Which re-opening would have the best Business Case?

[21C101]

Subject to the Rotherham Parkgate trial being successful, I could see the possibility of Sheffield to Stocksbridge being reopened as a tram-train route... One of the several reasons a reopening of the whole route has never got off the ground is the difficulty in reaching Midland station from the stub of the Woodhead line. Tram-trains of course wouldn't have this problem, and could join the existing tram network either at Wadsley Bridge/Hillsborough or somewhere closer to the city centre near the site of Victoria. Of course if the freight to Stocksbridge drops off completely a regular tram route would be just as likely.

Would that be opened or reopened. I didn't think the Stocksbridge Branch (as opposed to the GCR line to Penistone) had ever had a passenger service.

I would guess t you would probably need an on street extension into the town centre from the old? steelworks.

 

[Abpj17]

It was a great shame when the remodelling at Farringdon cut off the link to Moorgate from the North: very shortsighted in my view with Thameslink 2000 (!) already planned. Can't believe some extra money and thought wasn't devoted to its turnback capabilities at least.

I know - I used to get that service; it was great. Could easily get a seat at Moorgate on the way home. Could have made Farringdon first 8 carriages only. And was largely immune from problems on the southern half of the line.

Not sure about the wheelchair point, the brakes are squealing around there tho - possibly more the curved tracked there rather than gradient though. As above, could have made first 8 wheelchair only at Farringdon. The lifts are right down the south end and ramps/assistance is required - so highly unlikely to travel in the last four. You need to be within shouting distance of the driver when assistance doesn't appear...

 

[21C101]

One of the curious things about these discussions is that the absence of a bus link is taken as a lack of demand and used as a justification not to construct a railway, whereas if a frequent bus service exists, it's said that there's no need to have a railway because the bus is there.

I'm inclined to think that Uckfield and Crowborough (and potentially Tunbridge Wells) would create a steady flow of passengers towards Lewes and Brighton throughout the day, much like Eastbourne, Hastings and Bexhill, as opposed to the more peak focused London traffic.

The line should be extended and the opportunity taken to upgrade the existing section at the same time.

A very good point about the bus catch 22.

I would have thought a Victoria - Bromley South - Orpington - Sevenoaks - Tonbridge - Tun Wells C & W - Groombridge - Crowborough - Uckfield - Lewes - Falmer - Brighton would create a good two way flow. (plenty of space for that on the main line post 2018 thanks to abolition of boat trains and diversion of fast east kent services to CTRL).

I would also have thought that there would be immense potential for Section 106 developments to finance a good part of the reopening costs through large housing developments at places like Groombriddge, Crowborough and Uckfield as well as new "Garden mini Cities" of 10 thousand people or so at Isfield and Barcombe which are beyond the Green Belt.

Mind you, thats probably one reason why there has always been such vociferous opposition to it in some quarters.

 

[edwin_m]

I know - I used to get that service; it was great. Could easily get a seat at Moorgate on the way home. Could have made Farringdon first 8 carriages only. And was largely immune from problems on the southern half of the line.

Not sure about the wheelchair point, the brakes are squealing around there tho - possibly more the curved tracked there rather than gradient though. As above, could have made first 8 wheelchair only at Farringdon. The lifts are right down the south end and ramps/assistance is required - so highly unlikely to travel in the last four. You need to be within shouting distance of the driver when assistance doesn't appear...

Remember Farringdon will become much more of an interchange when Crossrail opens. It wouldn't be workable with four cars of SDO and only the narrow part of the platforms in existence.

 

[Bald Rick]

A very good point about the bus catch 22.

I would also have thought that there would be immense potential for Section 106 developments to finance a good part of the reopening costs through large housing developments at places like Groombriddge, Crowborough and Uckfield as well as new "Garden mini Cities" of 10 thousand people or so at Isfield and Barcombe which are beyond the Green Belt.

Mind you, thats probably one reason why there has always been such vociferous opposition to it in some quarters.

Exactly. Railways need volume. Building new houses gives the volume needed to help justify a (re)opening - as many of the Scottish and Welsh reopenings have demonstrated. I have no doubt that a few thousand new homes somewhere between Uckfield and Lewes would improve the case from 'basket' to at least reasonable. But that's not something palatable to the politicians one suspects.

