Which re-opening would have the best Business Case?

[TBY-Paul]

Leamside line Ferryhill -Pelaw. You could then extend the Metro to Washington which has been petitioned for in Parliament recently and diverts freights away from the Ferryhill -Newcastle section of the ECML.

Plus if the Leamside line is reinstated freight could continue to Stockton on the freight only line and head south through Yarm and rejoining the ECML at Northallerton where the ECML is 4 tracks, releasing paths between Newcastle & Northallerton.

That's one thing that puzzles me, why is Stockton to Ferryhill freight only. Surely it must be possible to send the odd XC or TPE service from Northallerton to Newcastle via Eaglescliffe/Stockton.

 

[Suraggu]

That's one thing that puzzles me, why is Stockton to Ferryhill freight only. Surely it must be possible to send the odd XC or TPE service from Northallerton to Newcastle via Eaglescliffe/Stockton.

Speed limits and infrastructure on that link line. Sending passenger services that way would increase travel length and time and wouldn't increase passenger numberS.

 

[TBY-Paul]

That's one thing that puzzles me, why is Stockton to Ferryhill freight only. Surely it must be possible to send the odd XC or TPE service from Northallerton to Newcastle via Eaglescliffe/Stockton.

Speed limits and infrastructure on that link line. Sending passenger services that way would increase travel length and time and wouldn't increase passenger numberS.

Passenger Numbers at Eaglescliffe since Grand Central stated calling would suggest the numbers are there. Upgrading the line for Passenger train use would also create a useful alternative route should there be any problems on the ECML.

 

[Suraggu]

Passenger Numbers at Eaglescliffe since Grand Central stated calling would suggest the numbers are there. Upgrading the line for Passenger train use would also create a useful alternative route should there be any problems on the ECML.

Eaglescliffe could soon have more London services with the East Coast franchise Running Middlesbrough -Kings Cross services via Darlington we believe.

 

[TBY-Paul]

Eaglescliffe could soon have more London services with the East Coast franchise Running Middlesbrough -Kings Cross services via Darlington we believe.

I can't see a Middlesbrough-King's Cross service going via Darlington. It would involve a reversal for one thing as well as crossing from the Tees valley line across the ECML into the station and then back out.
I was under the impression it would go via Yarm, and if that is the case there would be little point in calling at Eaglescliffe as EAG is only served by Darlington to Saltburn trains plus, of course, Grand Central. If anything Thornaby would be better, as there are more onwards travel opportunities, but realistically, would a Kings Cross- Middlesbrough service call at both Middlesbrough and Thornaby, I don't think so.

Because you need to consider onward travel, upgrading the Stillington line to provide an alternate route from Northallerton to Newcastle would open up better connexions to both sides of the river tees. Both Eaglescliffe or Stockton would make an Ideal hub, with the right services, onward "direct" services could be provided to Thornaby, Middlesbrough (Tees Valley Line eastbound) Billingham, Hartlepool(Durham Coast), Allens West, Dinsdale (Tees Valley Westbound).

If at sometime someone decided to create a river crossing east of Middlesbrough station, then things would change, But I can't see that ever happening

 

[IanXC]

If anything Thornaby would be better, as there are more onwards travel opportunities, but realistically, would a Kings Cross- Middlesbrough service call at both Middlesbrough and Thornaby, I don't think so.

I'm no expert on the area but my understanding is that Thornaby has a more affluent catchment, in a very similar way to Brough and Hull. Remember that with 1 daily exception (for pathing reasons), every single passenger train which passes through Brough calls there.

 

[Suraggu]

I can't see a Middlesbrough-King's Cross service going via Darlington. It would involve a reversal for one thing as well as crossing from the Tees valley line across the ECML into the station and then back out.
I was under the impression it would go via Yarm, and if that is the case there would be little point in calling at Eaglescliffe as EAG is only served by Darlington to Saltburn trains plus, of course, Grand Central. If anything Thornaby would be better, as there are more onwards travel opportunities, but realistically, would a Kings Cross- Middlesbrough service call at both Middlesbrough and Thornaby, I don't think so.

