My idea - re-opening lines in Central England ?

[Camden]

Really?!?!?

Towns that size don't need much in the way of fixed infrastructure - bus priority schemes and bus lanes at best are more than sufficient. A decent bus network is essential in all towns, cities just need to manage the traffic so they don't get bogged down.

Only once you get to the top few (let's pluck a figure out of the air and say 20) cities do you even need to start thinking about fixed infrastructure, be it trolleybuses, trams, or in the largest few (again, let's pluck a figure out of the air and say 5), metros. I'd argue that paints a telling picture of what we should have:
1) London *
2) Manchester *
3) West Midlands *
4) West Yorkshire
5) Glasgow *
...they should have metros, and two of them do. That the other 3 had to make do with two of them getting trams and West Yorkshire getting nothing is quite the indictment.

The other 15 that should have trams or other such infrastructure:
6) Liverpool *

West Yorkshire isn't a city area, it's a non-contiguous poly-centric collection of towns and cities.

I think it is debatable as to what large cities need in terms of infrastructure. Some very large American cities basically get by with car and bus.

It would be good for the forum to talk about the original idea though, which has some merit. The Northamptonshire towns maybe smallish (50,000 in size) but connecting them up and creating linkages across Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and up to Peterborough I think would help the key cities perform much more strongly and give those living in the surrounding towns much better access to the jobs they provide.

A "metro" would be out, but a half-hourly EMU I think would prove popular.

 

[edwin_m]

A monorail is, as the name suggests, a very-light rail system with a single (aka. mono) rail.

They're very, very light, so easy to have elevated above traffic, meaning you only need a very small footprint on the ground for the support pylons. Being so light and small, they can also have quite sharp curvature, making them good at weaving around obstacles. Capacity-wise though, because they small and light, they don't carry many passengers. There are also capacity issues as elevated stations have the same problem as subterranean metro stations - you have to get passengers up to their level unless you have large ramps down to ground level at stations.

Furthermore junctions are very difficult on a monorail - a whole section of the guideway needs to be moved, which is expensive to build and slow to operate. So monorails tend to be simple shuttles or loops whereas other modes are much more suitable for city-wide networks.

There is also the issue of visual intrusion, as monorails have to be elevated and people don't like them passing their houses at bedroom level or blocking the view of historic buildings. A light rail can go on street or underground to avoid this sort of problem.

Finally, if the same rules on emergency evacuation are applied to monorails as to other transit modes, then the necessary walkways mean that the monorail guideway isn't much smaller than it would be for an elevated tram or metro.

 

[A0]

It would be good for the forum to talk about the original idea though, which has some merit. The Northamptonshire towns maybe smallish (50,000 in size) but connecting them up and creating linkages across Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and up to Peterborough I think would help the key cities perform much more strongly and give those living in the surrounding towns much better access to the jobs they provide.

A "metro" would be out, but a half-hourly EMU I think would prove popular.

The majority of the journeys made in Northants are north - south (all forms of transport) with the bulk of rail commuting to London as Northants has now become London commuter belt.

Given the current Leicester - Peterboro route only justifies an hourly service currently - and that's linking similarly sized settlements - there's no way a Northampton - Peterborough line (if it was ever reinstated) would justify a half-hourly EMU.

Off-peak take a look at the inner-suburban service from WGC or Hertford to Moorgate - both of those are only 2 tph, and that's a service from 20 ish miles into London serving much bigger places en-route. Even Northampton - Birmingham is every 20 mins and off-peak it's rare for those trains to be full.

The Northampton - Harborough line wasn't closed fully by BR until the mid-80s - although the passenger services had gone in the 60s - but it still doesn't serve anywhere significant en-route - even Market Harborough is small at about 25k people.

The reality is Northampton - Leicester has an hourly 'express bus' service which seems to be more than adequate for the demands - if there was more demand then more buses would run.

Any of the reopenings suggested would cost millions of pounds and have negligible benefit - particularly when some very small road improvements would easily iron out the pinch points - despite the fact Muddythefish seems determined to penalise road users until they give up travelling.

 

[muddythefish]

It would be good for the forum to talk about the original idea though, which has some merit. The Northamptonshire towns maybe smallish (50,000 in size) but connecting them up and creating linkages across Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and up to Peterborough I think would help the key cities perform much more strongly and give those living in the surrounding towns much better access to the jobs they provide.