 

[21C101]

Remember Farringdon will become much more of an interchange when Crossrail opens. It wouldn't be workable with four cars of SDO and only the narrow part of the platforms in existence.

Farringdon astonishingly has been claimed to have more trains a day than Clapham Junction after crossrail opens.

It will almost be Londons version of Berlin Hauptbahnhof where east west and North South lines interchange. (peak service 24 each way TL, 24 each way XR and 25-30 each way Met/Circle/H&C up to 78tph each way)

Moorgate closing was the loss of a bolthole but, as well as the platforms being in the way, extending Barbican and Moorgate to 12 cars was virtually impossible.

Platform 3 at Kentish Town was restored to service to provide a turnback point. Trains are normally not allowed in the core with any sort of fault.

In addition even though southbound trains go d.c. at farringdon, the OHLE goes to City so if d.c. fails they can stay on a.c. to City and turn back there using the crossover.

Northbound trains change to a.c. at City so that if it dosent work they can turn back using the scissors at the south end.

 

[Abpj17]

Edwin - I know, just a little bit of wishful thinking

21C101 - As I suspect you're already aware, the fault invariably seems to develop in the core at the point the power source changes. (Aside from the iffy GPS doors at St Pancras)

 

[Chrisgr31]

Exactly. Railways need volume. Building new houses gives the volume needed to help justify a (re)opening - as many of the Scottish and Welsh reopenings have demonstrated. I have no doubt that a few thousand new homes somewhere between Uckfield and Lewes would improve the case from 'basket' to at least reasonable. But that's not something palatable to the politicians one suspects.

Not only is it not palatable to the politicians its not palatable to the residents. The planned increase in Crowborough is relatively small and even the planned developments have big issues as apparently the schools are full (not sure I believe that one), the sewage processing plant is full (believe that) and the road network is rubbish (believe that).

In addition Crowborough is encircled by an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is within 7km of Ashdown Forest which seems to me any planned development gets booted out on the grounds that the emissions will affect the Forest. The main proposed development is around 200 houses on the south of the town leading down to the railway.

Groombridge is a small village that straddles the Kent/Sussex border. Suspect its in an area of AONB but certainly it will struggle for facilities.

Development in the Wealden area is mainly concentrated around the Polegate and Hailsham areas.

 

[Busaholic]

Farringdon astonishingly has been claimed to have more trains a day than Clapham Junction after crossrail opens.

It will almost be Londons version of Berlin Hauptbahnhof where east west and North South lines interchange. (peak service 24 each way TL, 24 each way XR and 25-30 each way Met/Circle/H&C up to 78tph each way)

Moorgate closing was the loss of a bolthole but, as well as the platforms being in the way, extending Barbican and Moorgate to 12 cars was virtually impossible.

Platform 3 at Kentish Town was restored to service to provide a turnback point. Trains are normally not allowed in the core with any sort of fault.

In addition even though southbound trains go d.c. at farringdon, the OHLE goes to City so if d.c. fails they can stay on a.c. to City and turn back there using the crossover.

Northbound trains change to a.c. at City so that if it dosent work they can turn back using the scissors at the south end.

Ignoring the main-line station, Liverpool Street will have same number of XR and Met etc and more Central Line trains than Farringdon will have TL, but I don't like being pedantic and the thought that these figures dwarf Clapham Junction's is one to ponder. Moorgate might still have been kept for out-of-service trains if it was not feasible to extend the platforms there. Another north to south connection across Central London is urgently needed, with all recent openings and soon-to-be openings (Jubilee, Crossrail, even Crossrail2 being basically east to west). With HS2 in mind, and to relieve pressure on the Northern Line, would like to suggest Euston- Holborn (Kingsway) - Aldwych - Waterloo as the core.

 

[Chrisgr31]

In my opinion the diesels have the same turn round time as EMUs.

There might be no reason for them to have different turn around times however in practice they get in at xx:49 and leave at xx:08 so there are there for 19 minutes and the peak hour trains do this as well. Certainly when I am there to cacth the 18:08 out the electrics seem to have a turn around time of about 10 minutes.

 

[edwin_m]

With HS2 in mind, and to relieve pressure on the Northern Line, would like to suggest Euston- Holborn (Kingsway) - Aldwych - Waterloo as the core.