Because you need to consider onward travel, upgrading the Stillington line to provide an alternate route from Northallerton to Newcastle would open up better connexions to both sides of the river tees. Both Eaglescliffe or Stockton would make an Ideal hub, with the right services, onward "direct" services could be provided to Thornaby, Middlesbrough (Tees Valley Line eastbound) Billingham, Hartlepool(Durham Coast), Allens West, Dinsdale (Tees Valley Westbound).

If at sometime someone decided to create a river crossing east of Middlesbrough station, then things would change, But I can't see that ever happening

Also remember Darlington station is to be remodelled with a new part of the station on the disused land next to the Up Fast including bays for the Tees valley trains.

There is every point on reversing at Darlington. You would be surprises how many Saltburn/Middlesbrough/Thornaby/Eaglescliffe -London tickets routed EC and connections.
We are not talking of an hourly service, perhaps a two hourly service at most BUT it could mean that Edinburgh -London services could occasionally omit Darlington and run Newcastle -York cutting down journey times on the EDB -KGX services whilst Darlington still continues with 2 trains to London per hour as per the Invite To Tender.

 

[ainsworth74]

If anything Thornaby would be better, as there are more onwards travel opportunities, but realistically, would a Kings Cross- Middlesbrough service call at both Middlesbrough and Thornaby, I don't think so.

I'm no expert on the area but my understanding is that Thornaby has a more affluent catchment, in a very similar way to Brough and Hull. Remember that with 1 daily exception (for pathing reasons), every single passenger train which passes through Brough calls there.

I would be staggered if a Kings Cross - Middlesbrough service omitted Thornaby it's a reasonable railhead for Stockton and the rest the western end of the Tees Valley. Certainly TPE services do a good trade on their calls at Thornaby.

To me the logical calling after Northallerton would be Yarm/Eaglescliffe (one or the other), Thornaby and Middlesbrough. Between Yarm or Eaglescliffe I'd probably pick Eaglescliffe as it's developing well with a new ticket office, new waiting areas, new PIS and an enlarged car park. Yarm has all of those facilities (well no ticket office but it does have free parking!) but I don't think it's catchment area is as good as Eaglescliffe's.

Also remember Darlington station is to be remodelled with a new part of the station on the disused land next to the Up Fast including bays for the Tees valley trains.

Is that confirmed now? I was under the impression that it was an option that Tees Valley Metro wanted but that it hadn't been taken up by Network Rail. If so when is it due to take place?

There is every point on reversing at Darlington. You would be surprises how many Saltburn/Middlesbrough/Thornaby/Eaglescliffe -London tickets routed EC and connections.

I'm sure there's plenty (and I use some of them) but I'm not sure how those tickets show that there's a reason to go via Darlington? Surely if there's a Middlesbrough - London service and it goes via Yarm (which I think it will) then a number of those Middlesbrough/Redcar/Saltburn passengers would transfer onto that service in any case.

 

[edwin_m]

Also remember Darlington station is to be remodelled with a new part of the station on the disused land next to the Up Fast including bays for the Tees valley trains.

Pretty sure it's NOT confirmed.

 

[tbtc]

The Tata Steel report into the a reopening makes for promising reading. The report says that paths exist for 1tph to Edinburgh and 1tph to Dundee, both of which with significantly improved journey times over buses. The line would realistically be a new railway, but it would use the former alignment in the town itself and could sustain a platform up to 257m long, with passive provision for a run-around loop and a second platform for charter trains (as with the Borders line). With total capital costs of around £100m the line would then be revenue-neutral, even with the abstracted demand from Leuchars (which in any case would still be served by long distance trains as it is today, and would still have a decent bus link to St Andrews due to the geography of the roads).

If I had to bet money I would guess that Leven and St Andrews would be done together as part of the Fife Circle electrification, especially if that electrification and future resignalling would enable more paths and capacity across the Forth Bridge and through Fife.

Interesting, cheers

Whilst I don't there are any paths at the moment, electrification should mean EMUs with shorter dwell times than the 158/170s currently have through Fife which may mean an extra path of two between the stoppers.

