tried to find out who came up with that figure it turns out that the figure is just a SELRAP prediction which they publicised in the hope of getting funding for an updated independent consultant's report to be carried out. They based their prediction on 414,000 new journeys rising to 620,000 within 10 years of opening.

 

[Fincra5]

I don't think that should take priority cos it's merely a strategic diversionary route rather than a sizeable community that would genuinely benefit from the re introduction of rail services

Well it would also relieve the pressure on the BML... as passengers could go via Uckfield onto different trains.

Would also be better for those who live in the high weald and would like to go to the coast without driving, going via ECR, or getting a bus...

Its a mere 8miles or so... nothing.

 

[frodshamfella]

The links to both Burscough lines often have been mentioned as worthy.

 

[Bayum]

I think I'd seen an article previously that noted should the railway line to Wetherby on the border of West and North Yorkshire be rebuilt or was never closed, it would be a maximum revenue line - or something to that effect.

 

[TBY-Paul]

To have a good business case you need:
A: lots of passengers
B: low cost of restoration
C: low cost of operation

The schemes that will deliver this usually have the following features:
1: Serve a town(s) of 10,000 population not currently connected by rail.
2: Connect that town(s) with a major city that provides good employment opportunities (broadly the UK cities with 300,000+ populations but also some smaller places with very strong economies).
3: Utilise a disused line or broadly unobstructed disused alignment
4: Operate as an extension of an existing service to minimise stock requirement and terminal capacity usage.

Once you know these factors you can work out within 10 minutes that your proposed reopening is not viable if it does not meet A, B, C, 1, 2 and 3. You can get away without 4 if you are serving a terminal with spare capacity but it will impact the business case.

The other reopening that can work is where you connect an existing rail served town to a different major employment centre from its current connections or by a significantly quicker route. Otherwise the same rules apply.

Using the above criteria, I would think Nunthorpe to Guisborough must have a reasonable case.

 

[Altnabreac]

Using the above criteria, I would think Nunthorpe to Guisborough must have a reasonable case.

I would say the ones where it fails are probably 2 (is Middlesbrough attractive enough as an employment destination for a good BCR?) and 3 (Alignment has significant encroachment thus increasing reinstatement costs.)

Not saying its impossible but it doesn't easily tick all 4 boxes which virtually all successful recent reopenings have.

 

[TBY-Paul]

Guisborough gets more and more planning applications year on year, and each one tends to be further and further west. I wouldn't be surprised to find the old Pinchinthorpe Station surrounded by Housing with-in the next 10-20, so now would be a good time to re-open the line. It wouldn't need to go all the way to the old Guisborough station site, But somewhere east of Pinchinthorpe would be a start, before the land gets completely built over.
As an added bonus, the line would provide a good link to James Cook Hospital now there is a station on that site.

 

[jopsuk]

I thought that these threads were for impractical reopenings through scenic areas, rather than practical suggestions!

Seriously though, a direct link from Tottenham Hale (on the Liverpool Street - Stansted/ Cambridge line) to South Tottenham (on the GOBLIN) sounds a good idea - especially as the GOBLIN has insufficient links to the rest of the lines in London. Sounds reasonable

Tottenham South Curve is an existing, indeed electrified, double track line linking South Tottenham to the line south from Tottenham Hale. To connect Tottenham Hale to GOBLIN would need the North curve, currently mainly a scrapyard, rebuilt. But then you'd be trying to run trains onto an already hilariously congested bit of track. If you want an impractical and highly expensive upgrade for the area, you'd run a fully grade separated pair of tracks from Hackney Down to Harlow Town, take out all the level crossings and then you'd have capacity for metro-type operations to go on to GOBLIN.

 

[nw1]

Guildford to Cranleigh?

I do wonder why that ever closed, given Cranleigh is quite a sizable place and not far from London. But I get the impression that Beeching closures had shady motives anyway.

Cranleigh could be worked by detaching a portion off one of the London to Haslemere or Portsmouth stoppers.