That was the route proposed for the Cross River Tram, cancelled in about 2008 and also proposed to serve Kings Cross, Camden, Brixton and Peckham. It could have provided about half the capacity of a Tube at much less than half the cost, and would probably have been more convenient to those with heavy luggage travelling between the main termini. But it would have needed a pretty strict (and probably unacceptable) approach to the removal of "essential" vehicles from the roadspace.

Failing that there is the splitting of the Northern being discussed on another thread, which would allow a few more trains per hour on each branch. Crossrail 2 is also proposed to run some Waterloo suburban services from a portal near Wimbledon through Euston to destinations in North-East London, so should relieve this corridor significantly.

 

[Bald Rick]

It will almost be Londons version of Berlin Hauptbahnhof where east west and North South lines interchange. (peak service 24 each way TL, 24 each way XR and 25-30 each way Met/Circle/H&C up to 78tph each way).

There was a letter (possibly an editorial) in Modern Railways about 25 years ago when Thameslink Metro (as the Thameslink Programme was originally called) and Crossrail were both being promoted; the Farringdon of the future was described as 'a downmarket Chatelet Les Halles'.

 

[Dr_Paul]

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 accessibility. Full barriers to both LO and the SE line would help to stop the rampant fare evasion at this station

Very good point -- I've long wondered why the South London Line didn't have a station between Denmark Hill and Clapham North, and why East Brixton wasn't reinstated as the SLL became more heavily used over the years.

I recently travelled on the new Overground service from Clapham Junction for the first time, round to Surrey Quays, and again thought how useful it would be to have a proper interchange at Brixton. The SLL is high up on a viaduct, but I can't see why an interchange with the Victoria to Herne Hill line and the Underground can't be worked out. It would require some work, and would necessitate lifts and/or escalators, and would be pretty expensive, but it would be extremely useful. Brixton is also an important hub for bus travel, and a station serving all three lines here would link into this.

 

[Busaholic]

There was a letter (possibly an editorial) in Modern Railways about 25 years ago when Thameslink Metro (as the Thameslink Programme was originally called) and Crossrail were both being promoted; the Farringdon of the future was described as 'a downmarket Chatelet Les Halles'.

Just a coincidence that Les Halles and Smithfield (nearest station Farringdon) share the same antecedents?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That was the route proposed for the Cross River Tram, cancelled in about 2008 and also proposed to serve Kings Cross, Camden, Brixton and Peckham. It could have provided about half the capacity of a Tube at much less than half the cost, and would probably have been more convenient to those with heavy luggage travelling between the main termini. But it would have needed a pretty strict (and probably unacceptable) approach to the removal of "essential" vehicles from the roadspace.

Failing that there is the splitting of the Northern being discussed on another thread, which would allow a few more trains per hour on each branch. Crossrail 2 is also proposed to run some Waterloo suburban services from a portal near Wimbledon through Euston to destinations in North-East London, so should relieve this corridor significantly.

I'm a great supporter of trams, in the right place, being old enough to just remember the last trams in SE London in 1952. Blackfriars Road was almost literally built for trams and using that route to Kings Cross, continuing via Farringdon Road, although not serving Waterloo would, in my opinion, have met much less opposition and probably been easier to build.

 

[edwin_m]

There was a letter (possibly an editorial) in Modern Railways about 25 years ago when Thameslink Metro (as the Thameslink Programme was originally called) and Crossrail were both being promoted; the Farringdon of the future was described as 'a downmarket Chatelet Les Halles'.

Having been to Chatelet Les Halles a month or so back, I would describe it currently as a downmarket version of what Farringdon was like half way through its rebuilding.

 

[mr_jrt]

I still think the Farringdon should have knocked through Smithfield sidings and extended over the site of the old goods station basement to create Thameslink's 12-car platforms, leaving the old Widened lines Moorgate platforms as they were...(possibly leaving them for the Met to use as loop lines of some variety).

 

[steamybrian]

I still think the Farringdon should have knocked through Smithfield sidings and extended over the site of the old goods station basement to create Thameslink's 12-car platforms, leaving the old Widened lines Moorgate platforms as they were...(possibly leaving them for the Met to use as loop lines of some variety).