Since the bulk of the Aberdeen services are non stop from Haymarket to Leuchars, any diversion of the current Edinburgh - Dundee semi-fasts via St A would delay Inverkeithing/Kirkcaldy/Cupar - Dundee passengers significantly, but if/once there's space for a further service then that'd be great.

Currently, yes, but one output of the work currently being done on the bridge is to remove that restriction.

Thanks for confirming

As far as I'm aware, London trains from Uckfield aren't currently 12 carriages long, which is generally the maximum for the Souther Region. Also, whereas the BML2 proposal envisages large numbers of additional London bound travellers (and proposes increased infrastructure to match), a more modest opening would more likely generate travel from the Weald to Brighton and the South Coast.

I'm all for improving existing services, but there's only so much you can do with a long single track branchline. The Uckfield route stands a far better chance of receiving further investment as part of a fully integrated route to the coast.

The peak Uckfield trains will be 10 x 23m long, ie 11.5 'normal' coaches, in the next couple of years, and all indications are that they will be full pretty quickly.

Fair point, but I still contest that the majority of potential passengers for the route would be between the South Coast and the Weald (and visa versa), rather than the South Coast and London.

Wot Bald Rick said.

We keep seeing "East Coastway to London passengers via Uckfield, freeing up capacity on the BML" as justification for re-opening the route, so I'm surprised to now see that it'd be mainly just for passengers doing journeys from the Uckfield area to Brighton (and not the hoardes of Eastbourne passengers cramming onto already busy/long Uckfield services).

Single berks and hants plus newton abbot -plymouth taking the best track and leaving the worst and run some semi fasts with very unreliable locos and close castle cary plus frome loop and station with pax bussed to bruton.

I'll have what he's drinking...

Leamside line Ferryhill -Pelaw. You could then extend the Metro to Washington which has been petitioned for in Parliament recently and diverts freights away from the Ferryhill -Newcastle section of the ECML.

Plus if the Leamside line is reinstated freight could continue to Stockton on the freight only line and head south through Yarm and rejoining the ECML at Northallerton where the ECML is 4 tracks, releasing paths between Newcastle & Northallerton.

Washington ought to be a popular opening/re-opening (depending on how you want to describe it), but many enthusiasts seem more excited about serving small towns in Devon than large settlements on Wearside, which is a shame.

Eaglescliffe could soon have more London services with the East Coast franchise Running Middlesbrough -Kings Cross services via Darlington we believe.

I would be staggered if a Kings Cross - Middlesbrough service omitted Thornaby it's a reasonable railhead for Stockton and the rest the western end of the Tees Valley. Certainly TPE services do a good trade on their calls at Thornaby.

To me the logical calling after Northallerton would be Yarm/Eaglescliffe (one or the other), Thornaby and Middlesbrough. Between Yarm or Eaglescliffe I'd probably pick Eaglescliffe as it's developing well with a new ticket office, new waiting areas, new PIS and an enlarged car park. Yarm has all of those facilities (well no ticket office but it does have free parking!) but I don't think it's catchment area is as good as Eaglescliffe's

What do you reckon to extending the London - Newark/York semi fasts and the Blackpool - York services to provide:

• London - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• London - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• Blackpool - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)
• Blackpool - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)

i.e. keeping a fairly regular service to Leeds, but replacing half of them with London services.

(with the current TransPennine services to Scarborough and Middlesbrough being withdrawn due to electrification, or lack of!)

 

[ainsworth74]

What do you reckon to extending the London - Newark/York semi fasts and the Blackpool - York services to provide:

• London - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• London - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• Blackpool - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)
• Blackpool - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)

i.e. keeping a fairly regular service to Leeds, but replacing half of them with London services.

(with the current TransPennine services to Scarborough and Middlesbrough being withdrawn due to electrification, or lack of!)

Sounds good to me and, as always, a sensible suggestion from yourself.

I'd like to Middlesbrough get a faster service than that which would be offered by tacking it on to the current York/Newark terminators but on a busy railway it's probably just not possible without having another, more popular, destination lose out.