A "metro" would be out, but a half-hourly EMU I think would prove popular.

Absolutely correct.

The population of the Nene valley has rocketed in the last 20 years and will do again in the next 20. Housebuilding is taking place everywhere - the Rushden Lakes shopping complex has started.

All of these communities are served by one road - the A45. The area desperately needs an alternative, and not more road building that AOwen wants so he can speed along in his taxpayer-sponsored BMW unfettered at 90mph.

 

[A0]

Absolutely correct.

The population of the Nene valley has rocketed in the last 20 years and will do again in the next 20. Housebuilding is taking place everywhere - the Rushden Lakes shopping complex has started.

All of these communities are served by one road - the A45. The area desperately needs an alternative, and not more road building that AOwen wants so he can speed along in his taxpayer-sponsored BMW unfettered at 90mph.

For the record, I don't and have never owned or driven a BMW. Nor is it taxpayer "sponsored" as I receive far less subsidy than my local rail line does or the local bus services do - but don't let the facts get in the way of your ideological rant.

Secondly - the simple fact is that the roads are multi-use and offer a flexibility which rail can never and will never be able to offer.

None of these "communities" are of a significant size - indeed the Northampton - Peterborough rail line's stations were often some distance away from the settlements they purported to serve - e.g. Billing Station was nearer Cogenhoe than either of the Billing villages, Castle Ashby & Earls Barton was at least 3 miles away from Earls Barton and so on.

Show me the evidence that there's the demand for that rail reinstatement - show me the Cost Benefit and how that compares with the millions of other schemes that are peddled on these boards and lastly explain how it will be funded.

 

[DarloRich]

I do think there are issues for the future. I have just looked at the MK development plan which is set to see even more houses built here and there are plans for lots more housing between MK/Northampton, Wellingbrough/Bedford and Peterborough. Something has got to meet the demand for travel to and from and between those locations although:

a) we don't need it yet
and
b) rail might not be the best solution for everyone.

If I was in the business of making railways (like network rail is). Then I would let it be them that chooses what gets made and what does not get made.

When was the last time network rail with all their wisdom lobbied for a railway?

Forget politicians. They are fighting for things that are important to them. For Britain to get back on its feet it needs the RIGHT people making the decisions. I'm not saying that is me, far from it. But I'm not seeing a logical path here. I'm seeing hellish nightmare of red tape that is designed to trip up the enthusiastic every step of the way.

no it is designed to weed out the ideas that are totally and utterly bonkers and ensures what money there is ( and there isn't that much) gets spent on vaguely sensible ideas. Enthusiasm is great, but it doesn't pay for things.

Having a cross country route in this area is a good thing. It means you can have a circular service between Bedford, (Leicester, Market harborough, Wellingborough), MKC and then back down to Bedford. I've always said this and its not an idea that is pie in the sky madness.

People call this country Great Britain. Yet it imports trains and exports none. Other countries have taken the railway (a great idea from the UK) and made it better in their country. Whats so great about the UK when everything mentioned is about cost, lack of will, no desire. Sounds like a weak country to me.

This again :roll: You are the only person in the entire known universe who advocates such an idea.

For rail to be viable in most of these cities they need a monorail that completes the journeys for the rail passengers. No point in reaching the station if you have another 35 min bus ride elsewhere.

:roll:

I dunno.. Perhaps monorail specifies a certain kind train. I mean anything that runs above ground. Was thinking more like

hang on you mean a train - I have got it! This is a sophisticated parody account isn't it?

 

[A0]

I do think there are issues for the future. I have just looked at the MK development plan which is set to see even more houses built here and there are plans for lots more housing between MK/Northampton, Wellingbrough/Bedford and Peterborough. Something has got to meet the demand for travel to and from and between those locations although:

a) we don't need it yet
and
b) rail might not be the best solution for everyone.

Finally, some common sense !

The only bit I'd add is that whatever 'solution' is decided upon, it has to be cost effective and deliver the most benefit for the least outlay (now that doesn't mean the cheapest solution, it means the most cost-effective solution).

no it is designed to weed out the ideas that are totally and utterly bonkers and ensures what money there is ( and there isn't that much) gets spent on vaguely sensible ideas. Enthusiasm is great, but it doesn't pay for things.

And again !