Much of that land has been sold for office redevelopment. Being Central London the price of land is £££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££££s.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, this opportunity has been lost. Just a shame that the land wasn't used to build a new station (which could have had an over-site development) rather than being sold off.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes, this opportunity has been lost. Just a shame that the land wasn't used to build a new station (which could have had an over-site development) rather than being sold off.

It was sold long before Thameslink (original) was thought of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Having been to Chatelet Les Halles a month or so back, I would describe it currently as a downmarket version of what Farringdon was like half way through its rebuilding.

My thoughts exactly!

 

[edwin_m]

It was sold long before Thameslink (original) was thought of.

Yes, the critical blockage is that rather horrible pink 80s building to the south-west of the platforms. Shame it wasn't constructed with a re-aligned station in the basement in the way City Thameslink was a few years later.

 

[D6975]

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 ---

I thought the logic behind Uckfield-Lewes was that it would relieve the overcrowded BML by allowing some Eastbourne/Hastings services to run that way, thereby also improving services to Uckfield at the same time. Redoubling where possible and electrification would be required to enable the increase in frequency.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

First reaction is that it's a non starter. Second, after a quick look at googlemaps, it's not so daft after all, as the only bit that's become a road is at Eynsham. Don't know how you'd deal with Witney though...wonder what the MP thinks?

The MP is supportive - he's just asked DfT to look at it.

Oxford-Witney is a lot easier than you'd think. Like you say, Eynsham is the only major obstacle before Witney, and you could just about thread the line north of the previous alignment (now a road). You'd have to tread carefully to avoid disturbing the historic site of Eynsham Abbey but it's doable with a few road junction improvements.

In Witney the trick is that you stay south of the A40 and build the station near the Ducklington Lane roundabout. There's land enough for a big car park. It's a mile's walk from the Market Cross so not too bad.

 

[The Planner]

I suspect the Witney cost would explode as everyone would jump on the back of it. The first thing someone would try and tack on to the cost is redoubling of the Cotswold line to at least Yarnton if not a complete re-double as they would claim its needed. You are the on to a new alignment to Ducklington which is public inquiry and TWO world. The car park would need to be huge as it would become a huge draw which would probably need road improvements at the A40/A415 junction. Then the gravel pits and South Leigh and a mile is a fair old walk from the centre, how far is it from the majority of housing?.

 

[Abpj17]

Failing that there is the splitting of the Northern being discussed on another thread, which would allow a few more trains per hour on each branch. Crossrail 2 is also proposed to run some Waterloo suburban services from a portal near Wimbledon through Euston to destinations in North-East London, so should relieve this corridor significantly.

Northern is an old and deep line though. For passengers with significant luggage, it's far from the best.

Hmmm, and on the moorgate sidings, is there a precedent anywhere for a platform split? E.g. platforms serving e.g. carriages 1-3 and 6-12? (Or just all far too dangerous and complicated for the sake of a lovely little branch)

 

[route:oxford]

The car park would need to be huge as it would become a huge draw which would probably need road improvements at the A40/A415 junction.

A new railway connection that is likely to be very busy and popular - how can that possibly be a bad thing?

Carterton, poplation 15,000 would have to be served too.

 

[edwin_m]

Northern is an old and deep line though. For passengers with significant luggage, it's far from the best.

That was one of the attractions of the Cross River Tram. But if went as slowly as the buses do in Central London (over an hour from Victoria to KX recently, mid-afternoon so not the busiest time) it wouldn't be worth bothering with.

As to depth, newer lines usually have to go deeper than any existing stuff in order to pass beneath everything (though from the Crossrail TV programme I gather it is above the Northern at TCR, otherwise all that threading the needle stuff wouldn't apply).

 

[21C101]

A new railway connection that is likely to be very busy and popular - how can that possibly be a bad thing?

Carterton, poplation 15,000 would have to be served too.

I must admit when looking at the map it does look odd that the Witney Line ever shut. However it never had more than a handful of trains a day, and I suspect in the sixties the buses just zipped straight into central Oxford before congestion took hold

If you did it the logical thing would be double track to between Eynsham and Witney then single long siding with stations at Eynsham, Witney and Carterton (terminus). The flatness in the area makes new alignment feasible.