You'd also need both services to call at Yarm as otherwise that station would suffer a fairly significant cut from hourly to every other hour!

Personally though that sounds like a very good way of ensuring that Middlesbrough/Scarborough gain London services and don't lose direction connections to Leeds. It also wouldn't clog up the Scarborough line too much so it should still be possible, in a perfect world, to run an hourly stopping service York - Scarborough.

 

[IanXC]

What do you reckon to extending the London - Newark/York semi fasts and the Blackpool - York services to provide:

• London - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• London - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• Blackpool - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)
• Blackpool - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)

i.e. keeping a fairly regular service to Leeds, but replacing half of them with London services.

(with the current TransPennine services to Scarborough and Middlesbrough being withdrawn due to electrification, or lack of!)

Speaking from a more southerly view than ainsworth74 I'd also agree that this would be a good way forward, although I would caution that the Blackpool-York-Scarborough may need to operate at 6 car 158 during Summer months to keep up with demand for West Yorkshire to Scarborough (the infrastructure can already support 6 car 185) and that additional Leeds-Scarborough may be required. I would agree that this would work well for Scarborough in combination with a York shuttle (which I suppose could be extended through to Leeds during summer months).

Coming back on topic what level of service could York-Haxby support if the Beverley line were reopened?

 

[ainsworth74]

Coming back on topic

There's a topic beyond the dire need for Redcar to have a direct non-stop service to London?

What level of service could York-Haxby support if the Beverley line were reopened?

Is the plan for the station to just serve the Haxby - York market (which surely must be reasonable as isn't Haxby a bedroom town for York?) or is there an intention to also operate as a sort of park and ride with a large car park?

 

[21C101]

I'll have what he's drinking...

Never underestimate the Peoples Front for the Liberation of the LSWR West of England Main Line.

Anyone interested can join the secret meetings held in a rural phonebox outside Yeovil.

 

[Busaholic]

Never underestimate the Peoples Front for the Liberation of the LSWR West of England Main Line.

Anyone interested can join the secret meetings held in a rural phonebox outside Yeovil.

Can all the Wurzels fit in it?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

What about re-uniting the largest rail less towns in the country with the rest of the rail system ? Many of these seem to be in the Midlands for some reason.

 

[martin2345uk]

Also high on the list I would have -

Maldon - Population 14,000 (district approx. 60,000)

Aye what about Witham-Maldon... Maldon could get services to Chelmsford and London, according to Wikipedia (I know, sorry) its population is 21,462... the alignments looks pretty unbuilt on (apart from that bloody bypass at the Maldon end!).

Might mean losing the lovely trestle viaducts at Wickham Bishops though...

 

[Old Yard Dog]

I cannot believe the Burscough curves don't get more support. Surely Southport and Preston deserved a direct link and the cost seems relatively small.

 

[HowardGWR]

What about re-uniting the largest rail less towns in the country with the rest of the rail system ? Many of these seem to be in the Midlands for some reason.

Perhaps you could name a few to make it more interesting?

 

[Oscar]

What do you reckon to extending the London - Newark/York semi fasts and the Blackpool - York services to provide:

• London - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• London - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - bi-mode IEP)
• Blackpool - York - Scarborough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)
• Blackpool - York - Middlesbrough (bi-hourly - 3 car 158s or equiv)

i.e. keeping a fairly regular service to Leeds, but replacing half of them with London services.

(with the current TransPennine services to Scarborough and Middlesbrough being withdrawn due to electrification, or lack of!)

This could potentially work well, depending on the timetable and connections. I do think that Scarborough merits a half-hourly service to York though.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Perhaps you could name a few to make it more interesting?

Dudley
Brierley Hill
Kings Heath/Mosley
Aldridge
Wednesbury
Willenhall

And that's just starters

 

[The Planner]

Aldridge is the most likely out of that lot.

 

[edwin_m]

Aldridge is the most likely out of that lot.