This again :roll: You are the only person in the entire known universe who advocates such an idea.

And once again!

This idea shows the problem on these boards too often - a mix of nostalgia, enthusiasm and a desire to dictate people's lives lead to too many 'if only we reopened' kind of threads. The existing rail network is carrying more passengers since 1948, that doesn't mean there is demand to link every two horse town with each other by rail. Rail building is expensive (it always has been) it is relatively inflexible (you need to be close to stations, you're journey is dictated by a timetable) and it is costly to operate (again, always the case). So the number of times when rail is the solution are limited by this.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

This idea shows the problem on these boards too often - a mix of nostalgia, enthusiasm and a desire to dictate people's lives lead to too many 'if only we reopened' kind of threads. The existing rail network is carrying more passengers since 1948, that doesn't mean there is demand to link every two horse town with each other by rail. Rail building is expensive (it always has been) it is relatively inflexible (you need to be close to stations, you're journey is dictated by a timetable) and it is costly to operate (again, always the case). So the number of times when rail is the solution are limited by this.

People on railway forum like railways shock horror.

Next you'll be telling me that there is sometimes too much optimism for building new roads everywhere on SABRE.

 

[A0]

People on railway forum like railways shock horror.

Next you'll be telling me that there is sometimes too much optimism for building new roads everywhere on SABRE.

Is it unreasonable to expect a bit of common sense to be applied before posting though?

Some of the suggestions on here (such as the ludicrous Bedford>MK>Northampton>Harborough>Bedford circular one which DarloRich was commenting about) are clearly fantasy of the highest order. Even pre-Beeching there was never the demand for such services - indeed I can think of few 'circular' services even now despite the infrastructure existing which *could* support them.

It would be far better if we focused on the schemes which genuinely do stand a chance of coming to fruition in a sensible timescale rather than forever trying to promote fantasy schemes which stand about as much chance as a snowflake in Hades of ever justifying themselves.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Well, it's a bit xkcd.com/386, isn't it? Sure, there are enthusiastic kids here and on every other railway forum who want the network restored to pre-Beeching levels. But I wouldn't necessarily spend much time disabusing them of their notions... it's not like they're the ones holding the purse-strings.

These are interesting times for transport planning. Rail reopenings are consistently getting greater passenger numbers than expected, London and a few provincial cities are finally learning to love the bike (Leicester is doing amazing things), Uber is trashing the taxi model, and self-driving cars are the great unknown for road capacity and private car sales. About the only thing you can say with certainty is that the current certainties no longer hold.

 

[A0]

Well, it's a bit xkcd.com/386, isn't it? Sure, there are enthusiastic kids here and on every other railway forum who want the network restored to pre-Beeching levels. But I wouldn't necessarily spend much time disabusing them of their notions... it's not like they're the ones holding the purse-strings.

These are interesting times for transport planning. Rail reopenings are consistently getting greater passenger numbers than expected, London and a few provincial cities are finally learning to love the bike (Leicester is doing amazing things), Uber is trashing the taxi model, and self-driving cars are the great unknown for road capacity and private car sales. About the only thing you can say with certainty is that the current certainties no longer hold.

I agree with much of what you put.

What grates is the attitude of certain posters who believe the answer is rail regardless of cost and that road improvements should be limited to filling pot holes and adding speed cameras and absolutely no capacity enhancements, which if ever implemented would serve to alienate about 90% of the adult population.

You're quite correct, the current certainties no longer hold, but equally we can't just sit back on a 'wait and see what happens tomorrow' approach - that's what the Blair government did with transport and we now have the worst of all worlds - a rail network which is in some areas at capacity and seeing overcrowding and a road network in a similar position.

 

[muddythefish]

For the record, I don't and have never owned or driven a BMW. Nor is it taxpayer "sponsored" as I receive far less subsidy than my local rail line does or the local bus services do - but don't let the facts get in the way of your ideological rant.

Secondly - the simple fact is that the roads are multi-use and offer a flexibility which rail can never and will never be able to offer.

None of these "communities" are of a significant size - indeed the Northampton - Peterborough rail line's stations were often some distance away from the settlements they purported to serve - e.g. Billing Station was nearer Cogenhoe than either of the Billing villages, Castle Ashby & Earls Barton was at least 3 miles away from Earls Barton and so on.