Logical thing to do would be to extend the Padd - Oxford terminators along it. You would of course have to electrify it. Would imagine that a new Witney station alongside A40 would have immense parkway potential as another poster suggested.

That said, Hanborough is clearly Witney Parkway in all but name (direct route along A4095, with virtually all trains stopping there now, hourly bus from Witney journey time 21 vmins, and car park stuffed to the gunnels with cars on every nearby verge on the A4095 on the google maps streetview photo (I recall it used to have about 2 trains a day like Combe and Finstock) and I suspect much of the traffic on a reopened Witney branch would be abstracted from the Cotswold line stations so whether it would improve revenue much is another matter.

It looks to me like rebuilding Hanborough as Witney Parkway with a very large car park and the no.233 bus service increased from hourly to half hourly between Witney and Long Hanborough Station, with evening services, would be a more realistic option.

To be honest some serious renamings on lines like the cotswold line would help get some towns on the rail map:

eg

Radley - Abingdon Parkway
Hanborough - Witney & Eynsham Parkway
Charlbury - Charlbury & Chipping Norton Parkway
Shipton - Burford Parkway
Kingham - Stow Parkway

Suprised Shipton has so few trains, I thought most trains used to stop there.

 

[Abpj17]

That was one of the attractions of the Cross River Tram. But if went as slowly as the buses do in Central London (over an hour from Victoria to KX recently, mid-afternoon so not the busiest time) it wouldn't be worth bothering with.

As to depth, newer lines usually have to go deeper than any existing stuff in order to pass beneath everything (though from the Crossrail TV programme I gather it is above the Northern at TCR, otherwise all that threading the needle stuff wouldn't apply).

New and deep is ok though because decent escalators and lifts are installed and wide corridors (like the newer sections of the Jubilee line). The old, deep stations like Bank's Northern line and Covent Garden to name two horrors are awful for anyone with luggage.

The moment passed decades if not centuries ago for a tram in central london; anything efficient has to be underground (or more controversially in the air)

 

[21C101]

New and deep is ok though because decent escalators and lifts are installed and wide corridors (like the newer sections of the Jubilee line). The old, deep stations like Bank's Northern line and Covent Garden to name two horrors are awful for anyone with luggage.

The moment passed decades if not centuries ago for a tram in central london; anything efficient has to be underground (or more controversially in the air)

You could have the tram leave Waterloo over Waterloo Bridge on a reserved lane occupying what is now the fast lanes of the dual carriageway bridge then use the Kingsway Subway as far as Southampton Row, then its a short street run up Woburn Place (which could be closed to through traffic with local traffic only) to Euston.

You wouldn't be able to use the old stations due to the DDA, but building new underground tram stations at Aldwych and Holborn should not be beyond the wit of man.

 

[NotATrainspott]

How much government support does Witney need? Many reopenings are suggested primarily to boost the economy of areas that have seen problems, by giving them access to jobs in large cities and enabling their young people to stay and commute to work rather than need to move out and increase housing pressure elsewhere. If there's a social case for putting Witney on the map then it is a perfectly reasonable scheme but if it's just to mean that people don't have to drive as far to get to the train that would take them to London anyway then it should be more of a scheme for a franchise to invest in, like Evergreen 3, rather than a priority of the DfT.

How I see it is that on top of the Altnabreac conditions for success, which are mostly those that deal with the economic/commuter market, there is another, lesser condition of the tourist and cultural value of a location. I don't doubt that Witney may be a nice place to live but it's not really that 'special' in the grand scheme of things. Places like St Andrews, on the other hand, would benefit far more from a tourist aspect if connected to the rail network. On top of that there is actually a housing market justification because the town is tiny, full of students (meaning high rents) and to top that off a large enough proportion of the student population is rich enough that there is no real limit on how much they will pay for accommodation. A standard four-bedroom house for rent can easily be £400 per person per month to rent on a student contract, which makes it basically impossible for locals to afford living there and since the town is so small and public transport is relatively poor, it's not like in a larger town or city where it is most often possible to live in a non-student area where rents are relatively normal. If you built the railway, it would basically open up the whole of Fife and Dundee to house people living or working there, which would then work well with the enhanced job possibilities from increased tourism (it would be madness for the ICEC operator to extend a few Edinburgh IEPs up there, with the golf and everything).