More reopenings (sure this has come up before, but what the hell...)

Southampton to Fawley - there's a line there already. The ferry is probably the most convenient link for Hythe to Southampton but for longer-distance journeys, a rail link to the well-populated Waterside area would be useful. I think the service pattern has been suggested before - alter the Salisbury locals to run Salisbury-Romsey-Eastleigh-Southampton-Totton-Fawley.

Castleman's Corkscrew west of Brockenhurst - too expensive to ever get reopened I'm sure, but would it give a fairly well-populated area (Ringwood-Ferndown-Wimborne) a rail link to both Southampton and Bournemouth, significant employment centres. It might improve access to Bournemouth Airport as well.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well it would also relieve the pressure on the BML... as passengers could go via Uckfield onto different trains.

Except it doesn't, much. The Uckfield trains are already full at Croydon in the peak. There's no capacity for more trains north of Croydon after Thameslink.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Its a mere 8miles or so... nothing.

Nothing = £150m+
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would also be better for those who live in the high weald and would like to go to the coast without driving, going via ECR, or getting a bus...

What, both of them?

 

[HowardGWR]

Castleman's Corkscrew west of Brockenhurst - too expensive to ever get reopened I'm sure, but would it give a fairly well-populated area (Ringwood-Ferndown-Wimborne) a rail link to both Southampton and Bournemouth, significant employment centres. It might improve access to Bournemouth Airport as well.

That has been suggested, IIRC, by Michael Roberts of ATOC.

 

[ainsworth74]

I would say the ones where it fails are probably 2 (is Middlesbrough attractive enough as an employment destination for a good BCR?) and 3 (Alignment has significant encroachment thus increasing reinstatement costs.)

There is significant traffic in the morning/vening peak on the road between Middlesbrough and Guisborough which suggests there is significant demand between the two certainly Middlesbrough is one of the main employment hubs in the area.

The alignment isn't actually all that bad until you get in towards the site of the old station (which is now covered by a care home). Certainly it would be possible to get in towards Guisborough itself without too much difficulty. Though you would need to deal with the nature walk/cycle path that uses the old track bed from the edge of Guisborough all the way to the old Guisborough Junction!

On the whole I think that Nunthorpe - Guisborough would be a good candidate. But I feel (even with my local bias) that it probably falls into the category of 'nice to have' rather than 'essential' when it comes to re-opening lines.

 

[Howardh]

It's been mentioned loads of times on this forum before so I'll just mention again that a town the size of Leigh should have it's rail links restored, especially as it's a large commuter town. Where the station would go is another matter, a station for Leigh could end up way out of town and simply be a P+R, not much use for foot passengers.
Obviously the original line and station can't be reopened, but links to the original path could be and go from there.
If it doesn't get trains it needs trams!

 

[21C101]

I do wonder why that ever closed, given Cranleigh is quite a sizable place and not far from London. But I get the impression that Beeching closures had shady motives anyway.

Cranleigh could be worked by detaching a portion off one of the London to Haslemere or Portsmouth stoppers.

The problem was that it was a slow single track line infested with level crossings. As early as 1950 it had only 8 trains a day with two extras from Guildford to Cranleigh. It would have needed extensive investment to modernise it and at the time the bus was probably almost as fast from Cranleigh as the train- as was the case in most places outside London in the 1960. It was only after the lines were lost that urban congestion came to the provinces slowing down interurban bus services and making them unreliable.

Castleman's Corkscrew west of Brockenhurst - too expensive to ever get reopened I'm sure, but would it give a fairly well-populated area (Ringwood-Ferndown-Wimborne) a rail link to both Southampton and Bournemouth, significant employment centres. It might improve access to Bournemouth Airport as well.