Show me the evidence that there's the demand for that rail reinstatement - show me the Cost Benefit and how that compares with the millions of other schemes that are peddled on these boards and lastly explain how it will be funded.

First, your company car is sponsored by the taxpayer. I and everyone else helps to pay for it.

Second, roads cause pollution, damage the environment, take up huge tracts of land - far more than rail, are expensive to build and do not solve traffic problems.

Third, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

"None of the communities of significant size" that would benefit from a reopened Northampton - Peterborough railway, including the Wellingborough Midland link, include Wellingborough pop 75,000, Rushden, Higham Ferrers and Irchester 45,000, Kettering 80,000, Corby 60,000, Irthlingborough 8,000, Thrapston, 7,000 and Oundle 7,000, and Peterborough 190,000. And that doesn't include the villages.

The evidence of demand is the change in the economy over the past 15 years or so, the migration of work to the major towns and the subsequent increase in commuter use and frequent traffic jams on the A45. And with the projected increase in population in the area over the next 20 years it's going to get worse. Funding is easy - take the money away from your precious road schemes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

People on railway forum like railways shock horror.

Next you'll be telling me that there is sometimes too much optimism for building new roads everywhere on SABRE.

Well said. Why would a petrolhead inhabit this site other than to cause offence?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I do think there are issues for the future. I have just looked at the MK development plan which is set to see even more houses built here and there are plans for lots more housing between MK/Northampton, Wellingbrough/Bedford and Peterborough. Something has got to meet the demand for travel to and from and between those locations although:

a) we don't need it yet
and
b) rail might not be the best solution for everyone.

I agree that rail is not always the best solution, but there is a clear case for an alternative to more road building in Northants.

 

[mr_jrt]

It's rarely a good idea to dismiss people's opinions on a biased forum because they disagree with your own. If anything, they're an opportunity - someone has already taken the most difficult first step for you of creating an engagement with the opposition. Once you have that, you debate. You might not win the debate, but hopefully your skills and your argument will be the better off for the workout.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Rail building is expensive (it always has been) it is relatively inflexible (you need to be close to stations, you're journey is dictated by a timetable) and it is costly to operate (again, always the case). So the number of times when rail is the solution are limited by this.

Not at all. No single mode is the answer, rail is not just as much as road is not. You don't need to be near a railway station when you have a healthy bus network on both ends, and as long as things are considered as a wider system rather than in isolation it will work. Rail is hopelessly inefficient for moving small numbers of people as much as roads are hopelessly inefficient for moving large numbers of people. See where people are travelling from and to, work out where they converge, and build a station with a decent road interchange, and finally, route bus services via it!

 

[Grumpy]

Has anyone given thought to re-opening lines in Central England ?.

In particular I was thinking of the line from Market Harborough to Northampton. Although this line has virtually no centres of population to generate traffic, its usefulness would be linking towns and cities such as Derby, Nottingham, Leicester, Northampton, Milton Keynes and Oxford at a later date ?. With no stations on route it should be a pretty quick journey between the two end points.

.

Perhaps one answer to your question is that there may be merit in a rail link between the population centres that you quote but you don't necessarily need to reopen Northampton-Market Harborough to achieve it.
Thus could you not run something like a class 158 Nottingham-Leicester-Nuneaton-Rugby-Northampton-Milton Keynes-Oxford?

 

[The Planner]

Thus could you not run something like a class 158 Nottingham-Leicester-Nuneaton-Rugby-Northampton-Milton Keynes-Oxford?

That is a blast from the past, Central wanted to do similar many moons ago via Coventry to Oxford and never got anywhere with it.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

IIRC it actually made it into the GBRTT for one edition. A CT driver posted to uk.railway back in January 2001:

It's true; it should be two-hourly initially, increasing to hourly. Starts with the Summer timetable in May; not yet sure if the enhanced frequency will come into force this Winter or for Summer 2002.

It's not a new service per se, being an extension of the current Nottingham - Coventry service, which will presumably cease running through to/from Skegness.

But apparently Railtrack refused to grant the paths south of Coventry. So yes, it never ran in service, although I see Wikipedia is claiming it did, accompanied by a photo of a CT 158 at Oxford... the one that was hired to Thames Trains to do a few Oxford-Bristol runs. :roll:

 

[Bald Rick]

First, your company car is sponsored by the taxpayer. I and everyone else helps to pay for it.