And the others excepting Kings Heath/Mosley are somewhere on Centro's list of light rail or tram-train schemes, none of which seems to be progressing at present but heavy rail is even more unlikely.

 

[Martin_1981]

Best case I would say is Exeter - Okehampton - Tavistock - Plymouth.
Track still in place to Meldon, planned to reopen from Tavistock.
Justified as diversionary route as well as serving places en route plus access to Dartmoor.

Also high on the list I would have -

Maldon - Population 14,000 (district approx. 60,000)
Keswick - Population 5,000 plus many tourists & walkers

I think an alternative route from Exeter-Plymouth avoiding Dawlish is an absolute must. Reopening the Dartmoor line would help to maintain some sort of a through train service to Plymouth and Cornwall when the line through Dawlish is closed, even if only one train per hour in each direction, say one Paddington and 1 XC service on alternating hours.

 

[nuneatonmark]

Wouldn't it best to extend the South West Trains service through from Exeter to Okehampton to Plymouth? No reversals needed and a quick connection at Exeter shouldn't put many people off.

 

[The Ham]

Wouldn't it best to extend the South West Trains service through from Exeter to Okehampton to Plymouth? No reversals needed and a quick connection at Exeter shouldn't put many people off.

It would (which is often overlooked) also mean that for many in the south (Weymouth and Southampton to name a few) their journey time to Plymouth would be quicker as they wouldn't have to go so far north to then head south west.

I understand that the numbers are likely to be fairly low and so it would hardly make running direct services viable, however could well make the extension of SWT's services worth doing. Even if zero people from London used them.

Even Woking to Plymouth would be better using the extended service as it would avoid two changes of train and be a comparable journey time.

Given that an extension, may at most require 3 sets (although some of these would be as replacements for sets required for an Okehampton service if it were to happen and for the proposed Tavistock service), so you could need farily small numbers (maybe as low as a 75 people a day) to cover the costs of the extra units, as they would be paying fairly noticeable amounts (i.e. Woking to Exeter is basicly £60 return).

 

[Yew]

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.

Robin Hood Reopening to Ollerton

1. Population of around 9,500, with Edwinstowe (5,500) and Warsop (12,000)
2. Connection to Mansfield and Nottingham
3. The alignment has fully functioning track, currently used to test some Pway vehicles. This testing could be moved to the section beyond Ollerton.
4. The current Hourly Mansfield Woodhouse to Nottingham stopper could be expanded, This would probably require one extra DMU (Sprinter)

So all that would be needed would be some platforms and a DMU

 

[bluenoxid]

Robin Hood Reopening to Ollerton

1. Population of around 9,500, with Edwinstowe (5,500) and Warsop (12,000)
2. Connection to Mansfield and Nottingham
3. The alignment has fully functioning track, currently used to test some Pway vehicles. This testing could be moved to the section beyond Ollerton.
4. The current Hourly Mansfield Woodhouse to Nottingham stopper could be expanded, This would probably require one extra DMU (Sprinter)

So all that would be needed would be some platforms and a DMU

It might benefit from the plans for HS2 connections. A number of reopenings will certainly receive a boost when HS2 begins to get rolling as part of plans to connect to the route

 

[CaptainHaddock]

Robin Hood Reopening to Ollerton

1. Population of around 9,500, with Edwinstowe (5,500) and Warsop (12,000)
2. Connection to Mansfield and Nottingham
3. The alignment has fully functioning track, currently used to test some Pway vehicles. This testing could be moved to the section beyond Ollerton.
4. The current Hourly Mansfield Woodhouse to Nottingham stopper could be expanded, This would probably require one extra DMU (Sprinter)

So all that would be needed would be some platforms and a DMU

Why stop at Ollerton? Looking at OS maps the track is still in situ to Tuxford so is there a case for extending to there and perhaps even reconnecting with the ECML to give an additional diversionary route?

 

[Mutant Lemming]

Perhaps you could name a few to make it more interesting?

Newcastle-under-:yme
Kenilworth
Hanley
Willenhall
West Bromwich


..away from the Midlands - wouldn't re-opening the Belmont branch be cost effective ?