I could never understand why that closed, however AUIU the populations of those places have massively grown since the 1960s. Once it was bypassed by the new line to Bournemouth it has an irregular roughly two hourly service and took a very long way round to Bournemouth (in 1950 Journey time from Ringwood to Bournemouth West was 54 minutes), so everyone went by Bus unless they were going to London. (the Ringwood - Christchurch line closed in the 1930s)

If you started again you would need to build a new alignment radial light railway partially on street from Bournemouth Town Centre to the airport then onto Ferndown where it would split into two Branches, one to Ringwood and Verwood, the other to Wimborne, Corfe Mullen, Broadstone and Poole.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Except it doesn't, much. The Uckfield trains are already full at Croydon in the peak. There's no capacity for more trains north of Croydon after Thameslink.

This widely reported and accepted urban myth really needs to be put to rest.


If you do the following you can gain massive extra capacity to Brighton without using a single extra train path to London:

* extend the 12 Car peak hour London Tunbridge Wells Thameslinks starting in 2018 from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne via Lewes

* replace the (peak) Half Hourly London - Uckfield Turbostar with two Twelve Car trains an hour to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne via Lewes

* Extend the Half Hourly Watford/Milton Keyes to South Croydon Service to call at stations to Oxted Offpeak and stations to East Grinstead (Peak) using 8 car trains (which is already proposed for the route)

* Run the Peak Hour 12 Car Thameslinks that are due to to go to East Grinstead to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne Via Lewes instead.

Thats six 12 car trains an hour from London to Brighton via Uckfield without a single extra train path in London used.

 

[Bald Rick]

This widely reported and accepted urban myth really needs to be put to rest.


If you do the following you can gain massive extra capacity to Brighton without using a single extra train path to London:

* extend the 12 Car peak hour London Tunbridge Wells Thameslinks starting in 2018 from Tunbridge Wells to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne via Lewes

* replace the (peak) Half Hourly London - Uckfield Turbostar with two Twelve Car trains an hour to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne via Lewes

* Extend the Half Hourly Watford/Milton Keyes to South Croydon Service to call at stations to Oxted Offpeak and stations to East Grinstead (Peak) using 8 car trains (which is already proposed for the route)

* Run the Peak Hour 12 Car Thameslinks that are due to to go to East Grinstead to Brighton, Seaford or Eastbourne Via Lewes instead.

Thats six 12 car trains an hour from London to Brighton via Uckfield without a single extra train path in London used.

I'm afraid it's not a myth. See the emerging Sussex Route strategy. Every peak path is taken. And as the good folk of Croydon will testify, all the trains are full. Routing the trains via the wilds of Sussex won't make them any less full. All the above does is shuffle the pack. But to pick up the points:

There are no London Bridge Tunbridge Wells Thameslink trains in any timetable spec for 2018 or beyond, and there is no capacity at Tunbridge Wells (or the line up to London Bridge) for additional peak trains. The existing Tunbridge Wells starters are full and standing arriving into London now.

The good folk of East Grinstead and stations to South Croydon will not be impressed at losing most if not all of their London Bridge services. These are 8/10/12 car now - and full at London Bridge.

The peak half hourly Uckfield services will be 230m long (10 x 23) within 2 years, maybe sooner. And full at London Bridge.

 

[The Ham]

The problem was that it was a slow single track line infested with level crossings. As early as 1950 it had only 8 trains a day with two extras from Guildford to Cranleigh. It would have needed extensive investment to modernise it and at the time the bus was probably almost as fast from Cranleigh as the train- as was the case in most places outside London in the 1960. It was only after the lines were lost that urban congestion came to the provinces slowing down interurban bus services and making them unreliable.

Rail passenger numbers have grown a lot since the 50's and 60's. For instance it wasn't that long ago that Fleet had two trains an hour, it now has three. Based on that it would increase Cranleigh to 12 to 15 trains a day (or one per hour over a 12 to 15 hour period - 0700-1900 to 0600-2100). However given the tidal nature of the flow I would expect that there would be a service or to up before any services back down to allow one or two services back down after the up services had finished.