Second, roads cause pollution, damage the environment, take up huge tracts of land - far more than rail, are expensive to build and do not solve traffic problems.

Third, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

First, your railway is sponsored by the taxpayer. I and everyone else helps to pay for it.

Second, trains cause pollution*, damage the environment, take up huge tracts of land, are VERY expensive to build, and do not solve traffic problems.

Third....

There's two sides to every argument.

* a modern DMU at less then approx 50% loading causes more emissions per passenger than if they were all driving Golf Diesels with one occupant. Even after allowing for the VW figure fiddling!

 

[yorksrob]

First, your railway is sponsored by the taxpayer. I and everyone else helps to pay for it.

Second, trains cause pollution*, damage the environment, take up huge tracts of land, are VERY expensive to build, and do not solve traffic problems.

Third....

There's two sides to every argument.

* a modern DMU at less then approx 50% loading causes more emissions per passenger than if they were all driving Golf Diesels with one occupant. Even after allowing for the VW figure fiddling!

I'm inclined against the predict and provide school of road building as espoused by Aowen, precisely because too much of England looks like a non-descript business park already.

Also, the "vast" tracts of land taken up by railways include a lot of relatively secluded wild land which must be pretty good for wildlife.

 

[muddythefish]

First, your railway is sponsored by the taxpayer. I and everyone else helps to pay for it.

Second, trains cause pollution*, damage the environment, take up huge tracts of land, are VERY expensive to build, and do not solve traffic problems.

Third....

There's two sides to every argument.

* a modern DMU at less then approx 50% loading causes more emissions per passenger than if they were all driving Golf Diesels with one occupant. Even after allowing for the VW figure fiddling!

... but I can travel on the taxpayer-funded train. I can't travel in your taxpayer-sponsored company car.

Trains cause pollution like other forms of travel but nothing like the pollution caused by motor vehicles. Next time you're travelling on a dual carriageway look at the width of the road and then compare it with a railway line.

 

[Camden]

In terms of the physical infrastructure, have any studies ever been undertaken and approx costs arrived at for Northampton to Wellingborough, and Corby to Peterborough? I know the latter has at least been toyed with in some official discussions in the past.

 

[A0]

In terms of the physical infrastructure, have any studies ever been undertaken and approx costs arrived at for Northampton to Wellingborough, and Corby to Peterborough? I know the latter has at least been toyed with in some official discussions in the past.

Well, on the basis Borders Railway cost £ 350m for approx 30 miles, you're probably looking at £ 100-150m for Northampton - Wellingborough. It about 10-15 miles, there's a number of areas where the route has been developed - the big one being Wellingborough London Road where the A45 junction now is and there's no obvious route past Whitworth's Mill.

Don't forget the original Northampton - Peterborough route went nowhere near Corby, instead it went east from Wellingborough to Thrapston and Oundle. So a Corby - Peterborough route would have to be something else - the obvious one being what I'm about to outline below.

Corby - Peterborough could be fairly easy - it just needs a south-curve at Manton Junction allowing direct access to the east-bound Leicester - Peterboro' line - with the additional signalling etc. Probably less than £ 50m.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First, your company car is sponsored by the taxpayer. I and everyone else helps to pay for it.

Unless you know my tax affairs intimately, I'm going to tell you you're wrong and accept your apology in advance for pretending to know my tax affairs.

However, my company car isn't "sponsored" by the taxpayer. As it happens I'm taxed for the use of my company car - so in terms of contribution to the tax pot, it probably costs me a little more to have a company car than not. So the decision on my part is about who owns the "risk" of running a car and I've chosen for that to be with my employers. If anything the government would get less out of me if I ran my own car, because (i) I wouldn't buy a brand-new car so wouldn't pay VAT or new car tax on the purchase (ii) would reduce the service and running costs through using non-franchised dealers again reducing the amount of VAT paid.

Second, roads cause pollution, damage the environment,

So do railways and every other form of transport known to man except walking and the bicycle .

take up huge tracts of land - far more than rail,

Rubbish - a single carriageway road is only fractionally larger than a single track railway - as can be seen anywhere an old line has been re-used as a road. Just because the gap between the rails is only 4' 8 1/2", doesn't mean the area used by the railway line is.

are expensive to build and do not solve traffic problems.

Same goes for railways - Borders Railway has cost £ 350m to build so about £ 12m / mile. And that's a largely single line railway.

To upgrade the A1 between Newcastle & Berwick to dual carriageway from single is also estimated at about £ 12m / mile.

So the costs are marginal - the difference is that in the case of the A1 it's pretty much a 100% capacity increase both ways 100% of the time. Whereas Borders Railway cannot be used both ways 100% of the time.

Closer to this, the Corby Link Road (Geddington By-Pass) cost about £ 8m / mile.

Third, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

"None of the communities of significant size" that would benefit from a reopened Northampton - Peterborough railway, including the Wellingborough Midland link, include Wellingborough pop 75,000, Rushden, Higham Ferrers and Irchester 45,000, Kettering 80,000, Corby 60,000, Irthlingborough 8,000, Thrapston, 7,000 and Oundle 7,000, and Peterborough 190,000. And that doesn't include the villages.

If you're talking about reinstating the Northampton - Peterborough line then you can take out Kettering and Corby from those numbers as the line went nowhere near them as well you know. So apart from Wellingborough and Peterborough, you're talking about a total of 22,000 people on your numbers.

The evidence of demand is the change in the economy over the past 15 years or so, the migration of work to the major towns and the subsequent increase in commuter use and frequent traffic jams on the A45. And with the projected increase in population in the area over the next 20 years it's going to get worse. Funding is easy - take the money away from your precious road schemes.

OK - so spend nothing on roads - see increased congestion, total gridlock and watch the effect on the economy. Even if you could build the railways in the same time frame (which you can't) you're still working on the assumption people would choose to use them - and all you want to do is make it the only choice available to them.

Well said. Why would a petrolhead inhabit this site other than to cause offence?

Because unlike you, I have an open mind to what options exist and are prepared to look at various solutions.

You on the other hand have a Stalinist view of transport - "give people this and tell them that's what they've got to use, who cares if it isn't what they want."

I agree that rail is not always the best solution, but there is a clear case for an alternative to more road building in Northants.

Perhaps you should listen to what people want rather than what you want? Here's an example of a local community who actually WANT a new road http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk...affic-in-new-bid-for-village-bypass-1-7043552

But I'm sure you know best, so maybe you could go an picket them and tell them, in your unique and charming way, how wrong they are to want a road and instead there should be a new railway built instead which will do nothing to alleviate their problem but will make you feel a lot better instead?

 

[Bald Rick]

... but I can travel on the taxpayer-funded train. I can't travel in your taxpayer-sponsored company car.

Trains cause pollution like other forms of travel but nothing like the pollution caused by motor vehicles. Next time you're travelling on a dual carriageway look at the width of the road and then compare it with a railway line.

Indeed you can't travel in my taxpayer sponsored company car - because I don't have one!

And I disagree about pollution. Yes, trains, on average, cause lower pollution, but it's not by as much as you might think. Obviously electric trains cause much lower pollution at the point of use. But that electricity is generated somewhere, and in this country that is usually from burning gas or coal. Someone smarter than me will be able to do the calcs for CO2 emissions per passenger km.

However, as I said earlier, a half full modern 2 car DMU will use more diesel per passenger km than the same people each driving a modern diesel car. And therefore pollution for some train journeys is worse. And modern diesel trains have nothing like the emissions controls that most road vehicles have for non CO2 nasties. And the less said about the emissions of non-Modern diesel trains the better.

 

[A0]

Indeed you can't travel in my taxpayer sponsored company car - because I don't have one!

It's a fascinating idea - a taxpayer sponsored company car - you can just imagine it can't you - all sign-written like Domino's Pizza's cars are....

'Sponsored by UK Taxpayer'......

Can just imagine how many company car drivers would opt for one of those

 

[muddythefish]

As it happens I'm taxed for the use of my company car - so in terms of contribution to the tax pot, it probably costs me a little more to have a company car than not.

If your state-sponsored private transport is such a bad deal then hand it back, join the real world and buy your car own car with all the hassle and expense that involves. Except you won't, because you know you're getting a good deal paid for by other taxpayers.

Rubbish - a single carriageway road is only fractionally larger than a single track railway - as can be seen anywhere an old line has been re-used as a road. Just because the gap between the rails is only 4' 8 1/2", doesn't mean the area used by the railway line is.

Oh really? Here's the M20 next to a railway in Kent.

I hope you were stuck in that jam by the way.

Same goes for railways - Borders Railway has cost £ 350m to build so about £ 12m / mile. And that's a largely single line railway.

To upgrade the A1 between Newcastle & Berwick to dual carriageway from single is also estimated at about £ 12m / mile.

So the costs are marginal - the difference is that in the case of the A1 it's pretty much a 100% capacity increase both ways 100% of the time. Whereas Borders Railway cannot be used both ways 100% of the time.

The crucial difference is you have an alternative form of transport - rather than increasing the capacity of an existing mode - giving many people who do not drive or do not wish to drive access to employment and leisure that they would not other wise have had.

If you're talking about reinstating the Northampton - Peterborough line then you can take out Kettering and Corby from those numbers as the line went nowhere near them as well you know. So apart from Wellingborough and Peterborough, you're talking about a total of 22,000 people on your numbers.

The Nene valley was linked to the MML at Wellingborough - as I stated and as you know. A Corby - Kettering - Wellingborough - Northampton service is feasible and would be a huge boon joining up the main towns in the county.
As for the Peterborough line Rushden, Higham and Irthlingborough alone are very close and have about 40,000 and like the rest of the valley are expanding at a rapid rate. T

OK - so spend nothing on roads - see increased congestion, total gridlock and watch the effect on the economy. Even if you could build the railways in the same time frame (which you can't) you're still working on the assumption people would choose to use them - and all you want to do is make it the only choice available to them.

You'll get total gridlock even if build more roads - as has been proven time and again over the past 50 years. I'm not advocating spending nothing on roads - the A605 is a poor road for example - but your brain-dead solution of only building roads solves nothing.

Because unlike you, I have an open mind to what options exist and are prepared to look at various solutions. You on the other hand have a Stalinist view of transport - "give people this and tell them that's what they've got to use, who cares if it isn't what they want."

Rubbish. Your "open mind" comes from the DfT thinking - build another road because that's what they've always done and the alternative is too difficult rather than trying to improve public transport.

Perhaps you should listen to what people want rather than what you want? Here's an example of a local community who actually WANT a new road http://www.northantstelegraph.co.uk...affic-in-new-bid-for-village-bypass-1-7043552

But I'm sure you know best, so maybe you could go an picket them and tell them, in your unique and charming way, how wrong they are to want a road and instead there should be a new railway built instead which will do nothing to alleviate their problem but will make you feel a lot better instead?

I'm sure the villagers of Isham would love to have a railway line restored that never existed in the first place. I'm also sure that the same villagers will be objecting to and fighting all the infill development that takes place when the bypass around their village is built. It's a case of being carefull what you wish for. As it happens I know Isham well and although the road is busy in the morning, there is no justification for spending tens of millions and ripping yet more of the diminishing Northamptonshire countryside for another stretch of tarmac that will only shift the problem somewhere else.

Your problem is that in your all-pervading sense of your own truth and correctness you cannot see past the end of your own ideological nose.

 

[A0]

If your state-sponsored private transport is such a bad deal then hand back, join the real world and buy your car own car with all the hassle and expense that involves. Except you won't, because you know you're getting a good deal paid for by other taxpayers.



Oh really? Here's the M20 and HS1 in Kent.

I hope you were stuck in that jam by the way.

As I pointed out - it's about where I choose to place the risk of car ownership - I'm happy for my employers to carry that risk. I've had both company cars and run private cars. And I'll make my decisions on what works best for me thanks.

Using a picture of the M20 when Operation Stack is underway (which is a result of the Channel Tunnel having problems which of course is a RAIL tunnel) is cheap and dishonest, even by your clearly low standards.

"The crucial difference is you have an alternative form of transport - rather than increasing the capacity of an existing mode - giving many people who do not drive or do not wish to drive access to employment and leisure that they would not other wise have had. "

The A1 is of course used by cars, lorries, taxis, buses, coaches, bicycles and motorbikes so hardly "single use" - in fact open to both private and public transport modes in the way a railway line isn't.

As for the rest of your rant - you've said nothing new or interesting and instead keep on peddling your Stalinist view of how transport policy should be run. That's fine. You keep to your dogmatic views, I'll engage with others who are more open minded, sensible and grow up than you.

 

[Camden]

Well, on the basis Borders Railway cost £ 350m for approx 30 miles, you're probably looking at £ 100-150m for Northampton - Wellingborough. It about 10-15 miles, there's a number of areas where the route has been developed - the big one being Wellingborough London Road where the A45 junction now is and there's no obvious route past Whitworth's Mill.

Don't forget the original Northampton - Peterborough route went nowhere near Corby, instead it went east from Wellingborough to Thrapston and Oundle. So a Corby - Peterborough route would have to be something else - the obvious one being what I'm about to outline below.

Corby - Peterborough could be fairly easy - it just needs a south-curve at Manton Junction allowing direct access to the east-bound Leicester - Peterboro' line - with the additional signalling etc. Probably less than £ 50m.

Think that would take rather a while to traverse.

The old route from Nton to Pboro isn't really relevant I don't think, the entire economic geography of the area is so different these days. A Peterborough to Northampton line via the three key Northamptonshire towns is a logical route to follow.

I believe there did use to be a line running Peterborough to Market Harborough, which runs just north of Corby. Just before the line north from Corby dips into a brief tunnel north of a village called Geddington, it crosses this line, which can still be seen on Satellite imagery.

The bonus points are that there is still track leading into Peterborough, which surely would be the most expensive part to have to reconstruct. There appears to be freight usage of the line, but I doubt that would present an insurmountable challenge.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I believe there did use to be a line running Peterborough to Market Harborough, which runs just north of Corby.

Yes, the old line up the Welland valley. It's very visible on the ground, and of course at its eastern end it forms the preserved Nene Valley Railway.

There's a whole bunch of lovely old trackbeds around there. None of them significantly built over, and none of them ever likely to be reopened - but great fun to poke around. You can still walk through the tunnel at Morcott if you're so inclined...

 

[A0]

Think that would take rather a while to traverse.

The old route from Nton to Pboro isn't really relevant I don't think, the entire economic geography of the area is so different these days. A Peterborough to Northampton line via the three key Northamptonshire towns is a logical route to follow.

I believe there did use to be a line running Peterborough to Market Harborough, which runs just north of Corby. Just before the line north from Corby dips into a brief tunnel north of a village called Geddington, it crosses this line, which can still be seen on Satellite imagery.

The bonus points are that there is still track leading into Peterborough, which surely would be the most expensive part to have to reconstruct. There appears to be freight usage of the line, but I doubt that would present an insurmountable challenge.

I think you mean Gretton - not Geddington.

The Peterborough - Rugby line crossed the line from Corby at the Harringworth viaduct - I assume that's the line you're thinking of. The other trackbeds around Corby are generally old ones from the steelworks days and weren't passenger lines.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, the old line up the Welland valley. It's very visible on the ground, and of course at its eastern end it forms the preserved Nene Valley Railway.

There's a whole bunch of lovely old trackbeds around there. None of them significantly built over, and none of them ever likely to be reopened - but great fun to poke around. You can still walk through the tunnel at Morcott if you're so inclined...

To be pedantic - the bit which is the Nene Valley Railway was originally the London & Birmingham Railway's Blisworth - Northampton - Peterborough line.

The link to Rugby, which met the Northampton - Peterborough line at roughly where the NVR's Yarwell Junction station now is, followed about 50 years later.

 

[Camden]

I think you mean Gretton - not Geddington.

The Peterborough - Rugby line crossed the line from Corby at the Harringworth viaduct - I assume that's the line you're thinking of. The other trackbeds around Corby are generally old ones from the steelworks days and weren't passenger lines.

Yes to both.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I think you mean Gretton - not Geddington.

The Peterborough - Rugby line crossed the line from Corby at the Harringworth viaduct - I assume that's the line you're thinking of. The other trackbeds around Corby are generally old ones from the steelworks days and weren't passenger lines. ...

.

Wasn't the station Seaton Junction? It was three way?, just to the west of the viaduct?

One was for the Uppingham branch. Delightful part of the country - am always amazed at the lack of enthusiasm for such branch lines in the modelling world vis-a-vis the hordes of GWR branch line fans.

Same with photos - so few relatively of this area. I don't think I've EVER seen a piccie of a train on the LNW line underneath the viaduct, let alone one with another train simultaneously on the Midland line above.